From Aspiration to Innovation: How UPRM Can Achieve R1 Status and Transform Puerto Rico’s Economy

Introduction

The University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM) is a STEM-focused public university currently classified as an R2 (“High Research Activity”) institution. In recent years UPRM has aspired to attain R1 status (“Very High Research Activity”), a designation reserved for universities with the greatest research output. Achieving R1 is challenging for UPRM due to limited state funding, geographical isolation in Puerto Rico, and heavy emphasis on undergraduate STEM education. However, many universities with comparable constraints have successfully transitioned from R2 to R1 in the past two decades.

Achieving R1 status is not just an academic milestone—it is a powerful engine for economic development, innovation, and job creation. Universities classified as R1 institutions attract significantly higher levels of federal research funding, industry partnerships, and private investment, fueling local economies and driving the creation of high-paying, knowledge-based jobs. Research-intensive universities serve as hubs of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development, producing highly skilled graduates who contribute to cutting-edge industries. For Puerto Rico, the implications of UPRM attaining R1 status are profound. With a stronger research ecosystem, UPRM can secure millions in competitive grants, expand its doctoral programs, and foster homegrown innovation in key sectors such as renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, engineering, and disaster resilience—all areas that align with Puerto Rico’s economic needs. Furthermore, an R1 university serves as a magnet for top-tier faculty, investors, and corporate R&D divisions, making Puerto Rico more competitive in the global knowledge economy. At a time when the island is seeking economic revitalization and resilience, UPRM’s transition to R1 can be a transformative strategy, positioning Puerto Rico as a leader in research-driven growth while reversing the brain drain by offering more opportunities for local talent to thrive.

This report analyzes case studies of peer institutions that overcame similar hurdles – such as constrained state budgets, remote locations, and STEM-centric profiles – to reach R1 status. Key focus areas include their strategies for research funding acquisition, faculty development and recruitment, doctoral program expansion, infrastructure investments, and industry partnerships/technology transfer. Drawing on these examples, we outline lessons learned for UPRM and discuss the role that the Puerto Rico government can play in facilitating UPRM’s R1 transition, especially under the fiscal oversight of the Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB). Potential strategic initiatives, policy changes, and funding mechanisms (with estimated costs) are presented.

Case Study 1: University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) – From Emerging Research to R1

UTSA is a young Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) that, like UPRM, had strong STEM programs but historically limited research activity. In just a few decades UTSA transformed into an R1 university (achieved in 2021) despite operating in a state system where flagships traditionally dominate funding. Key strategies included:

• Aggressive Research Funding Growth: UTSA more than doubled its annual research expenditures from $68 million in 2017 to $140 million by 2021. This 106% increase was driven by maximizing federal grants and contracts – UTSA researchers secured over 300 funded grants per year during this period. The university leadership set R1 attainment as a core goal in its strategic plan and closely tracked metrics like research spending and doctoral degrees. They focused on “developed transdisciplinary research programs, and expanded collaborations with the brightest minds in government, industry and academia” to tap a broad range of funding sources (NSF, DoD, NIH, etc.). Importantly, Texas created incentive programs for “emerging research universities”: UTSA became eligible for the state’s National Research University Fund and Texas Research Incentive Program, unlocking matching funds for research grants and private gifts. This public funding boost was crucial in an environment of limited base appropriations.

• Faculty Recruitment and Development: A centerpiece of UTSA’s push was investing in research-active faculty. The University of Texas System provided $55 million across its four emerging research campuses (including UTSA) specifically to hire star researchers. UTSA’s share of this allowed hiring approximately 40 new faculty positions targeted at mid-career and senior scholars with strong funding records. These strategic hires often included nationally recognized scientists (including National Academy members) who could immediately elevate UTSA’s research profile. Alongside recruitment, UTSA bolstered support for existing faculty: increasing internal seed grants for new projects, reducing teaching loads for productive researchers, and providing grant-writing assistance. “Maximized support for our faculty” was explicitly cited as a pillar of earning R1. This support system helped faculty win more external awards and mentor more graduate students.

• Expansion of Doctoral Programs: When UTSA was founded, it had few doctoral programs; by the time of its R1 classification it had greatly expanded doctoral offerings across STEM and other fields. UTSA grew its pipeline of Ph.D. students by launching new programs (e.g. in areas like cybersecurity and biomedical engineering) and by funding more graduate assistantships. The university’s strategic plan explicitly tied R1 status to “growing the doctoral discovery enterprise.” By 2021, UTSA was conferring significantly more than the 70 research doctorates per year Carnegie threshold. This growth was facilitated by the new research-active faculty, who attracted and supervised doctoral students, and by UTSA’s efforts to recruit top graduate talent (including many from underrepresented groups, aligning with its HSI mission).

• Research Infrastructure and Facilities: Despite financial constraints, UTSA invested in modern research infrastructure through creative financing. The university leveraged state tuition revenue bonds and public-private partnerships to build new labs and centers. For example, it opened a large Science and Engineering Building with state-of-the-art laboratories for chemistry and engineering research, and established specialized centers like the National Security Collaboration Center in partnership with federal agencies. UTSA also enhanced core facilities (computing, microscopy, etc.) that support faculty across disciplines. These upgrades made UTSA more competitive for grants and signaled institutional commitment to research. Moreover, UTSA’s urban location in San Antonio became an asset: the campus formed collaborations with nearby military research units and biotech companies, offering space in its Research Park for joint projects. Such infrastructure investments – often costing tens of millions of dollars – were phased in over time to align with available funding (e.g. a new science building might be ~$95M financed by bonds, while a smaller innovation hub might cost a few million via grants).

• Industry Partnerships and Tech Transfer: As a metropolitan university, UTSA pursued partnerships with industry and government that both provided research funding and fostered economic development. It worked closely with San Antonio’s cybersecurity sector (attracting federal and private grants in cyber defense), partnered with Southwest Research Institute on engineering research, and collaborated with healthcare companies through its new School of Data Science. UTSA also strengthened its technology transfer office, leading to increased patents and startup companies. By highlighting local impact – “tackling the grand challenges facing San Antonio and the nation” – UTSA was able to secure private sector and city support for research initiatives. For example, industry-funded research chairs and joint labs brought in private dollars to supplement federal grants. These partnerships not only provided funding but also gave students real-world research experiences, further integrating the R1 culture.

Outcomes and Lessons: UTSA’s experience shows the importance of a multi-faceted strategy. Rapidly growing research funding required both external advocacy (to win state investment and federal grants) and internal investment (in people and facilities). Even with constrained state funding, targeted programs like Texas’s matching funds had outsized impact – something UPRM could emulate with Puerto Rico’s government. UTSA’s focus on its identity as both an HSI and a research institution is also notable: it became one of only ~20 universities to be both HSI and R1 , proving that serving minority students and achieving R1 excellence can go hand-in-hand. UPRM, likewise an HSI, can leverage federal programs designed for HSIs (e.g. NSF HSI grants, USDA Hispanic-Serving ag grants) as stepping stones. Finally, UTSA’s case underlines that faculty are the engine of research: providing competitive salaries, startup packages, and reduced teaching loads to researchers yielded a direct payoff in grant dollars and doctoral degrees. UPRM will need similar commitments to its faculty if it hopes to boost research outputs significantly.

