To be better leaders, the administration should engage its primary audience: the faculty. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

The world of academic research is tough. As institutional research offices juggle regulatory and financial challenges within a continually strained system, they still have to lead their respective enterprises and serve their research communities.

“Service before leadership,” said Amr Elnashai, vice president/vice chancellor for research and technology transfer at the University of Houston. “We cannot miss this very important fact – we have to serve the needs of our research communities, first, before they will trust us to lead.”

How can we better serve faculty while tackling the many challenges faced by research divisions?

Sara Bible, associate vice provost for research at Stanford University, says the best way is to continually engage faculty in the business of research.

Rule making within research

Let’s be honest – faculty don’t particularly enjoy the administrative overburden dished out by university research offices. Nor should they.

But involving faculty in the process is the quickest way to earn their cooperation.

“You will have good results if you put in the time,” said Bible. “It’s really important to be flexible with faculty and staff on campus.”

One way Bible has successfully engaged her research community is in policy development. Her office at Stanford implemented a research policy working group that spends months testing policy language and effectiveness with university faculty and staff before it is launched.

“We’ve had great results,” she said. “People want to engage and be part of the process, not just be expected to follow a rigid set of rules.”

The pre-deadline deadline

Another way to partner with faculty is to work with them to improve the proposal review cycle, for everyone knows the risks of pushing the magic button mere minutes before the deadline.

Melinda Cotton, assistant vice president for Sponsored Programs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, recommends creating a pre-deadline deadline.

Her office worked with faculty, schools and departments to establish the submission of proposals a full seven days before their due dates. This gave the office time to strengthen merit of the research project and fix minor details that could disqualify a proposal.

“Within our School of Medicine, more than 80 percent of our proposals came in by our pre-deadline,” she said. “We work hard to communicate and advocate to faculty that we can serve them better by doing it this way, and it’s working for us.”

Ultimately, there are lots of processes university research offices have to put in place to do the business of research. But to be better leaders, the administration should engage its primary audience: the faculty.

Engagement in policy-making, for instance, gives insight into pain points and allows research offices to put the best processes in place to get the job done for everyone.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Lindsay Lewis, the author of this piece, formerly served as the executive director of communications for the UH Division of Research.


Faculty in academia shouldn't be hesitant to follow their entrepreneurial goals just because it may be difficult to balance the two worlds. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

University of Houston: Tips for balancing faculty and founder life

Houston voices

Finding balance in your professional life and your dreams can be hard for anyone. Faculty in academia, hoping to become entrepreneur and start their own companies, find this especially difficult. Finding this balance is essential to having success both professionally and in entrepreneurial endeavors.

Amy J. Ko, a professor at the University of Washington Information School and Co-Founder of AnswerDash, said in a post on her Bits and Behavior blog that she found parallels between being an entrepreneur and being a professor that helped her start her technology company.

Here are four parallels between startup life and faculty life that Ko found striking.

1. Fundraising.

"I spend a significant amount of my time seeking funding, carefully articulating problems with the status quo and how my ideas will solve these problems. The surface features of the work are different—in business, we pitch these ideas in slide decks, elevators, whereas in academia, we pitch them as NSF proposals and DARPA white papers—but the essence of the work is the same: it requires understanding the nature of a problem well enough that you can persuade someone to provide you resources to understand it more deeply and ultimately address it."

2. Experimentation.

"Research requires a high degree of iteration and experimentation, driven by carefully formed hypotheses. Startups are no different. We are constantly generating hypotheses about our customers, our end users, our business plan, our value, and our technology, and conducting experiments to verify whether the choice we've made is a positive or negative one."

3. Learning.

"Both academia and startups require a high degree of learning. As a professor, I'm constantly reading and learning about new discoveries and new technologies that will change the way I do my own research. As a founder, and particularly as a CTO, I find myself engaging in the same degree of constant learning, in an effort to perfect our product and our understanding of the value it provides."

4. Teaching.

"The teaching I do as a CTO is comparable to the teaching I do as a Ph.D. advisor in that the skills I'm teaching are less about specific technologies or processes, and more about ways of thinking about and approaching problems."

Ko also mentions the distinct differences between the two are the pace, the outcomes, and the consequences.

Finding Balance as a Professor and Entrepreneur

Alaina G. Levine, an award-winning entrepreneur, science journalist, and STEM careers consultant said in a Science Mag blog post that the key to success is to find ways to balance the two worlds.

"Issues of intellectual property ownership, human resources protocols, and time management, as well as the challenge of keeping a delineated barrier between professorial and business activities can be difficult to manage, but these concerns shouldn't prevent academics from seeking to create a startup company," Levine said in the blog post.

