science, society, and public policy michael m. crow columbia university

Science, Society, and Public Policy

Michael M. Crow

Columbia University

- THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE

- THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BASE

- S&T POLICY: THE 1950’S MODEL

- TRADING IN THE 1950’S MODEL

SCIENCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY:

Science is an instrument that can be used for a variety of social objectives, including:

- Meeting Basic Human Needs- Making War- Improving the Quality of Life- Economic Growth and

Development

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH:

• Between 1870 and 1973, the U.S. economy had grown at an average rate of 3.4% annually.

• Between 1973 and 1993, the average rate of growth flattened to 2.3%.

GD

P

3.4%long term rate

2.3%slow growth

losses

1973 1993

Economic Growth: Importance

• Over the 20 years since 1973, the accumulated losses in goods and services due to slow growth have come to nearly $12 trillion, or $40,000 per person.


• $12 trillion is more than enough to:– Have bought each of America’s landowners a

new house; or,– Paid off all of our government, mortgage, and

credit card debt; or,– Replaced all of our nation’s factories, including

capital equipment, with new ones.


• As the triangle grows over time, so does the cumulative damage. By the year 2013, assuming the post-1973 trend of growing just one-percent less than our historical average holds, the losses would be $35 trillion of lost production since 1973.

• This is a loss of over $100,000 per person.


• Compounded over generations, a 1 or 2 percent reduction in the overall growth rate could be the difference between the standard of living merely doubling or increasing five-fold over a 100 year period.

Most economists agree that scientific and technical change accounts for as much as 50% of long-run economic growth. A large number of economists argue that, when we measure scientific and technical change properly, the figure is as high as 75%.

“ NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS” AND SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE

National Innovation Systems: The Complex Network of Agents, Policies, and Institutions Supporting the Process of Scientific and Technical Advance in an Economy

The “Narrow” NIS

• Organizations and Institutions Directly Involved in Searching and Exploring

Activities, e.g. Universities and Research Laboratories

The “Narrow” NIS

Hybrid S&TLabs

Public S&TLabs

Scientific andTechnological

Societies Technology SharingRegimes

TechnologyLicensingRegimes

IntellectualPropertyRegimes

MissionAgencies

Universities

Private Firms

The “Broad” NIS

• Includes, In Addition To The Components Of The Narrow NIS, All Economic,

Political, And Other Social Institutions Affecting Learning, Searching, And Exploring Activities, e.g. A Nation’s

Financial System, Its Monetary Policies, And Internal Organization Of Private Firms

The “Broad” NIS

Hybrid S&TLabs

Public S&TLabs

Scientific andTechnological

SocietiesTechnology

SharingRegimes

TechnologyLicensingRegimes

IntellectualPropertyRegimes

MissionAgencies

Universities

Private Firms

Organizationof Financial

System

User-ProducerRelationships

Internal Organizationof Firms Industrial

Organization

MonetaryPolicies

Natural Resources

National R&D Expenditures, By Performer: 1995

10% 9% 12%

71%

24%

67%

13%

49%

14%3%

10%

2%

4% 7% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

National R&D($171.0 billion)

Basic Research($29.6 billion)

AppliedResearch

($39.8 billion)

Federal Government Industry Academia U&C FFRDCs Other

Sources of Academic R&D Funding, By Sector

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

Year

Federal Govt.

State/Local Govt. Industry

Academic Institutions

Other

The Complexity of the NIS

05

101520253035404550

FF

RD

C

Non

-Pro

f

Aca

dem

ic

Gov

ernm

ent

Indu

stry

Unk

now

n

Author Sector of the U.S. Papers Cited inIndustry Patents

% o

f Pap

ers

Distribution of citations across U.S. performer sectors, by field: 1990-93

Field Industry Federal FFRDC Nonprofit OtherAcademia

All fields 70.5 7.9 9.7 1.9 8.8 1.2

Clinical medicine 68.3 5.1 11.3 0.2 12.9 2.2

Biomedical research 72.7 6.9 9.4 0.7 9.7 0.7

Biology 79.2 2.8 13.4 0.2 3.2 1.3

Chemistry 78.5 12.8 4.3 2.7 1.3 0.2

Physics 63.1 20.9 5.1 9.3 1.5 0.1

Earth & space sciences 66.1 4.8 14.4 7.8 6.1 0.8

Mathematics 88.8 4.9 2.5 1.8 1.8 0.3Engineering and 66.3 19.8 7.8 4.6 1.4 0.3Technology