Case Study 2: San Diego State University (SDSU) – Overcoming Structural Limits to Reach R1

San Diego State, a large public HSI in California, faced unique challenges on its road to R1. As part of the California State University system, SDSU historically focused on teaching and had restrictions on doctoral programs (which were traditionally the domain of the University of California system). Despite these hurdles, SDSU achieved R1 status in February 2025. It did so by leveraging its unique strengths as a border-connected HSI and strategically building research capacity. Key initiatives included:

• Deliberate Strategic Planning for R1: SDSU’s leadership made R1 a formal goal in its 2020–2025 strategic plan, “We Rise We Defy,” branding SDSU as “a New Kind of HSI” that excels in research. They identified metrics to drive progress: increasing research expenditures, doctoral enrollments, and funded research centers. The university conducted a comprehensive assessment of resource needs for research – from library collections to lab equipment – and secured administrative buy-in to address gaps. One early step was creating a new administrative role of Chief Technology Research Officer (CTRO) to expand research cyberinfrastructure (high-performance computing, data storage) needed for a modern R1 university. This focus on planning and infrastructure signaled to external funders that SDSU was serious about research.

• Research Funding Acquisition and Centers of Excellence: SDSU aggressively pursued large collaborative grants to build research centers in strategic areas. The plan set a goal of winning at least three new centers with >$1.5 million per year in external funding – a goal that was achieved. For example, SDSU secured federally-funded centers focused on health disparities and on transborder issues, aligning with its strengths in public health and its location near the U.S.-Mexico border. By targeting federally-designated HSI grant competitions, SDSU won competitive awards that both advanced its research and served its mission (one metric was to submit proposals for 80% of all HSI-specific funding opportunities each year). As a result, SDSU’s research expenditures climbed sharply, exceeding $192 million in FY2023 – far above the $50M R1 threshold. These successes illustrate that even without abundant state funding, a university can grow research by focusing on niche areas of excellence and capitalizing on all available federal programs. (Notably, SDSU’s average research spending in 2021–23 was $131.8M, showing sustained high output.)

• Doctoral Program Expansion and Policy Change: Because CSU campuses historically had limited authority to award doctorates (except in partnership with UCs), SDSU lobbied for changes to enable more doctoral programs. Their plan proposed 8–10 new Ph.D. programs in strategic fields. A significant win was the passage of California AB 656, which granted SDSU authority to offer independent doctorates in areas of high need (starting with a Doctor of Public Health). SDSU launched new Ph.D. programs in areas like engineering sciences and anthropology, and explored others in humanities and sciences. By 2024, five independent doctoral programs were approved, with more in the pipeline. To support these programs, SDSU hired a dedicated doctoral program specialist to streamline processes and ensure quality, and it increased funding for doctoral students (including one-time funds to help PhD candidates finish dissertations). Consequently, SDSU’s number of research doctorates awarded rose to meet Carnegie R1 criteria. The lesson for UPRM is the importance of expanding graduate education: R1 universities need a critical mass of Ph.D. students. UPRM may need to introduce new doctoral programs (likely in STEM fields where it has strength, such as marine sciences or electrical engineering) and find ways to fund more graduate assistantships, even if that means reallocating resources or seeking external training grants.

• Faculty Hiring Clusters and Development: SDSU recognized that it needed more research-active faculty in key disciplines. With limited state funding, it pursued creative approaches to faculty growth. One approach was cluster hiring through external grants: for instance, an NIH-funded initiative enabled SDSU to “complete a cluster hire of 11 early-career faculty across disciplines to bolster Latinx health disparities research.” These new investigators brought fresh labs and grant projects to campus. Additionally, SDSU planned to hire 5–10 faculty lines focused on “public-facing, border or Indigenous scholarship,” reflecting its regional mission (this was in progress pending resources). These cluster hires created interdisciplinary teams around topics like Latino health and native communities, yielding synergies in research output. SDSU also nurtured existing faculty by reducing bureaucratic hurdles: for example, it formed a faculty-led Cyberinfrastructure Committee to ensure researchers had the computing resources and support needed for data-intensive work. Key takeaway: targeted faculty recruitment in strategic areas can amplify research productivity, especially if aligned with the university’s mission and funded via special programs. UPRM might similarly seek grants (from NSF, NIH, DoD) that include funding for hiring young faculty or postdoctoral fellows in areas like coastal resiliency or renewable energy, which are highly relevant to Puerto Rico.

• Infrastructure and Technological Resources: Even on a constrained budget, SDSU invested in critical research infrastructure by tapping external and one-time funding sources. They secured grants from NSF for cyberinfrastructure upgrades, including a new high-performance computing cluster (“VERNE”) deployed with internal funds. This cluster has supported research computing needs across 20+ courses and multiple projects, and SDSU even won an NSF Campus Cyberinfrastructure grant ($1M) to enhance data exploration facilities. Beyond IT, SDSU moved forward with constructing a new LEED-certified research facility as part of its campus expansion (SDSU Mission Valley). Although still in progress, this major building – expected to cost tens of millions – had state and donor support. By prioritizing infrastructure in the strategic plan and performing a needs assessment early, SDSU was “shovel ready” when funding opportunities arose (e.g. state bonds or federal stimulus for research infrastructure). UPRM can learn from this by identifying its critical infrastructure needs (for example, updated laboratory facilities for chemical and materials research, or high-capacity computing for data science) and developing proposals in advance. Then, if federal funding (like NSF’s Major Research Equipment programs or USDA facilities grants) becomes available, or if the Puerto Rico government can authorize a capital project, UPRM can quickly capitalize.

• Community and Industry Engagement: A distinctive aspect of SDSU’s path was integrating its HSI and borderland identity into its research enterprise. Many of SDSU’s new research initiatives were community-engaged – addressing regional issues like cross-border health, educational equity, and environmental justice. This helped attract federal grants focused on underserved communities and positioned SDSU as a model of an engaged research university. It also cultivated support from local industry and government. For instance, SDSU’s location in San Diego meant proximity to biotech companies and defense contractors; SDSU deepened partnerships with these sectors through joint research projects and talent pipelines. The university also established a Technology Transfer Office and entrepreneur programs to translate research into local startups (supported by the San Diego innovation ecosystem). These efforts demonstrated that research at SDSU drives economic and social impact, which in turn garnered political support for SDSU’s R1 bid. The broader lesson is that a university like UPRM should align research with regional needs – in UPRM’s case, this could mean a focus on tropical agriculture, hurricane-resistant infrastructure, renewable energy for island grids, pharmaceutical technology (given Puerto Rico’s pharma industry), and similar areas where industry and society in Puerto Rico have urgent needs. By doing so, UPRM can form partnerships with companies (pharmaceutical firms, aerospace components manufacturers, etc.), attract foundation funding, and persuade government stakeholders that research investment yields direct benefits to the island.

Case Study 3: New Mexico State University (NMSU) – Reinforcing a Land-Grant Mission to Regain R1

NMSU, a land-grant public university in a small state, exemplifies how sustained strategic effort can achieve R1 status even amid funding challenges. NMSU was actually classified as R1 in the early 2000s but lost that status during Carnegie’s 2005 reclassification; it remained R2 for nearly 20 years and only regained R1 in 2025. This journey offers a blueprint for UPRM as both share traits: serving an agricultural and engineering mission, relying heavily on federal funds, and operating in a region with constrained state finances. Key elements of NMSU’s successful transition include:

• Strategic Refocus on Research (Leadership and Culture): Around 2018, NMSU’s leadership set a clear vision (LEADS 2025 plan) to elevate research and creative activity to R1 levels. A new Vice President for Research (Dr. Luis Cifuentes) was tasked with crafting an “R1 culture” at NMSU. This meant embedding research into all aspects of the university’s mission. Faculty were encouraged to integrate research with teaching and extension, reflecting the land-grant ethos of solving local problems through innovation. NMSU leaders emphasized that R1 was not just a status symbol but a call to “make a greater impact locally, statewide and beyond.” They cultivated campus pride in research by highlighting that research excellence enhances undergraduate education and service to the community. This cultural shift helped rally faculty and staff around the goal despite limited resources. UPRM similarly can nurture a campus mindset that values research as integral to its undergraduate and public service mission (e.g., involving undergraduates in research on Puerto Rico’s environmental challenges, or applying engineering research to assist local communities). Such a culture can sustain morale and focus even when external funding is tight.