How to Balance Entrepreneurship and Faculty Responsibilities

According to Levine, these are a few things to consider before perusing entrepreneurship in order to successfully balance professorial and entrepreneurial activities:

1. Know your priorities

"If you are a professor who ponders whether your research can be developed into a technology that can be commercialized, your initial step should be to ponder your priorities. Do you want to stay in academia? Do you desire a career in industry? Deciding these choices early on, even before the lawyers and university representatives get involved, is crucial to forging a balance and a satisfying career."

2. Figuring out what path to take

"To wrangle the options and make it through the multiverse of marketing and manufacturing without sacrificing professorial duties, an academic's initial stop should be their institution's office of technology transfer (OTT). The OTT can assist faculty with understanding how much time they can spend on outside endeavors and how it must be structured. Technology transfer professionals also provide insight into patent law and can help professors navigate intellectual property (IP) issues."

3. Managing potential conflicts of interest

"Once you engage in entrepreneurship, you must create a distinct separation between your university lab and your company's facilities. IP can't flow freely between the two, and neither can labor—your grad students cannot work for you in your group and intern at your company at the same time. Safeguards that prevent mingling are necessary for legal purposes, say experts, as well as to synthesize a balance between being in academia and being in business."

4. Getting a Return on Investment on the faculty side

"Even with a targeted separation of academic and business endeavors, pursuing commercialization can actually enhance your skills in education. The connections that faculty make not only help the students but benefit the department and university as a whole as well."

What's The Big Idea?

Faculty in academia shouldn't be hesitant to follow their entrepreneurial goals just because it may be difficult to balance the two worlds. Take what you already know as a professor and apply it to your new venture as an entrepreneur. Also, know where your priorities lie, what path you're taking, watch out for conflicts of interest and make sure you, your students and university are all getting something out of it.

According to both writers, universities and research go hand in hand and both are "of critical importance" to the advancement of our society. So, is your research impactful? If the answer is yes, go for it.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Cory Thaxton is the communications coordinator for The Division of Research.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Texas improves ranking on annual report of most innovative states

moving up

Texas ranks above average — but outside the top 10 — in a new index that ranks the most innovative states.

To come up with its Most and Least Innovative States ranking, personal finance website WalletHub looked at 25 key indicators of innovation for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These include a state’s share of STEM professionals, research and development spending per capita, and the proliferation of tech companies.

With an innovation score of 48.96 out of 100, Texas lands at No. 13 on the list. The District of Columbia stands atop the list, with an innovation score of 69.79, followed by Massachusetts, California, Colorado, and Washington.

Texas has steadily inched up the list — the state was No. 14 on the list in 2024 and has climbed up one spot each year since 2021.

Two components make up each state’s score: human capital and “innovation environment.” Texas ranks 14th in the human capital category and 13th in the innovation environment category.

“The most innovative states are especially attractive to people who have majored in science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, as they offer abundant career opportunities and investment dollars, both for jobs at existing companies and for startups,” says WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo. “These states also instill young students with the skills they need to succeed in the current workforce, skills which are useful whether or not they pursue a STEM career.”

Despite not placing in the top 10 of the WalletHub index, Texas continues to produce thousands of jobs.

Citing data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Gov. Greg Abbott says Texas added the most nonfarm jobs in January (27,900) of any state and the most nonfarm jobs from January 2024 to January 2025 (187,700).

“Texas is America’s jobs engine, adding more new jobs in the last year than any other state,” Abbot said in a news release. “Our skilled and growing workforce and our business-friendly climate attract job-creating businesses in diverse industries from across the country and around the world. … Texas continues to remove regulatory red tape and invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure as we build a stronger, more prosperous Texas than ever before.”

Houston researchers find AI provides fresh perspectives to everyday problems

houston voices

We all know ChatGPT has forever changed how we do business. It’s modified how we access information, compose content and analyze data. It’s revolutionized the future of work and education. And it has transformed the way we interact with technology.

Now, thanks to a recent paper by Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung (Rice Business), we also know it’s making us better problem solvers.

Key findings:

  • A recent study finds ChatGPT-generated ideas are deemed an average of 15% more creative than traditional methods.
  • ChatGPT enhances “incremental,” but not “radical,” innovation.
  • ChatGPT boosts creativity in tasks normally associated with human traits, like empathy-based challenges.

According to the study published in Nature Human Behavior by Chung and Byung Cheol Lee (University of Houston), ChatGPT enhances our problem-solving abilities, especially with everyday challenges. Whether coming up with gifts for your teenage niece or pondering what to do with an old tennis racquet, ChatGPT has a unique ability to generate creative ideas.