Impact of University Research

Patterns of cross-sector citations, by citing sector

Citing sector

Industry Federal FFRDC NonprofitOtherAcademia

United States, total 70.5 6.3 10.6 2.2 9.0 1.4

Academic institutions 77.1 4.3 8.0 1.6 7.7 1.2

Industry 46.9 36.1 8.1 2.7 5.2 1.0

1990-1993 articles

United States, total 70.5 7.9 9.7 1.9 8.8 1.2

Academic institutions 76.5 5.9 7.5 1.5 7.6 1.0

Industry 47.8 35.7 7.8 1.8 5.9 0.9

1985-1988 articles

Impact of University Research

Support for Academic R&D, 1935, and 1960-1990(Millions of Current Dollars)

$50$646

$1,474$2,335

$3,409

$6,077

$9,686

$16,000

24%

63%

73% 71%68%

63%67%

58%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1935 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Million

s o

f D

ollars

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

% F

ed

era

lly S

up

port

ed

Total Academic R&D % Federally Supported

The Complexity of the NIS

123

103

66

22

69

84

24

0 50 100 150

U.S. Universities

IBM

Other U.S. Companies

Other US

Foreign Universities

Foreign Companies

Other Foreign

Number of References

Institutional Origin of Papers Cited in IBM Patents

The Components of the NIS Have Different Effects and Operate Differently Across

Industries; For Example:

• University Science More Relevant to Some Industries than Others

• Different Extraindustry Sources of Technological Knowledge Across Different Industries

• Effectiveness of Patents Varies Across Industries

THE RELEVANCE OF UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Science # of Industries Industries in Which the Relevance of

with scores* Science was Large

>=5 6

Biology 12 3 Animal feed, drugs, processed fruits/vegetables

Chemistry 19 3 Animal feed, meat products, drugs

Geology 0 0 None

Mathematics 5 1 Optical Instruments

Physics 4 2 Optical Instruments, Electron tubes

Agricultural Science 17 7 Pesticides, animal feed, fertilizers, food products

Applied Math/ Operations Research 16 2 Meat products, logging/sawmills

Computer Science 34 10 Optical Instruments, logging/sawmills, paper machinery

Materials Science 29 8 Synthetic rubber, nonferrous metals

Medical Science 7 3 Surgical/medical instruments, drugs, coffee

Metallurgy 21 6 Nonferrous metals, fabricated metal products

Chemical Engineering 19 6 Canned foods, fertilizers, malt beverages

Electrical Engineering 22 2 Semiconductors, scientific instruments

Mechanincal Engineering 28 9 Hand tools, specialized industrial machinery

* on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high) Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

INDUSTRIES RATING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AS “IMPORTANT” OR “VERY IMPORTANT”

Fluid milk

Dairy products except milk

Canned specialties

Logging and sawmills

Semiconductors and related devices

Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills

Farm machinery and equipment

Grain mill products

Pesticides and agricultural chemicals

Processed fruits and vegetables

Engineering and scientific instruments

Millwork, veneer, and plywood

Synthetic rubber

Drugs

Animal Feed

Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

Science # of Industries Industries in Which the Relevance of

with scores* University Science was Large

>=5 6

Biology 14 8 Drugs, pesticides, meat products, animal feed

Chemistry 74 43 Pesticides, fertilizers, glass, plastics

Geology 4 3 Fertilizers, pottery, nonferrous materials

Mathematics 30 9 Optical instruments, machine tools, motor vehicles

Physics 44 18 Semiconductors, computers, guided missiles

Agricultural Science 16 9 Pesticides, animal feed, fertilizers, food products

Applied math/operations research32 6 Guided missiles, aluminum smelting, motor vehicles