• Enhanced Research Funding and Expenditures: NMSU worked methodically to boost its research expenditures above the R1 threshold. By FY2023 it reached $126 million in annual research spending and averaged 102 doctoral degrees per year – comfortably meeting the Carnegie benchmarks. In FY2024, NMSU reported an even higher $141 million in R&D expenditures. How did a mid-sized university achieve this? Largely through federal grants and contracts aligned with its strengths. As New Mexico’s first land-grant, NMSU leveraged long-standing ties with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for research in agriculture and natural resources. It also capitalized on its proximity to federal installations (White Sands Missile Range, NASA test facilities) to win DoD and NASA projects in aerospace, computer science, and engineering. Participation in NSF’s EPSCoR program (which channels NSF funds to underrepresented states) yielded multi-million-dollar interdisciplinary grants (for instance, NMSU led statewide EPSCoR projects on energy and climate research). Additionally, NMSU made a push in health sciences research by partnering with the University of New Mexico’s medical school and leveraging NIH funding targeting health disparities in Hispanic and Native American populations. A crucial tactic was offering internal seed grants to help faculty launch new research ideas – for example, small grants (~$10,000 each) were given to dozens of faculty in Arts and Sciences to gather preliminary data for larger grant proposals. These seeds paid off in more competitive proposals and higher grant hit-rates. Lesson: For UPRM, tapping federal funding is paramount since local funding is limited. UPRM should aggressively pursue grants from agencies like NSF (especially via Puerto Rico’s EPSCoR status), NOAA and NSF for tropical climate and ocean research, NIH for health issues affecting minority communities, and DoD for engineering projects. Setting up an internal grant program (even a modest one, say $5K–$15K per project using institutional funds or FOMB-released funds) could enable UPRM faculty to develop proof-of-concepts that attract larger awards. Over time, these external funds can raise UPRM’s annual research spending into the R1 range.

• Faculty and Talent Strategies: Despite budget pressures, NMSU recognized that investing in human capital was essential. It used creative means to attract and retain research-oriented faculty. For instance, NMSU targeted hires in areas where research funding was growing – such as cybersecurity (aligned with a nearby Army cyber unit) and sustainable energy (tied to New Mexico’s renewable energy push). Where it couldn’t hire new faculty, NMSU focused on developing its existing faculty: providing grant-writing workshops, mentoring junior professors on research, and celebrating research accomplishments. The university also utilized joint appointments to share talent – some faculty held appointments with federal labs or industry while also teaching at NMSU, fostering collaboration. An important move was protecting faculty research time: NMSU managed to limit additional teaching loads and administrative burdens on productive researchers, despite financial strain, by making tough choices to prioritize research. Additionally, graduate student support was increased through a combination of external grants (many faculty wrote student funding into their grants) and state lottery-funded scholarships for STEM graduate students. The resulting output – over 100 doctorates per year on average – indicates a robust pipeline of doctoral talent, a direct result of having research-active faculty to supervise these students. UPRM will need to consider similar measures: even if hiring freezes persist under austerity, UPRM can cultivate an environment where existing faculty are motivated and enabled to do research (for example, by reallocating some teaching to adjuncts or utilizing online teaching for large courses, thereby freeing faculty time for research). Also, UPRM might seek partnerships where researchers from mainland R1 universities or federal labs serve as adjunct faculty to co-advise UPRM grad students – building capacity without immediately adding full salaries to the payroll.

• Infrastructure and Unique Facilities: NMSU maintained and built facilities that underpinned its research niche areas. It hosts specialized centers like the Physical Science Laboratory, which has long conducted aerospace and electronic research (often via Pentagon contracts). It also operates an Agricultural Science Center network across New Mexico, supporting field research in farming and ecology. In the years leading up to R1, NMSU invested in a new interdisciplinary science building to house biology and engineering labs, financed by a statewide general obligation bond. It upgraded its core labs (e.g., genomics labs, water quality labs) with a mix of state and federal funds. Furthermore, NMSU’s Arrowhead Park – a research and business park – was expanded to incubate tech startups and host R&D branches of companies, creating an innovation ecosystem right on campus. These infrastructure elements, while costly (the science building was on the order of $20–30M, much of which came from voter-approved bonds, and Arrowhead’s development involved both public and private investment), have yielded returns in research collaborations and tech transfer. For UPRM, a comparable approach could be to develop a research/innovation park in Mayagüez that invites companies (especially in engineering and technology sectors) to set up R&D operations in proximity to campus, possibly in exchange for sponsoring student projects or funding endowed professorships. UPRM also has unique assets such as the nearby USDA Tropical Agriculture Research Station and the UPRM Marine Sciences labs – maintaining and integrating these facilities into the campus research enterprise will be important. Targeted infrastructure upgrades (for example, a hurricane-resistant research center focusing on resilient infrastructure, or an advanced computing center for data analytics and artificial intelligence) could be pitched to both local government and federal agencies as necessary for Puerto Rico’s innovation capacity. While initial costs are high, phasing construction and using a combination of funding sources (federal grants, capital appropriations, even donor campaigns) can make them feasible.

• Community Impact and Partnerships: NMSU’s regained R1 status was in part a recognition of its role in driving economic development in New Mexico. University leadership highlighted that an R1-level institution in the state would help “transform and empower our state” – for example, by developing solutions in agriculture for local farmers, or training a high-tech workforce for local industry. This argument helped justify supportive state actions (like the bond funding for facilities and legislative support for research initiatives) even when direct appropriations were limited. NMSU also worked closely with state and local government on research that directly informed policy – such as water resource management in the arid southwest – thereby securing some state contract funding for those projects. The lesson for UPRM and Puerto Rico is that aligning the university’s research goals with the island’s policy priorities can garner political backing. If UPRM’s research can help Puerto Rico become more self-sustaining (e.g., through renewable energy microgrid research, or pharmaceutical development to support the island’s pharma manufacturing base), the Puerto Rico government is more likely to champion and invest in UPRM’s R1 trajectory. NMSU demonstrated that even under fiscal austerity, a university can make the case that research is not a luxury but a driver of long-term economic recovery – a narrative highly relevant to Puerto Rico’s situation.

Summary of Case Studies – Common Threads

Despite differences in size and context, UTSA, SDSU, and NMSU share several common strategies that were pivotal in their transitions to R1:

• They diversified and grew research funding by tapping every available source – especially federal grants geared toward their institutional type (HSI, land-grant, etc.) – and by convincing state leaders to provide incentive funding or at least policy support.

• They invested in human capital, through new hires in key fields and by empowering current faculty with the resources and time to succeed in research. Each university created or expanded doctoral programs to ensure a pipeline of research activity and meet R1 doctorate production criteria.

• They upgraded research infrastructure and administrative support, recognizing that modern labs, computing power, and grant management expertise are the backbone of a high research enterprise. Strategic plans and external reviews were used to prioritize these investments.

• They leveraged unique institutional attributes (like SDSU’s border location, UTSA’s urban setting, NMSU’s land-grant mission) to carve out research niches and partnerships that set them apart. This often involved aligning with regional industry and societal needs, which in turn attracted funding and political goodwill.

