Social and economic impact of the commercialization of the Argus II artificial retina in the United States

Each year, the United States invests about $45 billion in research conducted by federal researchers within federal laboratories. These efforts generate extensive social benefits when results are transferred to the private sector. It is important that we effectively quantify the economic and societal impact of federal technology transfer activities to inform taxpayers and policymakers about the value of public investments in this form of research. The Argus II device, an artificial retina commercialized in the United States by Second Sight in 2013, provides a rich example of how private sector innovation can be enhanced by research collaborations with federal labs and academia. Over the 25-year journey from idea to product, Second Sight carried out research and development collaborations with six Department of Energy national laboratories and seven universities. The case of Argus II also offers valuable insight into (1) how private industry, academia, and government can work together to bring socially beneficial innovations to fruition and (2) the tradeoffs inherent in these public–private collaborations. In this paper, we use a Markov model to estimate the realized and potential future social benefits associated with Argus II. We provide an interactive tool that can be used to replicate our findings and modify assumptions using updated patient information as it becomes available. We also provide insight into the aspects of federal involvement surrounding the development of Argus II that contributed to its successful commercialization and discuss other spillover benefits from these public–private collaborations.     

Lessons from history: Origins of the federal laboratory consortium for technology transfer

Editor’s Note: The Federal Laboratory Consortium today consists of over 600 member research laboratories and centers from 16 federal departments and agencies. The FLC brings these laboratories together with potential users of government-developed technologies in the private sector and state and local governments. The FLC also develops and tests transfer mechanisms, addresses barriers to the transfer process, provides training, highlights grass-roots transfer efforts and focuses on national initiatives where technology transfer has a role. The author played a pivotal role in establishing the Consortium and managing the network during its early years.     

Selling the technology-transfer function

Throughout the federal system, agency technical directors, laboratory managers, and laboratory scientists are faced with a combination of increasing opportunities and external interests in facilitating the transfer of federal technology to civil use. But this process is unlikely to be significantly strengthened or provided with the needed continuity of effort without a more organized and conscious effort to sell the technology-transfer function as one that is important to the US economy. This effort should no be limited to convincing industrial leaders and their laboratories. It needs to involve a more diverse leadership, including the media, professional and trade associations, and public interest groups. It also must be directed internally within federal agencies, to the laboratory management therein, and even to the bench-scientist level. Oftentimes the increased technologytransfer activity that one sees in federal agencies and laboratories belies the fact that there remains a good deal of confusion, misinformation, and lack of interest on the part of laboratory management, intermediate managers, and scientists concerning the value and importance of technology transfer to both the American economy and to the laboratories.     

Company interactions with federal laboratories: What they do and why they do it

Focusing on responses from 229 companies that have worked with federal laboratories, the study examines companies' objectives and initial motivations for technical interaction between companies and federal laboratories. Companies come to the federal laboratories for many reasons: some try to enhance their training and human capital, others to build precompetitive knowledge not likely to show a quick return, and still others to avail themselves of unique lab facilities or seek technical assistance. One implication of these findings is that the traditional view of technology transfer may distort the nature of commercially relevant technical interactions, particularly in an era characterized by rampant “metricmania.” Any assessment of company-laboratory interactions failing to take into account the multiple objectives of many different technical interactions is likely to hinder as much as it helps.     

The money blind: how to stop industry bias in biomedical science, without violating the First Amendment

The pharmaceutical and medical device industries use billions of dollars to support the biomedical science that physicians, regulators, and patients use to make healthcare decisions--the decisions that drive an increasingly large portion of the American economy. Compelling evidence suggests that this industry money buys favorable results, biasing the outcomes of scientific research. Current efforts to manage the problem, including disclosure mandates and peer reviews, are ineffective. A blinding mechanism, operating through an intermediary such as the National Institutes of Health, could instead be developed to allow industry support of science without allowing undue influence. If the editors of biomedical journals fail to mandate that industry funders utilize such a solution, the federal government has several regulatory levers available, including conditioning federal funding and direct regulation, both of which could be done without violating the First Amendment.     

Models for commercialization of technology from universities and research laboratories

One of the most admired aspects of U.S. technology has been the ability to assimilate and commercialize new science and technology. In light of the rising international competition, there has been new emphasis placed on the commercialization of U.S. science and technology developed in the federal laboratories. While research and development remains the focus of these laboratories, passage of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act of 1980 and the Technology Transfer Act of 1986 has resulted in a means to further the exploitation of discoveries, patents, and copyrights developed within the laboratories. The transfer of technology to industrial partners and users is a complex task for a federal laboratory. Since the interaction with industry, as well as market knowledge and assessment of the needs of business users are beyond the charter of a federal laboratory, new organizational mechanisms are required in order to obtain full commercial value from the laboratories' efforts. A study was instituted to examine selected organizational and policy arrangements for achieving the optimum commercial value from the science and technology research at the research and development laboratories sponsored and funded by the U.S. government.     