Computer Science 79 35 Guided missiles, semiconductors, motor vehicles

Materials Science 99 46 Primary metals, ball bearings, aircraft engines

Medical Science 8 5 Asbestos, drugs, surgical/medical instruments

Metallurgy 60 35 Primary metals, aircraft engines, ball bearings

* on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high)

THE RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY


EXTRAINDUSTRY SOURCES OF TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

Source # of Industries Industries in which external

with scores* contribution to knowledge was large

>=5 6

Materials Suppliers 55 16 Food products, lumber/wood products, radio/TV sets

Production Eqpt. Suppliers 63 21 Food products, lumber/wood products, metal working

Research Eqpt. Suppliers 20 4 Food products, drugs, soap/detergents,

semiconductors

Users 30 6 Machinery, electrical eqpt., surgical/medical

instruments

University Research 9 3 Animal feed, drugs

Government Labs 6 2 Fertilizers, logging/sawmills, optical instruments

Other Govt. Agencies 5 2 Auto components, optical instruments

Technical Societies 12 3 Paper industries machinery, logging/sawmills

Independent Inventors 9 5 Hand tools, metal doors/frames, etc.

* on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high)

Source: Levin et al. (1987)

EFFECTIVENESS OF PATENT PROTECTION ACROSS INDUSTRIES WITH TEN OR MORE RESPONSES

(MEAN SCORE ON SCALE OF 1-7)

Process Products Patents PatentsIndustry (Mean) (Mean)

Pulp, paper, and paperboard 2.6 3.3Cosmetics 2.9 4.1Inorganic chemicals 4.6 5.2Organic chemicals 4.1 6.1Drugs 4.9 6.5Plastic materials 4.6 5.4Plastic products 3.2 4.9Petroleum refining 4.9 4.3Steel mill products 3.5 5.1Pumps and pumping eqpt. 3.2 4.4Motors, generators, and controls 2.7 3.5Computers 3.3 3.4Communications eqpt. 3.1 3.6Semiconductors 3.2 4.5Motor vehicle parts 3.7 4.5Aircraft and parts 3.1 3.8Measuring devices 3.6 3.9Medical instruments 3.2 4.7Full sample 3.5 4.3

Source: Levin et al. (1987)

The Evolution of the American National Innovation System

The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: Four Periods

• Laissez-Faire (1790-1940)

• The War and Post-War Period (1940-1950)

• The Federalization Period (1950-1975)

• The Revisionist Period (1975-1990)

Source: Crow (1994)


Laissez-Faire Period:1790-1940

• A Pre-Policy Period: Government Has No Distinct Science and Technology Policy or Mission

• The Key Institutions in the National Innovation System: Independent Corporate R&D Labs

• Government Does Establish Some R&D Labs to Support Weak Industries (i.e. Mining)

• Beginning of the Late 1800’s: Universities Emerge as the Home of Basic Science and Advanced Training


The War and Post-War Period1940-1950

• To Support the War Effort, the Government Establishes Many New R&D Institutions and a New, Expanded Role for Academic Science

• During the War, Large Scale Federal Investment, Federally Mandated R&D Objectives, Targeted Funding, and Industrial and Governmental Cooperation are the Norm

• By the end of the War, Hundreds of New R&D Labs had been established, and the potential of Large Scale R&D for meeting national objectives is demonstrated



Following the Dramatic Change in Science and Technology Policy During the War, Policy Makers Sensed the Potential of Science and Technology to Serve the

National Interest



In 1944, President Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush, the Director of the

Wartime OSRD, to Look Ahead to the Role of Science in Peacetime.