• They remained resilient amid financial constraints – all three had periods of limited state funding, but they mitigated this by increasing external revenue (grants, contracts, private gifts) and by making tough internal choices to protect research (e.g., reallocating funds from lower-demand programs, as SDSU did by evaluating low-enrollment courses).

These lessons are highly relevant to UPRM. In particular, UPRM’s strength in STEM education can be leveraged to build research programs in areas where it already excels (engineering, computer science, marine science, agriculture). The success of multiple HSIs (UTSA, SDSU, FIU, etc.) in achieving R1 shows that UPRM’s status as a minority-serving institution can be a competitive advantage in certain funding arenas, rather than a drawback. Furthermore, even geographically isolated universities like NMSU or Northern Arizona University (which also recently reached R1 with ~$71M research spending and 86 doctorates) prove that location is not an insurmountable barrier if niche expertise is developed.

Applying the Lessons to UPRM’s Context

To position UPRM for an R1 transition, a multi-pronged strategy – informed by the above case studies – should be implemented. Below are recommended focus areas and initiatives:

1. Research Funding Acquisition Strategies for UPRM

Maximize Federal and External Grants: UPRM must aggressively pursue increases in its research expenditures by winning more external grants. Currently, UPR (system-wide) relies heavily on federal funding (about two-thirds of R&D funds) and a significant portion also comes from UPR’s own institutional funds. With Puerto Rico’s government unable to substantially raise UPRM’s base funding in the short term, the growth must come from federal agencies, industry contracts, and philanthropy. UPRM should create a dedicated grant development office to help faculty identify opportunities and write proposals. Particular emphasis should be on programs that favor institutions building capacity: for example, NSF’s EPSCoR program (Puerto Rico is eligible due to historically low NSF funding) can support multi-million-dollar projects in areas like engineering research centers or climate resilience. Similarly, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has research programs for minority-serving institutions – UPRM could tap DoD for its engineering and cybersecurity strengths. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers RISE and SCORE grants to build research infrastructure at minority-serving universities; these could help fund labs and junior faculty research in biology/biotech. Additionally, as an HSI, UPRM can compete for Department of Education Title V grants for postgraduate improvements and NSF’s HSI program grants (up to $10M for research capacity building). SDSU’s approach of chasing HSI-specific competitions is a model here.

To complement federal grants, UPRM should strengthen relationships with industry for sponsored research. Puerto Rico is home to many pharmaceutical, biotech, and manufacturing companies that might fund applied research or testing facilities at UPRM. For instance, UPRM’s engineering departments could partner with pharmaceutical companies on chemical engineering research for process improvement, or with renewable energy companies on microgrid technology – areas where companies have R&D needs and might contract work to UPRM labs. Even small contracts (tens of thousands of dollars) from multiple firms can add up and count toward research expenditure totals, while forging long-term partnerships.

State and Private Funding Mechanisms: While the Puerto Rico government’s budget is tight, it can still facilitate funding growth indirectly. One idea is to establish a matching fund program similar to Texas’s, where the government matches a portion of any major federal grant or private donation that UPRM secures for research. Even a 10–20% match can incentivize faculty to seek large grants, knowing that a $5M NSF award might unlock an additional $500K from the local government for equipment or graduate stipends. The government could seed this matching fund with a modest amount (say $5 million to start) and treat it as an investment in pulling in external dollars. Another mechanism is working through the Puerto Rico Science, Technology & Research Trust, a non-profit created in 2004 to promote innovation on the island. The Science Trust already provides competitive research grants (e.g. the Advanced Research Grants program) and manages an investment fund for tech startups. The Puerto Rico government could channel additional resources to the Science Trust specifically earmarked for funding UPRM research initiatives and joint university-industry projects. Because the Trust is outside the government’s budget per se, it might navigate around some FOMB restrictions while still ultimately fueling UPRM’s R&D.

Finally, UPRM should not overlook philanthropy. Many UPRM alumni and Puerto Rican diaspora professionals in STEM fields might be willing to donate to support research and graduate education if presented with a compelling vision (for example, an “Institute for Tropical Engineering Solutions” at UPRM). Naming rights for new laboratories or endowed research chairs could attract private gifts. Florida International University (FIU) leveraged its fast-rising reputation to raise private funds and now boasts over $300M in research expenditures. UPRM, by articulating how its research will drive economic revival in Puerto Rico, could inspire similar generosity, which the PR government could encourage by offering local tax incentives for such donations.

2. Faculty Development and Recruitment Initiatives

At the heart of moving to R1 is boosting the research productivity of faculty. UPRM will need to grow its cadre of research-active faculty and empower current faculty to secure grants. Specific initiatives:

• Strategic Faculty Hiring: UPRM should aim to hire a number of new faculty with strong research credentials over the next 5–7 years, focusing on strategic disciplines. Given budget constraints and FOMB’s likely cap on payroll growth, this could be done through targeted replacement hiring (prioritizing research potential in any vacancy) and by seeking external funding for positions. For example, UPRM can pursue grant programs that include faculty hires – similar to SDSU’s NIH-funded cluster hire of 11 researchers in health disparities. NSF’s CREST centers (Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology) often provide support for new faculty and postdoctoral fellows at minority-serving institutions; winning a CREST grant in an area like nanotechnology or marine science could effectively fund several research staff at UPRM. Additionally, the university can collaborate with the Science Trust or industry to co-fund “professors of practice” or research professorships where the salary is split between the university and an external entity. Even adjunct appointments of R1 faculty (say, a collaboration where a professor at an R1 mainland university spends a semester a year at UPRM and helps run a lab) could temporarily boost research output and mentorship for UPRM graduate students without adding full-time lines.

• Competitive Salaries and Start-Up Packages: A candid challenge is that UPRM’s faculty salaries are not currently competitive with R1 institutions, and years of austerity have eroded compensation (UPR salaries have been described as “less than competitive,” causing loss of research staff). The Puerto Rico government, even under FOMB oversight, should consider exempting certain research positions from salary caps or freezes. For instance, allowing UPRM to offer higher pay or bonus stipends to faculty who bring in large grants would be a powerful incentive. This could be structured as a percentage of the indirect cost recovery from the grant that goes into a bonus pool – essentially cost-neutral, as it uses grant overhead rather than taxpayer funds. Additionally, new faculty hires in STEM fields typically require start-up funds for equipment and labs. UPRM should estimate an average start-up package (for example, recruiting a lab scientist might require $200K–$300K in lab setup and initial graduate student support). Funding, say, 20 new research faculty over a few years might require on the order of $4–6 million in start-up funds. These could come from a mix of sources: a portion of any released FOMB funds, one-time federal appropriations (if available through congressionally directed spending), or university internal reallocation. The investment would be justified by the grants those faculty are likely to win (often many times their start-up over their career).

• Faculty Development and Workload Policies: For existing faculty, UPRM should implement policies that enable them to increase research productivity. One immediate step could be to reduce teaching loads for faculty actively pursuing grants. Currently, due to budget cuts, many professors have heavy teaching loads and administrative duties, leaving little time for research. By hiring additional adjuncts or lecturers (possibly using part of the budget of low-enrollment programs), UPRM can free up research faculty from one course each semester. Another supportive measure is to rebuild the research administration staff: grant managers, accountants, and lab technicians. An analysis from the Center for a New Economy (CNE) noted that administrative consolidations and hiring freezes have left fewer experienced staff to assist with research projects, making it hard to manage grants and comply with requirements. Puerto Rico’s government and FOMB should allow UPRM to designate certain research support roles as critical and let them hire into those positions (even if a general hiring freeze is in effect). Having skilled grant administrators will ensure funds are used efficiently and reports are done on time, which in turn gives funders confidence to award more grants. Training programs and mentorship for junior faculty on proposal writing, perhaps in partnership with successful researchers from U.S. mainland institutions (e.g., inviting collaborators to give workshops), can also enhance faculty competitiveness.