Federal laboratories: Economic development and intellectual property constraints

The United States is increasingly looking at ways to link public-sector investments in science and technology with national economic-development goals. The federal laboratories are a reflection of this trend and much has been done to make them a more attractive source for innovative ideas in the private sector. One significant change that has resulted in making the laboratories more interactive with US industry has been the easing of government patent policy for both government-and contractor-operated national laboratories. However, there still are intellectual-property constraints, especially in the areas of technical data and software, that need immediate attention if the full intent of technology-transfer legislation is to be met. Previously he was a science policy analyst in the US General Accounting Office's Resource, Community and Economic Development Division.     

A Practical View of Strategies for Improving Federal Technology Transfer

While great strides have been made in increasing the awareness of the significance of technology transfer among policymakers and regulators, much still remains to be done. Budgetary problems will not be short-term, and it is likely that the next steps in improving technology transfer must be taken through existing channels. This paper examines strategies for improving technology transfer which might be taken within the federal laboratories themselves, as well as strategies to be followed by government policymakers and private firms. Also examined are alternative measures of technology transfer activity.     

Basic research and the success of federal lab-industry partnerships

This paper examines the role that basic research plays in the strategies pursued by industry in their interactions with federal labs. It draws on questionnaire-based data of 229 federal laboratory-industry joint R&D projects with 219 companies and 27 laboratories. The study documents the relative importance of basic research in the success of the interactions by comparing the incidence of basic research on several indicators of success. The study shows that, even though projects involving basic research tend to have higher costs, they also have a high percentage of product outputs in the short term. Typical high payoff strategies for partnership were those in which the company performed several technical roles and the federal laboratory was more narrowly focused. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation, Research on Science and Technology Program, Contract No. 9220125. The views expressed here are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation or any other institution.     

Doing technology transfer in federal laboratories (Part 1)

According to data from the Congressional General Accounting Office and the Association of University Technology Managers, the federal laboratories seriously lag some universities in rates of technology transfer. This paper, based on interviews with technology-transfer professionals in federal laboratories and universities, discusses the phenomenon of technology transfer, highlighting subjects such as technology push and market pull, cooperative R&D, technology licensing, start-up companies, information-dissemination and technology-search programs, technology transfer and local development, models of technology-transfer programs, limits to federal technology transfer, and measurement of technology transfer. It concludes that the explanation for the difference in technology-transfer rates between federal laboratories and universities is due primarily to the way technology-transfer opportunities are marketed in the two sectors.     

Information flow from Japan to U.S. researchers in applied and basic energy research fields

A recent study conducted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) evaluated technical information transfer from Japan to the United States. This evaluation was part of a larger assessment of international monitoring of energy technology development conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy. For this study, U.S. researchers in each of ten selected technical fields were identified and interviewed to obtain their perceptions of information transfer from Japan. Results from these interviews indicated that, although there are major differences among the technical fields, U.S. researchers generally consider information transfer from Japan to the U.S. to be inadequate. Researchers particularly noted the difficulties they have attending conferences in Japan or visiting Japanese research facilities. In contrast, Japanese researchers attend all major conferences and frequently visit laboratories in the U.S. Researchers recommended several steps to improve technology transfer from Japan, including improving the screening and translation of technical material published in Japan, promoting binational seminars and workshops, and encouraging laboratory visits and exchanges of research personnel.     

Research needs of industry

This paper discusses the results of a study on the broad research and technology needs of industry. The study identifies the current sources of information, preferred sources, general areas of needs, expected impact of technology, some methods by which information on technology can be transferred, and the language style of the communications. The influence of firm size, and type of industry is also discussed. The study provides a basis for improving the transfer of information from the laboratory and research centers to executives engaged in the manufacturing and processing of materials and products. Included in the study are a variety of transfer agents including laboratories, universities, equipment suppliers, government, and others.     

Information transfer between an academic research center and its member firms

Many American universities have recently established research centers that interact with industrial firms. Such centers have been supported by the federal government whose objective is to enhance technological innovation. For this study, interviews were conducted with liaison persons from the member firms to determine how the firms acquire and use information obtained from the center and why they maintain a relationship with the center. The findings confirm that the center is a useful source of information for the member firms. It clarifies the need for establishing strategies that facilitate the transfer of information without compromising either the center or its members.     

Sea Grant — The MIT Sea Grant Marine Industry collegium: A partnership of industry,government and academia

The Collegium has fostered interaction and technology transfer between MIT and the Marine Industry for five years, resulting in early utilization of the fruits of marine research at MIT and valuable guidance for MIT Sea Grant in addressing needs of industry. For maximum technology transfer to take place effectively in an academic/industry program, a number of conditions have to be met. This paper discusses three of the most important conditions. First, industry people must be aware of the interests and research capabilities of the faculty and of the resources available to the university. Second, successful technology transfer is a person to person interaction between people of common interest and roughly equivalent technical background. Third, and very important, technology transfer is communication from the recipient, or user, to the source of technology. Along with these three conditions is the need for early involvement of industry and government user in the research activity. The Collegium is a unique arrangement to accomplish these conditions. This paper describes the program at MIT.     