Bush’s Design, Presented in Science the Endless Frontier, Became the

Foundation for U.S. Science Policy

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MODEL

PureBasic

Research

DirectedBasic

Research

IntermediateRange

AppliedResearch

AppliedResearch

Tech.Develop-

ment

Tech.Commer-cialization

FUNDAMENTALRESEARCH

ANDDISCOVERY

FOCUSEDRESEARCH

ANDPRELIMINARY

DEVELOPMENT

FOCUSEDDEVELOP-

MENT

MARKETDRIVENTECH.

DEVELOP-MENT

Increasing Role of Universities Increasing Role of Industry

Increasing Role of Government


The Bush Design Was Built Around the Following Characteristics:

• Political Autonomy:• Self Regulation by Scientists:• Focus on science for science’s sake as well as

problem solving• Strong academic model of individual achievement• General Accountability(linked to broad objectives of

national well being)• Single Major Basic Research Agency• Limited resources for only the best scientists

The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush Design

Political Autonomy

• Separation from Political Control

• Separate Governance

The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:

The Bush Design

Self-Regulation by Scientists• Peer-Review


The Bush Design

Focus on Science for Science’s Sake As Well as Problem

Solving

• Basic Science/Fundamental Discovery

• Applied Science


The Bush Design

Strong Academic Model of Individual Achievement

• Scientists as Individual Thinkers


The Bush Design General Accountability

(Linked to Broad Objectives of National Well-Bring)

• Success Measured by Overall National Achievement


The Bush Design

Single Major Basic Research Agency

• NSF in original design


The Bush Design

Limited Resources for Only the Best Scientists

• Small Budgets


Federalization Period:1950-1975

By the end of the period, five types of institutions

were important in the NIS:

– Hundreds of Large Industrial Labs

– Dozens of Large Federal Labs

– Thousands of Small Technology Oriented Labs and Companies

– Hundreds of Unconnected and Unplanned Federal Labs

– Researchers at Universities


The Revisionist Period1975-1990

• Economic and Technological Position of the United States began to slip

• The Bush model prevailed: Research dollars concentrated on defense and on basic science

• However, pushed by local political demands, Congress did make some attempts to make to U.S. more competitive and to improve upon the Bush model


The Revisionist Period1975-1990

Major Efforts to Change Science Policy

• Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act (1980)

• Bayh-Dole Act (1982)

• National Productivity and Innovation Act (1983)

• Federal Technology Transfer Act (1986)

The American NIS Today

Today, the design parameters for basic science and the cultural design for basic science and

technology remain essentially those suggested by Bush.


The Bush design is in serious need of updating and improvement, and has been for some time. The rationale for updating is simply that Bush

failed to build into the system the feedback and response mechanisms

needed for a post-industrial democracy.


• In updating the Bush design, we must keep in mind that the NIS today is a complex web of institutions, actors structures, and relationships.

• We cannot completely overhaul it while it is in motion.

• We must be aware of the size and the complexity in the system before prescribing change

The American NIS Today:Examples of Size, Complexity

• Interactions between Public, Private, and Hybrid Science and Technology Labs

• Government Funding of Academic Basic Research, Applied Research, and Development

• Percentage of New Products and Processes Based on Recent Academic Research

Distribution of R&D Laboratory Typecirca 1995-2005

Public Knowledgeand

Technology Products

PrivateKnowledge and Technology

Products

PrivateTechnology

Labs

PublicScience

Labs

Private Science Labs

PublicS&T Labs

Hybrid Science Labs

Private S&T Labs

HybridTechnology

Labs

HybridS&T Labs

PublicTechnology

Labs

SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC R&D, 1935, AND 1960-1990 (MILLIONS OF CURRENT DOLLARS).