• Retention of Top Talent: UPRM has historically been able to attract bright young faculty (often Puerto Ricans who studied in top graduate programs and return home). The challenge has been retaining them when resources are scarce. To improve retention, UPRM and the PR government could create a “Puerto Rico Scholar” awards program that provides a salary supplement and research grant to the most productive faculty. For example, every two years, select 5 faculty who excel in research and give each a $20,000 research grant and a one-time $10,000 bonus. This is a small cost relative to the budget, but it signals appreciation and helps them advance their work. Another retention tool is to facilitate sabbaticals or exchanges – allowing faculty to spend a year at a world-class lab and then bring that experience back, which can re-energize their research. FOMB and UPR Central Administration should view such professional development expenses not as perks but as investments in human capital that will yield grant income.

3. Expansion of Doctoral Programs and Graduate Research Opportunities

For UPRM to be classified R1, it needs to significantly increase its number of research doctorates awarded per year (Carnegie’s new criteria require at least 70 per year). Currently, UPRM offers relatively few doctoral programs (UPRM was classified as a “Master’s: STEM-dominant” institution in 2021, though by 2025 it is recognized as R2 with STEM doctoral offerings). Key steps:

• Develop New Ph.D. Programs in Strategic Fields: UPRM should identify 3–5 fields where it has faculty strength, student demand, and research funding potential, and propose new doctoral programs in those areas. Candidates might include Environmental Science and Engineering (with a sustainability focus), Biomedical Engineering or Biotechnology (leveraging the bio-pharma presence in PR), Computer Science/Data Science (building on existing CS strength and applying it to smart infrastructure or artificial intelligence), and Agricultural Sciences (perhaps a joint program with the Mayagüez agricultural extension, focusing on tropical agriculture and sustainability). Each new program would require curriculum approval and sufficient faculty; UPRM can explore collaborative doctoral programs with other campuses (for example, a joint Ph.D. between UPRM and UPR Río Piedras in Environmental & Marine Sciences, sharing faculty and resources). Even partnering with stateside R1 universities to co-advise and award degrees could be an interim solution while UPRM builds independent capacity.

• Increase Graduate Student Funding: Attracting doctoral students often hinges on the availability of scholarships, assistantships, and stipends. Puerto Rico could create a targeted fellowship program for graduate students at UPRM. For instance, the legislature might establish 50 “Puerto Rico Innovator Fellowships” that provide full funding for doctoral students in STEM at UPRM, with a service commitment that they remain on the island for a couple years after graduation. These could be funded through workforce development funds or education grants. Additionally, UPRM should make it a policy that every major research grant includes graduate student positions – this both trains students and counts toward doctorate production. The university might also allocate a portion of any recovered indirect costs from grants to a graduate research fellowship fund. The potential cost: funding 50 Ph.D. students might cost around $1.5M per year (assuming ~$30k stipend+tuition each). This is a modest investment considering those students contribute to research outputs and often assist in teaching undergraduates as well.

• Undergraduate Research Pipeline: While undergraduate research doesn’t directly count in Carnegie metrics, it’s vital for feeding the graduate pipeline and building a research culture. UPRM can expand programs like NSF REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates) and create campus-based summer research internships to get juniors and seniors involved in projects. This not only encourages more of them to pursue graduate studies at UPRM, but also increases faculty research productivity (more hands in the lab). Industry partnerships could fund some of these – for example, an energy company sponsoring a cohort of undergrads to research solar microgrids each summer under a faculty mentor. The cost is relatively low ($5k per student summer stipend), and it yields early-stage research results that often turn into publications or preliminary data for proposals.

• Streamline Graduate Processes: As SDSU did by hiring a doctoral specialist, UPRM should ensure its administrative processes for graduate studies are efficient. This might involve centralizing Ph.D. program marketing (to attract applicants globally), simplifying thesis submission and compliance procedures, and providing proposal-writing training to advanced Ph.D. students (so they can apply for individual grants like NSF Graduate Fellowships or NIH F31 grants – which not only bring prestige and funding, but also count as research awards to the institution). Every doctorate granted should be viewed as a win that moves UPRM closer to R1, and thus supporting each doctoral student to completion is critical. This could mean offering a final-year dissertation completion fellowship to help students finish on time – SDSU did something similar with one-time funds.

4. Infrastructure Investments in Research Facilities and Technology

UPRM’s physical and technological infrastructure must evolve to support high-level research. Some priorities and potential costs:

• Modernizing Laboratories: Many research labs at UPRM need upgrades or expansion to handle increased research activity. For example, engineering research may require high-end fabrication equipment or updated instrumentation; scientific research may need controlled environment labs or field stations. UPRM should create a capital improvement plan listing the most critical facility needs (perhaps a new Science and Engineering Research Complex that houses interdisciplinary labs). The cost for a new research building could be on the order of $30–$50 million. The Puerto Rico government could assist by including such a facility in its capital budget or bond initiatives. Notably, even under FOMB, Puerto Rico can fund capital projects through bonds if they are deemed critical infrastructure. Arguing that a new research facility at UPRM is akin to an economic development infrastructure (much like a tech incubator or industrial park) might help justify the investment. UPRM can also seek federal funding for specific lab construction through NIH (for biomedical labs) or NSF (they occasionally fund facilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions).

• High-Performance Computing and Digital Infrastructure: To compete for grants, UPRM needs robust computing resources (for data analysis, simulations, etc.) and reliable high-speed networking. The SDSU case showed that investing in HPC clusters and cyberinfrastructure yields immediate support for faculty projects. UPRM should pursue NSF’s cyberinfrastructure grants or Department of Energy grants to build a modern computing center on campus. A cluster capable of AI and big-data research might cost a few million dollars, which could be attainable via grants plus some institutional match. Additionally, ensuring campus-wide high-speed internet, backup power for labs (especially important given Puerto Rico’s grid issues), and data management systems will be crucial. Some of these needs could be addressed with funds from federal hurricane recovery programs (for example, Community Development Block Grants-Disaster Recovery could potentially fund resilient power and communications for critical facilities like university labs).

• Specialized Research Assets: UPRM has opportunities to develop unique facilities that give it a competitive edge. One example is the idea of a Hurricane Simulation or Resilient Infrastructure Testing facility – akin to FIU’s Wall of Wind (an NSF-funded hurricane simulator) that has put FIU at the forefront of wind engineering research. UPRM, located in a hurricane-prone region, could establish a research center for storm resilience, featuring equipment to test structures or power systems against extreme conditions. Federal agencies (NSF, FEMA, HUD) have shown interest in funding resiliency research post-Hurricane Maria. If UPRM can secure, say, $10M for specialized equipment and labs in this area, it could become a national hub for tropical storm research, drawing projects and partnerships (and hence funding) from around the world. Similarly, UPRM could enhance its marine research station to support more oceanographic research in the tropical Atlantic – potentially partnering with NOAA and Navy programs. While these are big-ticket items, they align with Puerto Rico’s geographical uniqueness and could attract one-time grants or philanthropic donations (for instance, companies in the construction sector might donate to a resilience research center knowing it will produce safer building practices for the island).