University–industry collaboration: using meta-rules to overcome barriers to knowledge transfer

University–industry knowledge transfer is an important source wealth of creation for all partners; however, the practical management of this activity within universities is often hampered by procedural rigidity either through the absence of decision-making protocols to reconcile conflicting priorities or through the inconsistent implementation of existing policies. This is problematic, since it can impede operational effectiveness, prevent inter-organisational knowledge-creation and hamper organisational learning. This paper addresses this issue by adopting a cross-discipline approach and presenting meta-rules as a solution to aid organisational decision making. It is proposed that meta-rules can help resolve tensions arising from conflicting priorities between academics, knowledge transfer offices and industry and help facilitate strategic alignment of processes and policies within and between organisations. This research contributes to the growing debate on the strategic challenges of managing knowledge transfer and presents meta-rules as a practical solution to facilitate strategic alignment of internal and external stakeholder tensions. Meta-rules has previously only been applied in a computer intelligence context however, this research proves the efficacy of meta rules in a university–industry knowledge transfer context. This research also has practical implications for knowledge transfer office managers who can use meta-rules to help overcome resource limitations, conflicting priorities and goals of diverse internal and external stakeholders.

     

Technology transfer in the petroleum industry

The energy industry, especially the petroleum, is critically important to today's society. This industry has historically been accused of being a “good old boy” network that is extremely reluctant and slow to accept technology and change. A closer analysis of the industry shows that it is highly fragmented consisting mostly of firms who operate in only a limited number of functional areas. The analysis also shows that there are many critical current and future problems which could be addressed with technology from any diverse disciplines and industries. Case analyses of existing technology flow through to successful utilization by the petroleum industry describes the technology transfer process and the role played by the different firms inside and outside the industry.     

Patterns of industry interaction with federal laboratories

This article describes the results of a study of interactions between corporate members of the Industrial Research Institute and federal laboratories. The data were derived from a survey conducted in 1992, building on a similar survey conducted in 1988. The survey addressed questions about the barriers to more frequent and effective interaction, the types of interactions that pay off most for the firm, and the form that payoffs take. Since 1988, federal labs have become a more visible source of external technology and information for large, research-intensive companies, but they still lag considerably behind universities and other companies. The greatest increases in interaction with federal labs have occurred in technology licensing, contract research, and cooperative research, with cooperative research regarded as having the greatest future promise for companies. Perhaps the most significant result of the survey was that companies tend to interact with federal laboratories for reasons that have far more to do with long-term, less tangible payoffs than with expectations of business opportunities or technology commercialization. Both federal policy makers and lab managers should consider incentives to promote types of interactions that have high payoff, especially cooperative research, and initiate the kinds of informal contacts that must occur before downstream commitments are made: professional interactions at the person-to-person level, workshops, and seminars. Additionally, companies and federal labs should clearly acknowledge the high value offered by some of the less tangible payoffs from interaction, and work to develop evidence of these kinds of payoffs that will have as much credibility as the more tangible forms, such as expected profits from new business opportunities.     

New findings on the transfer of computing applications among cities

This paper presents a study of the concepts of transferring computer technology among city governments. A sample of cities from a domestic population and an international population are used as the basis of the research. Contrary to expectation, and for both populations, the survey indicated the level of computer applications transfer among cities was found to be low compared to the amount of total application development. It was determined that an important source of transfer information was from “centers” such as the federal government, vendors, and transfer agencies, rather than city to city. International cities that were studied seem to experience a propensity toward centralized control at the national level. These controls often include the transfer of technical information. Further, the types of transfer may vary widely between the domestic vs the international cities. That is, domestic city transfers tend to be operations-oriented, while transfers from national centers tend to be management oriented. In general the study supported prior conclusions concerning the difficulties of transfer. The problem of mismatch and difficulties in modification make transfers very risky. Even so, there are many persons willing to take the risks in order to try to achieve lower costs and to realize the opportunity to obtain sophisticated applications.     

Weapon choice and American political violence

Research Summary
The criminal use of firearms presents a unique challenge to policymakers and is the subject of scientific study in fields such as criminology, public health, sociology, and law. Previous research has described firearm use by terrorists in the United States as uniformly common; however, little systematic attention has been focused on this phenomenon. Although valuable, progress in this area has been hampered by the absence of reliable quantitative information. Using data from the American Terrorism Study and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, we examine the firearm-offending characteristics of 923 federal felons and 336 terrorists.
Policy Implications
Findings indicate that many systematic differences exist between terrorists and other types of federal felons and that terrorists are more likely than other felons to be convicted of firearm-related crimes. We recommend that official efforts to monitor weapons sales—such as the Brady Act—continue to include those named on the terrorist watch list and that those named on the list be subject to additional law-enforcement scrutiny when attempting to purchase firearms. These efforts should be coordinated by federal law-enforcement agencies to facilitate the effective use of existing antiterrorism mechanisms in both blocking purchases and garnering intelligence on terrorists attempting to obtain firearms.