“Creative problem-solving often requires connecting different concepts in a cohesive way,” Chung says. “ChatGPT excels at this because it pulls from a vast range of data, enabling it to generate new combinations of ideas.”

Can ChatGPT Really Make Us More Creative?

Chung and Lee sought to answer a central question: Can ChatGPT help people think more creatively than traditional search engines? To answer this, they conducted five experiments.

Each experiment asked participants to generate ideas for solving challenges, such as how to repurpose household items. Depending on the experiment, participants were divided into one of two or three groups: one that used ChatGPT; one that used conventional web search tools (e.g., Google); and one that used no external tool at all. The resulting ideas were evaluated by both laypeople and business experts based on two critical aspects of creativity: originality and appropriateness (i.e., practicality).

In one standout experiment, participants were asked to come up with an idea for a dining table that doesn’t exist on the market. The ChatGPT group came up with suggestions like a “rotating table,” a “floating table” and even “a table that adjusts its height based on the dining experience.” According to both judges and experts, the ChatGPT group consistently delivered the most creative solutions.

On average, across all experiments, ideas generated with ChatGPT were rated 15% more creative than those produced by traditional methods. This was true even when tasks were specifically designed to require empathy or involved multiple constraints — tasks we typically assume humans might be better at performing.

However, Chung and Lee also found a caveat: While ChatGPT excels at generating ideas that are “incrementally” new — i.e., building on existing concepts — it struggles to produce “radically” new ideas that break from established patterns. “ChatGPT is an incredible tool for tweaking and improving existing ideas, but when it comes to disruptive innovation, humans still hold the upper hand,” Chung notes.

Charting the Next Steps in AI and Creativity

Chung and Lee’s paper opens the door to many exciting avenues for future study. For example, researchers could explore whether ChatGPT’s creative abilities extend to more complex, high-stakes problem-solving environments. Could AI be harnessed to develop groundbreaking solutions in fields like medicine, engineering or social policy? Understanding the nuances of the collaboration between humans and AI could shape the future of education, work and even (as many people fear) art.

For professionals in creative fields like product design or marketing, the study holds especially significant implications. The ability to rapidly generate fresh ideas can be a game-changer in industries where staying ahead of trends is vital. For now, take a second before you throw out that old tennis racquet. Ask ChatGPT for inspiration — you’ll be surprised at how many ideas it comes up with, and how quickly.

-----

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Based on research by Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung and Byung Cheol Lee (University of Houston). Lee and Chung, “An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity.” Nature Human Behavior (2024): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1.


Rice, MD Anderson receive $1.5 million to further brain cancer research

fresh funding

Rice University chemist Han Xiao, who also serves as director of the university’s Synthesis X Center, and cancer biologist Dihua Yu of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have received a three-year, $1.5 million grant from the Robert J. Kleberg Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation.

The funding will allow them to continue their research on treating brain metastasis by overcoming the blood-brain barrier, or the BBB, according to a news release.

Brain metastasis is the leading form of brain cancer, with survival rates below 20 percent within a year of diagnosis, according to the National Library of Medicine. It commonly originates from breast, lung and melanoma cancers.

The BBB typically acts as a protective barrier for the brain. However, it prevents most drugs from being able to directly reach the brain. According to Rice, only 2 percent of FDA-approved small molecule drugs can penetrate the BBB, limiting treatment options.

Xiao and Yu’s approach to dealing with the BBB includes a light-induced brain delivery (LIBD) platform. The advanced system employs nanoparticles that are embedded with a near-infrared dye for the transport of therapeutic agents across the BBB. The research will evaluate the LIBD’s ability to improve the delivery of small-molecule drugs and biological therapies. Some therapies have shown potential for reducing cancer growth in laboratory studies, but they have struggled due to limited BBB penetration in animal models.

“Our LIBD platform represents a novel strategy for delivering drugs to the brain with precision and efficiency,” Xiao said in a news release. “This technology could not only improve outcomes for brain metastasis patients but also pave the way for treating other neurological diseases.”

The Kleberg Foundation looks for groundbreaking medical research proposals from leading institutions that focus on “innovative basic and applied biological research that advances scientific knowledge and human health” according to the foundation.

“This research is a testament to the power of collaboration and innovation,” Xiao said in a news release. “Together, we’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in treating brain metastasis and beyond.”

Rice launched the Synthesis X Center, or Synth X, last spring. It was born out of what started about eight years ago as informal meetings between Xiao's research group and others from the Baylor College of Medicine’s Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center. It aims to turn fundamental research into clinical applications through collaboration.

“This collaboration builds on the strengths of both research teams,” Xiao said in the release. “By combining SynthX Center's expertise in chemistry with Dr. Yu's expertise in cancer biology and brain metastases, we aim to create a transformative solution.”