• Maintenance and Safety: It’s not as glamorous, but ensuring existing facilities are well-maintained and safe is foundational. The collapse of the Arecibo Observatory (managed by NSF) was a blow to Puerto Rico’s scientific infrastructure. UPRM and the government should audit current labs to ensure no similar deferred maintenance issues threaten operations. FOMB should be made aware that deferred maintenance can lead to catastrophic loss of assets more costly than the price of upkeep. Allocating a steady stream (even a small percentage of the budget) to maintain and incrementally upgrade research facilities can prevent larger capital expenses down the line. UPRM could use public-private partnerships for maintenance as well – for instance, contracting a private firm to upgrade an aging chemistry lab building in exchange for tax credits or naming rights.

5. Industry Partnerships and Technology Transfer Mechanisms

Developing strong industry relationships in Puerto Rico will both provide alternative funding sources for UPRM and fulfill the ultimate goal of research: economic and societal impact. Some approaches:

• Joint R&D Initiatives: UPRM should proactively reach out to the major industries in Puerto Rico – notably pharmaceuticals, medical devices, aerospace, clean energy, and agriculture – to form joint research initiatives. For example, Puerto Rico’s pharmaceutical cluster (which includes global companies like Pfizer, Amgen, etc.) has an interest in workforce development and innovation. UPRM could propose a Pharmaceutical Engineering Center where faculty and students work on process optimization, new drug delivery technologies, or bio-manufacturing challenges identified by the industry. Companies could sponsor this center collectively, contributing funds annually. In return, they get first access to research findings and a talent pipeline. A similar model could apply to agriculture (collaborations with agritech companies on tropical crop science) and renewable energy (with companies working on solar, battery storage, etc., using UPRM as a testbed for grid experiments). These partnerships can be facilitated by government incentives – for instance, the PR government might offer a tax break to companies that invest in R&D at local universities. This is a feasible policy action: a portion of existing R&D tax credits could be conditioned on collaboration with Puerto Rican institutions, channeling some corporate R&D spend to UPRM.

• Co-operative Education and Research: Many UPRM students intern or co-op with companies. This could be expanded into research co-ops where a graduate student’s thesis research is done in collaboration with an industry partner, with the partner sharing the cost of stipend and materials. Such arrangements often lead to innovation that the company can use (and possibly license), and provide funding for the student. UPRM’s strong emphasis on undergraduate STEM has cultivated relationships with employers; leveraging those relationships for research is the next step.

• Technology Transfer and Startups: UPRM should strengthen its technology transfer efforts to help faculty and students patent inventions and start companies. The Science Trust in Puerto Rico is focused on helping inventors get patents and creating a startup ecosystem. UPRM can coordinate with the Trust to ensure that campus innovations have a path to market. If UPRM develops a reputation for successful spin-off companies (even small ones), it will attract more entrepreneurial faculty and students, as well as venture capital interest. Some universities allocate a small internal “innovation fund” to provide seed money for promising prototypes arising from research – UPRM might dedicate, say, $200K a year (via the Science Trust or a donor gift) to help bridge university research to a stage where it can attract outside investment. Additionally, simplifying IP policies to be faculty-friendly will encourage disclosure of new technologies.

• Leveraging Alumni in Industry: UPRM has many alumni in engineering and tech fields globally. Creating an Industry Advisory Board for UPRM’s research enterprise could tap into that network. These advisors could provide mentorship, identify collaboration opportunities at their companies, and even pool funds for sponsored research. For instance, a group of alumni at a tech firm might collectively sponsor a specific research project at UPRM that aligns with their interest. The board can also advocate to the Puerto Rico government on UPRM’s behalf, reinforcing that investing in university research is crucial for industries to continue thriving on the island.

• Showcasing Success: As UPRM builds these partnerships and starts turning research into products (or policy solutions), it should publicize them. Just as UNLV touted that its R1 status would “attract new businesses that will boost economic growth” , UPRM and the PR government should highlight every instance where UPRM research helps create jobs or solve local problems. This narrative can create a virtuous cycle: demonstrating impact leads to more political and financial support, which leads to more research and impact, and so on.

Role of the Puerto Rico Government and FOMB in UPRM’s R1 Transition

The Puerto Rico government has a critical facilitative role to play in UPRM’s journey to R1, even under the financial oversight of the FOMB. While the government’s fiscal capacity is limited, it can implement policy changes, targeted funding, and advocacy to support research growth at UPRM. Here are key actions and considerations:

1. Prioritize UPRM (and UPR system) in Fiscal Plans: The FOMB oversees Puerto Rico’s fiscal plan and budgets under PROMESA. To date, UPR has seen significant budget cuts as part of austerity measures, which have directly impacted research – e.g., cutting into the institutional funds that support 25% of UPR’s R&D spending. The government should negotiate with FOMB to treat UPR (and by extension UPRM) as an essential service and an investment, not just an expense. There is precedent in PROMESA for protecting certain expenditures (for example, essential public services and pensions). Higher education and R&D should be argued to be an essential investment for economic recovery. The government could push for a provision in the fiscal plan that guarantees a baseline of funding for UPR that won’t drop below a certain level, or that at least any savings from efficiency measures are plowed back into university improvements rather than removed. The sobering analysis by independent experts is that continued cuts to UPR “will very likely reduce total R&D output in Puerto Rico, render the archipelago increasingly less competitive in R&D, and doom the possibility of success of any serious…economic development policy focused on fostering high added-value activities.” In other words, cutting university research is counterproductive to Puerto Rico’s long-term fiscal health. The government should use this data to persuade FOMB that modest investments in UPRM’s research now could yield much larger economic returns (through grants, jobs, and innovation) that benefit the island’s finances.

2. Earmark Funds and Matching Programs: Even if broad budget increases aren’t feasible, the government can channel specific funds to research. For instance, the legislature could pass a law dedicating a certain percentage of any budget surplus or unexpected revenue to a University Research Trust Fund. If Puerto Rico’s economy improves and tax collections exceed projections, a slice could automatically go into this fund, which UPRM can draw from for capital projects or matching grants. Additionally, funds already reserved for UPR (like the $102 million the FOMB has withheld pending cost-cutting measures) could be targeted for research enhancement once released. Instead of using all such funds purely for operations or debt service, the government could allocate a portion to strategic initiatives – e.g., $10M of that reserved money could establish an endowment where the interest each year (~$500K) supports research faculty and projects at UPRM. This requires convincing FOMB that such an endowment is a one-time use that won’t affect annual deficits and serves a development purpose.

The government can also pursue federal funds to direct to UPRM. Puerto Rico has received hurricane recovery and pandemic relief funds that are quite substantial. With creative planning, some of these could be used to bolster UPRM: for example, FEMA hazard mitigation grants could potentially fund the resilient infrastructure research center idea (since it relates to disaster mitigation), and American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds could support workforce development programs at UPRM for research technicians (since ARP allowed spending on education and job programs). Each opportunity to piggyback research funding into federal aid should be explored by the government’s federal affairs office.

3. Legislative and Policy Reforms to Remove Barriers: The Puerto Rico government can enact laws or regulations to remove bureaucratic obstacles that hinder UPRM’s research progress:

• Autonomy in Procurement and HR for Research: Research often requires rapid purchasing of equipment and hiring of specialized staff. Rigid central procurement rules or hiring freezes severely delay projects (faculty have reported losing key staff and facing slow purchasing, undermining research timelines). The legislature could grant UPR (or specifically UPRM as a pilot campus) flexibility to manage its own procurement for externally funded research projects, exempting those funds from certain commonwealth procurement rules. Likewise, hiring on grant funds could be streamlined – for example, allow UPRM to hire postdoctoral researchers or technicians on yearly contracts paid by grants, outside of headcount limits. Since these positions don’t burden the general fund (they’re supported by grant money), FOMB might allow an exception. A statutory carve-out for “research activities” could be crafted, ensuring compliance with federal grant rules but avoiding local red tape.