$50$646

$1,474$2,335

$3,409

$6,077

$9,686

$16,000

24%

63%

73% 71%68%

63%67%

58%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1935 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

% F

ed

era

lly S

up

po

rte

d

Total Academic R&D % Federally Supported


PERCENT OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS ORIGINATING WITHING PARTICULAR AGENCIES

NIH NSF DoD NASA DoE USDA Other

36.7 16.2 12.8 8.2 5.7 4.4 1646.4 17.1 9.4 4.7 5.7 4.7 12.244.4 15.7 12.8 3.8 6.7 5.4 1146.4 15.1 16.7 3.9 5.3 4.2 8.447.2 16.1 11.6 5.8 4.7 4 10.7


FEDERAL AND NONFEDERAL R&D EXPENDITURES AT UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, BY FIELD AND SOURCE OF

FUNDS, 1989

Field Thousands of %Dollars

Total Science and Engineering 14,987,279$ 100

Total Sciences 12,599,686$ 84.1Life Sciences 8,079,851$ 53.9Physical Sciences 1,643,377$ 11Environmental Sciences 982,937$ 6.6Social Sciences 636,372$ 4.2Computer Sciences 467,729$ 3.1Psychology 237,945$ 1.6Mathematical Sciences 214,248$ 1.4Other Sciences 337,227$ 2.3

Total Engineering 2,387,593$ 15.9Electric/Electronic 600,016$ 4Mechanical 340,280$ 2.3Civil 249,552$ 1.7Chemical 185,087$ 1.2Aero/Astronautical 146,548$ 1Other 866,110$ 5.8


EXPENDITURES FOR BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, 1960-1990

(MILLIONS OF CURRENT DOLLARS)

Year

Total Academic R&D ($)

Basic Research ($) %

Applied Research

($) % Development

($) %

1960 646 433 67 179 28 34 51965 1,474 1,138 77 279 19 57 41970 2,335 1,796 77 427 18 112 51975 3,409 2,410 71 581 25 148 41980 6,077 4,041 67 1,698 28 338 61985 9,686 6,559 68 2,673 28 454 51990 16,000 10,350 65 4,845 30 805 5


UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS

• Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the fraction of academic research funded by industry and in the number and size of university-industry research centers.

• Some academics, while welcoming this trend, do not want industries to influence the research orientation of universities.

• Other academics both welcome industry funding and are eager to re-orient their research to make it more commercially relevant and rewarding.

• In the 1980s, industry leaders were enthusiastic about the ability of academics to contribute to technical advance in industry. Today, however, there is considerable skepticism in industry: a prevailing view is that academics should stick to basic research and training young scientists, and to stop thinking of themselves as the sources of new technology.


% OF NEW PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES BASED ON RECENT ACADEMIC RESEARCH, U.S., 1975-1985

% that could not have % that was developed been developed with very substanial(without substantial aid from recentdelay) in the absence academic researchof recent academicresearch

Industry Products Processes Products Processes

Information Processing 11 11 17 16Electronics 6 3 3 4Chemical 4 2 4 4Instruments 16 2 5 1Pharmaceuticals 27 22 17 8Metals 13 12 9 9Petroleum 1 1 1 1Average 11 9 8 6


The American NIS Today:Updating the Bush Design

FREEMAN’S “THREE PHASES” OF SCIENCE POLICYPhase Characteristics

Phase I:Military Science and Technology Policy

Science policy is directed towards militarypurposes, promoting the development ofnew weapons systems for globalsuperiority and the modification ofexisting technology for local or regionalapplication.

Phase II:Commercial Science and Technology Policy

Science and technology policy is devotedto developing and maintaining the nationaleconomy, focusing on key technologyindustries.

There is a national strategy that targetsspecific interests for either direct orindirect technology development andprotection.

Trade policies, financial policies, and/orgovernment financed research institutesassist in technology development.

Phase III:Comprehensive Science and TechnologyPolicy

The national objective is to use scienceand technology for sustainable growth,environmental quality, and general qualityof life.