• Supporting Collaborative Agreements: The government can also facilitate MOUs between UPRM and other agencies. For instance, encouraging collaborations with PR’s Department of Economic Development and Commerce (DDEC) to integrate UPRM research into economic initiatives, or between UPRM and the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) for research on the power grid. Government-backed agreements can sometimes open up data and facilities for UPRM researchers (like allowing UPRM engineers to use PREPA data or sites for experiments), which can make grant proposals stronger. If any regulatory issues impede such collaboration (liability, intellectual property ownership when a public corporation is involved, etc.), the government should help resolve them.

• Tax and Innovation Policies: Enacting or refining R&D tax credits to require collaboration with local universities was mentioned earlier – e.g., only granting a tax credit to a pharma company’s R&D expenditures if a portion is spent via a PR-based institution. Another policy angle is to create innovation zones: the government could designate the area around UPRM as an “Innovation District” with tax incentives for startups and R&D firms that locate there and engage with the university. This mirrors initiatives in cities like Atlanta and Miami, and could draw businesses to Mayagüez, indirectly boosting UPRM’s R1 prospects through increased industry-funded research. Legislation enabling public-private partnerships for university research parks (with favorable lease terms or utilities) would support this.

4. Aligning Government Agencies’ Research Needs with UPRM: The Puerto Rico government is a significant consumer of research and analysis (for example, in infrastructure, health, education). Instead of outsourcing studies and consulting entirely to mainland firms, agencies could contract UPRM researchers to tackle some of these issues. For instance, the Department of Natural Resources could fund UPRM to study coral reef degradation, or the Department of Education could commission UPRM professors to research STEM education outcomes in PR schools. These contracts would count as research expenditures and often provide real-world data for academic publications. The government can make it a policy that whenever possible, local universities should be involved in research for public projects. FOMB’s role here would be to approve such contracts in budgets, but if framed as part of cost-effective governance (local universities may charge less than stateside consultants and also build local capacity), it can be justified. This keeps R&D dollars circulating within Puerto Rico’s economy.

5. Championing UPRM’s Cause Publicly: Finally, the Puerto Rico government – from the Governor to legislators – should vocally champion UPRM’s R1 ambitions and celebrate its research achievements. Public narrative matters. If leaders highlight each research grant UPRM wins, each breakthrough (e.g., UPRM developing a new flood prediction model for the island, or a new engineering patent), it builds a case in the public mind that supporting the university is supporting Puerto Rico’s advancement. This can indirectly pressure FOMB and other stakeholders to be more lenient or supportive regarding university funding. When Howard University (an HBCU) attained R1 in 2025, it was lauded as a historic achievement; similarly, Puerto Rico can take pride if UPRM becomes the first R1 in the territory. The government should frame this as part of restoring Puerto Rico’s pride and competitiveness. That political will can translate into action – for example, making R1 a goal in the official Economic Development Plan for Puerto Rico, so that all agencies coordinate towards it.

Potential Costs and Investment Summary

Achieving R1 will require substantial investment, but much of it can be incremental and leveraged with external funds. Summarizing potential costs over, say, a 5–7 year period for UPRM:

• Faculty and Staff: Hiring ~20–30 research faculty and necessary support staff could cost on the order of $3–5 million/year once fully hired (averaging salary/benefits ~$100k each, though some may be offset by retirements). Startup packages might be ~$10M spread over several years. However, each active researcher might bring in $200–500k/year in grants (UTSA’s faculty averaged over $400k each in research expenditures by 2021), which would gradually make these positions self-sustaining through overhead return and funded salaries for graduate students.

• Graduate Scholarships: Funding an additional ~50–100 Ph.D. students (to boost doctoral production to R1 levels) might require ~$1.5–3M per year. Again, many of these students can be funded on grants; the key is front-loading support until grant funding catches up.

• Infrastructure: A new research building or major renovation might be $30–50M (one-time). Lab equipment upgrades could be $5–10M spread across departments (could be staggered by priority). Computing infrastructure maybe $2M. These capital costs could be tackled via a combination of bonds, federal grants, and private gifts; they need not all come from the general fund. For example, SDSU’s planned research facility sought multiple funding sources.

• Operations and Maintenance: Ensuring maintenance, utility support (back-up generators for labs), and safety might increase operational costs by a few hundred thousand annually, but these could be built into project budgets or offset by energy savings if new buildings are efficient (as SDSU aimed for LEED certification).

In total, the additional annual operating investment needed might be on the order of $5–8M for UPRM (for personnel and programs), plus capital investments of perhaps $50–70M over a decade. While this is not trivial, it is modest compared to the economic benefits and compared to large government expenditures. For perspective, $8M is roughly 0.1% of Puerto Rico’s ~$7 billion general fund budget – a relatively small fraction for potentially transforming UPRM into a world-class research hub. Moreover, every dollar invested in university R&D tends to multiply: it brings federal dollars (UPRM can target doubling its federal research income, which was around $25M in 2019), it creates jobs (research assistants, lab technicians), and it can spawn new industries (tech startups, patents licensed to companies).

Investing in R&D delivers high returns on investment (ROI) by driving economic growth, job creation, and innovation. Studies consistently show that every $1 invested in university R&D generates $3 to $5 in economic output, through federal grants, industry partnerships, technology commercialization, and workforce development. R&D investments attract external funding, create high-paying jobs, and foster new industries, positioning regions as hubs for innovation. For Puerto Rico, strengthening UPRM’s research capacity could unlock millions in competitive grants, boost local entrepreneurship, and attract global companies seeking cutting-edge talent and technology. In the long run, R&D investment enhances productivity, reduces economic dependence on traditional sectors, and accelerates Puerto Rico’s transition to a knowledge-based economy, yielding sustainable economic benefits for decades to come.

Crucially, UPRM reaching R1 could have spillover effects that improve Puerto Rico’s fiscal outlook: more high-paying jobs to retain local talent, more innovation to drive productivity, and possibly attracting research tourism (e.g., conferences, visiting scholars spending money locally). These outcomes align with FOMB’s mandate to restore economic growth. Thus, the government should articulate to FOMB that supporting UPRM’s research is a strategy for exiting the financial crisis – it moves Puerto Rico from a cycle of austerity to one of investment and growth.

The Strategic Imperative of UPRM’s Transition to R1

Transitioning UPRM from an R2 to R1 institution is an ambitious but attainable goal—one that requires a comprehensive strategy and decisive action. The experiences of UT San Antonio, SDSU, NMSU, and other universities demonstrate that even under constraints of funding and geography, a focused commitment to research excellence can yield transformative results. UPRM can follow a similar trajectory by expanding external research funding, investing in faculty and students, growing its doctoral programs, upgrading infrastructure, and forging strong partnerships with industry and government. These elements reinforce one another: state-of-the-art facilities attract top faculty, who secure grants that fund students, whose research fuels further innovation and economic impact. To accelerate this virtuous cycle, the Puerto Rico government—working within FOMB oversight—must enact strategic policy adjustments and targeted investments to remove roadblocks and position UPRM as a research powerhouse. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of investment—if UPRM’s research capacity stagnates, Puerto Rico risks falling behind in innovation, missing economic opportunities, and continuing to lose its brightest minds to the mainland.

Conversely, elevating UPRM to R1 status will not only bring prestige but serve as a cornerstone of Puerto Rico’s economic resurgence. A thriving research institution generates new knowledge and technologies tailored to the island’s needs, trains the next generation of scientists and engineers, and attracts external resources and partnerships. The transition of UPRM to R1 has the potential to reshape Puerto Rico’s economic future, creating a dynamic, research-driven economy that fosters innovation, attracts investment, and generates high-quality jobs. By significantly increasing federal research funding, industry collaborations, and doctoral-level expertise, UPRM can diversify Puerto Rico’s economy, reducing its dependence on traditional industries and expanding high-value sectors such as biotechnology, aerospace, renewable energy, and resilient infrastructure.

An R1 institution serves as a catalyst for technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development, where scientific discoveries translate into patents, startups, and industry partnerships—strengthening local businesses and positioning Puerto Rico as a global hub for R&D. Moreover, an enhanced research infrastructure at UPRM will cultivate a pipeline of skilled professionals, reversing the long-standing brain drain by offering competitive opportunities for Puerto Rico’s talented graduates to build careers and contribute to the island’s economic growth.

If strategically supported by government policies, industry collaboration, and targeted investments, UPRM’s rise to R1 could mark a turning point for Puerto Rico’s economic transformation. This is not merely an academic milestone—it is a strategic imperative for building a resilient, knowledge-based economy. By learning from peer institutions and taking bold but feasible actions, Puerto Rico’s leadership can make the “Mayagüez Miracle” a reality: elevating UPRM into a world-class research university that drives innovation, creates jobs, and secures long-term prosperity for the island.

References

1. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, UPR-Mayagüez Profile (2025) – UPRM is classified as an R2 (High Research) institution as of 2025, reflecting its growing doctoral STEM programs.

2. UTSA Today (Dec 2021), “UTSA attains prestigious Carnegie R1 Classification” – Highlights UTSA’s rapid growth in research expenditures (106% increase from $68M to $140M in 5 years) and strategies used to achieve R1.

3. UTSA Today (Jan 2024), “UT System launches faculty hiring program” – Describes a $55M investment by UT System into four emerging research universities, enabling ~40 strategic faculty hires at UTSA over five years. This exemplifies state-level support to boost research via talent recruitment.

4. SDSU Strategic Plan Update (2025), “Becoming a Premier Public Research University: A New Kind of HSI” – Documents SDSU’s path to R1, including leveraging its HSI, border location, creating research centers (≥$1.5M funding each) and adding Ph.D. programs after legislative changes.

5. SDSU Strategic Plan Update, Goal 1 (R1 Status) Actions – Details specific actions like proposing 8–10 new doctoral programs (with independent doctorate authority granted via AB 656), planning a new LEED-certified research facility , and investing in cyberinfrastructure (creation of CTRO, new HPC cluster) .

6. SDSU Strategic Plan Update, Additional Accomplishments – Notes cluster hires and faculty support: e.g. an NIH-funded project enabled hiring 11 early-career faculty in Latinx health research, and a doctoral specialist was hired to support graduate programs. These contributed to SDSU’s R1 metrics.

7. NMSU News (Feb 2025), “NMSU again designated Carnegie R1 university” – Announces NMSU’s return to R1 status after nearly 20 years, with quotes from leadership emphasizing strategic prioritization of research for the benefit of New Mexico. Confirms NMSU’s FY2023 research expenditures > $126M and ~102 doctorates annually, exceeding R1 thresholds.

8. NMSU News (Jan 2025), “NMSU must craft its own Carnegie R1 culture” – An op-ed by NMSU’s Vice President for Research describing the importance of embedding research into the university culture and operations as part of achieving R1. Stresses that growing research funding, though essential, is only one facet of an R1 culture that also values teaching and service.

9. BestColleges News (Oct 2023), “One HBCU, Eight HSIs Achieve Top Research Status” – Reports that in the 2025 update, 42 institutions were newly elevated to R1, including multiple HSIs. Examples: Florida Atlantic University (R1 with $65.9M research, 105 doctorates) and Northern Arizona University ($71M, 86 doctorates). These show that previously teaching-focused or regional universities can reach R1 with ~$50–$130M in research spending.

10. FIU Accountability Plan (2022) – Highlights FIU’s rapid research growth, reaching $246M in total research expenditures and doubling research output since 2010. Notes FIU’s top rankings in research areas and emphasizes state support through the Florida SUS Strategic Plan.

11. FIU Strategic Plan (2023), Experience 2030 – States FIU surpassed $300M in research expenditures in FY2023 and is focusing on strategic areas like environmental resilience, health, and technology/innovation. Demonstrates what a mature R1 HSI looks like in terms of scale and focus.

12. News is My Business (2025), “UPR at risk of losing $5.4M in health research funding” – Discusses how federal funding cuts or caps (in this case, NIH funding) could affect UPR, which had $9.6M in admin expenses tied to health research and relies heavily on such funds. Highlights UPR’s vulnerability to external funding shifts.

13. Center for a New Economy (CNE) Report (Aug 2021), “UPR’s role in economic development in Puerto Rico: R&D” – Provides analysis of R&D expenditure trends in PR. Key data: PR’s total higher-ed R&D was $123M in 2019 (down from $162M in 2011); UPR accounts for 80% of academic R&D on the island. About 25% of UPR’s research spending comes from its own institutional funds ($25M in 2019), which is roughly half of FOMB’s own budget. Warns that proposed FOMB budget cuts to UPR will likely reduce overall R&D output in Puerto Rico. Also describes how budget cuts have led to uncompetitive salaries, loss of research staff, higher teaching loads, and administrative bottlenecks that “hinder recruitment of researchers”. This underscores the negative impact of austerity on research productivity.

14. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (Feb 2025), “Moratorium on UPR programs aimed to unlock funds from Fiscal Control Board” – Reveals that UPR’s president proposed pausing 64 academic programs (mostly low-enrollment) in hopes of meeting FOMB requirements to release $102M reserved for UPR. Illustrates the drastic measures considered to regain funding and the FOMB’s influence. Any such program cuts should be balanced with the need to maintain research capacity in key areas.

15. Puerto Rico Science, Technology & Research Trust (Wikipedia) – Describes the Trust as a private non-profit created in 2004 to promote innovation, tech transfer, and jobs in Puerto Rico. It influences public policy on science/tech and provides funding to tech startups. Its role as a conduit for research funding and commercialization can be leveraged to support UPRM’s efforts.

16. UNLV Press Release (Dec 2018), “UNLV Attains Highest Status as Research University” – Although about UNLV, it provides context that 18 other institutions (including mid-sized publics like University of Nevada-Reno, Utah State, etc.) joined R1 in 2018. Notes how UNLV increased research spending from $42M to $66M in just two years and grew doctoral degrees from 124 to 162 in four years, through a Top Tier strategic plan and broad campus efforts. This shows the pace at which change can happen with focus and state support.

17. University of Rhode Island News (2022), “URI achieves prestigious Carnegie R1 status” – (From search result) Example of a small-state public university reaching R1 recently, likely via strategic investments in oceanography and health sciences, relevant to UPRM as another land-grant in a limited-budget environment.

18. Chronicle of Higher Education / ACE Carnegie Update (2023) – Explains the updated 2025 Carnegie criteria: any university with ≥$50M research spending and ≥70 doctoral conferrals is R1. Points out that previously some high-performing R2s (like NMSU) weren’t recognized as R1. This provides a quantitative goal for UPRM to target (e.g., aim for $60–$70M+ in annual research and ~80+ doctorates to be safely in R1 range).