Source: Crow (1994)

RECOMMENDATION I

Political Autonomy

• Establishment of an institutional mechanism for forecasting our national science and technology needs

DESIGN PARAMETER I: POLITICAL AUTONOMY

1. CONGRESS should establish a National Science and Technology Forecasting Institute

2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY would use the National Science and Technology Forecasting Institute to identify the specific S&T objective of a particular administration

3. MISSION AGENCIES would develop research agendas with regard to the S&T forecast

4. NSF’s research agenda and areas of focus would be mapped according to the S&T forecast

RECOMMENDATION II

Self Regulation by Scientists

• Spending time and resources on educating the public about science and research

• Development of a formal science “court” for

internal discipline and conflict resolution • Broadening the criteria for peer review to include

potential for social profit

DESIGN PARAMETER II: SELF REGULATION BY SCIENTISTS

c

• Congress and the President would establish the U.S. Science Court.

• National Science Board would establish a greatly expanded public information and access program.

• Research Agencies would develop expanded criteria for project selection.

RECOMMENDATION III

Focus on “Science for Science’s sake” as well as Problem Solving

• Eliminate references to “basic” and “applied” research projects without specific definitions of these projects

• Evaluate projects with regard to their purpose, realizing that the type of research conducted (basic, applied, and fundamental technology development) are functions of the missions of agencies

• Consider all projects and program areas as equal, regardless of scientific focus or technical objective, until they are evaluated

DESIGN PARAMETER III

Focus on Science and Problem Solving

1. OMB would establish meaningful budget categories and improved nomenclature for defining research activity. Research would be classified by purpose and not by “function”.

2. OSTP would develop project and program classification nomenclature for research type and purpose for uniform use in all agencies.

3. Mission Agency research agendas would be contextually placed with regard to the S&T forecast.

4. NSF’s research agenda and areas of focus would be mapped according to the context setting forecast.

RECOMMENDATION IV

Strong Academic Model of Individual Achievement

• Enhanced team funding mechanisms

• Expanded recognition mechanisms for team participation

• Evaluation of scientists on a group and disciplinary basis

• Including contributions to other fields or departments in the evaluation of particular fields or departments

• Heavy funding of “star” groups

DESIGN PARAMETER IV: STRONG ACADEMIC MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL

ACHIEVEMENT

1. OMB would permit institution building among dispersed research enterprises such as universities.

2. Mission Agencies would concentrate funding on the best labs and roups.

3. NSF would concentrate funding by increasing grant size, develop more center type R&D efforts, and provide for enhanced linkage building between and among research groups at different institutions.

RECOMMENDATION V

General Accountability

• Evaluating agency research programs based on their success or failure in attaining particular pre-defined goals and objectives

• Integrate these evaluations into funding and priority setting models

DESIGN PARAMETER V: GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY

1.OSTP/Congress would set annual five and ten year objectives for National Science and Technology investment.

2. All Research Agencies would establish formal R&D evaluation capabilities at the agency and division levels.

RECOMMENDATION VI

Single Basic Research Agency

• Define roles and functions of agencies with greater care

• Place National Science Foundation (NSF) in charge of building foundation knowledge and research tools for other programs of research

• Reorient NSF research agenda towards research foundation building needs

DESIGN PARAMETER VI: SINGLE BASIC SCIENCE AGENCY

1. Congress would require a linked science budget plan indicating who is doing what and how the NSF budget request is linked.

2. Research Agencies would re-think budget and planning models to define their roles as producers of foundation knowledge, basic knowledge, or specific solutions to problems.

RECOMMENDATION VII

Limited Resources for only the Best

• Agencies should concentrate their resources in those fields of greatest importance to their individual missions

• Increase the size of average grants: more funding for fewer groups

DESIGN PARAMETER VII: LIMITED RESOURCES FOR ONLY THE BEST

All Research Agencies would re-think allocation models so as to begin concentration of resources to the best research groups and labs. New allocation models would be based on:

- Scientific Track Records

- Institutional Infrastructure

- Quality of science and support groups

- Overall goal attainment

science, society, and public policy michael m. crow columbia university

Documents