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.     

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.     

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.     

Promoting small business through public-sector technology transfer

It is generally concluded that small businesses are the most effective institutional mechanism for the execution of technological innovation in the United States. Federal legislation provides for special considerations to be rendered to small businesses when public-sector technology is to be transferred to the private sector. Nevertheless, the activities of many federal laboratories lag in the transfer of technology to small businesses relative to large businesses. This paper examines the reasons for the current low level of interaction between federal laboratories and small businesses including the constraints typically encountered in working with small businesses. Recommendations are made to enhance the lab/small-business relationship. Finally, a sample program at Sandia National Laboratory for assistance to small businesses is described.     

Federal laboratories & American industry: Fueling innovation

With a little-used gold mine of federal technical resources available to American industry, and adequate networking structure to expedite the transfer of valuable information is needed. The US government's laboratories have assisted some corporations, particularly those in defense-oriented industries, through collaborative research activities. To face the competition from abroad, a greater segment of American industry, of necessity, must tap the technical information and assistance available within the maze of federal laboratories to convert new and existing research into tangible, marketable products. NERAC has designed and tested an accessing model that matches the technological needs of American industry with federal experts through an existing network of federal-laboratory technology-transfer officers. The process is uncomplicated and direct. As a knowledgeable liaison, NERAC has developed a communication network to facilitate the transfer of often-unique material from the federal laboratories to American industry.     

Extension services and intermediaries: Brokering federal technologies to smaller firms

Extension services and other organizations that assist small and medium-size firms can play an important role in brokering technology from federal laboratories and other R&D sources. They can help the firms identify and define their technology needs and can help interpret and apply federal-laboratory technologies to meet those needs. These are some of the conclusions of a recent Federal Laboratory Consortium project, designed and managed by INNOVATION ASSOCIATES and overseen by the National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers. Major recommendations resulting from the project include: a re-examination by Congress of the federal technology-transfer structure to eliminate redundancies and fill gaps; funding extension services to facilitate hiring of dedicated technology-transfer staff; and providing additional incentives and creating informal mechanisms that encourage federal laboratories to work with small firms. The author also recommends that extension services view relationships with federal laboratories as long-term development rather than short-term “fix-its,” provide proactive and continuous follow-up of small firms working with federal laboratories, and act as an advocate on behalf of small firms. The following article discusses the project and its findings. Observations, issues, and recommendations are found at the end of the article.     

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.     

Clear cases,do they exist?

Conclusion What I sought to demonstrate was that the relations between (a) how a case fits into the system, (b) what the main structure of the justification is, and (c) whether discretionary authority is used, are not as simple as suggested in the literature.What we saw is that if the justification for a decision in a particular case is a practical syllogism with an established legal rule as its major premiss, there are many possibilities: (a) the case did or did not raise a conflict for the judge between his intuitions about reasonableness and his interpretation of the legal system; (b) the case had or had not a clear solution in conformity with the legal system; (c) the case was or was not decided according to what the system seemed to prescribe.Therefore, the main structure of a justification cannot inform us about questions as: Did the case fit into the system? Is discretionary authority used? The opposition between hard cases and clear cases is much too complex to be of any use to clarify such issues.     

Federal technology transfer: Teaching it

This paper recommends development of teaching materials and cases on technology transfer for undergraduate and graduate courses in business and engineering. Its focus is the process of transferring technology from the federal laboratories to business organizations.     

Sound and Fury: Pretextual Prosecution and Department of Justice Antiterrorism Efforts

Using Justice Department antiterrorism efforts as a case study, this article expands upon existing theories of pretextual prosecution by distinguishing a law enforcement system that employs a pretextual strategy from one that employs what I term technical or disingenuous prosecutions. Contrary to Justice Department claims, the data suggest that since September 2001, federal investigators continually have referred a large number of specious antiterrorism matters to federal prosecutors. The data further suggest that federal prosecutors are more likely to be engaging in technical or disingenuous prosecutions than pretextual prosecutions.     

Industry interactions with federal laboratories

This article is based on two surveys of US firms, all of them members of the Industrial Research Institute, on their interactions with university and federal laboratories. It covers mainly the federal part of the responses. Although questions remain to be answered (a followup survey is planned for mid-1991), the firms had a surprisingly high level of awareness of and interaction with the federal laboratories. Many of them plan to increase their external R&D funding. We believe the firms including such external resources in their strategic planning will achieve stronger competitive positions than those that do not. Director of the Graduate Program in Technology and Science Policy. Previously, he was principal scientist and group manager for Industrial Policy and Planning at the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado. He also served as policy analyst with the National Science Foundation's R&D Assessment Program and, subsequently, as acting leader of the Working Group on Innovation Processes and their Management. Roessner received degrees in electrical engineering from Brown University and Stanford University, and a master's degree and Ph.D. in Science, Technology and Public Policy at Case Western Reserve University. His research interests include the diffusion of technological innovations, national technology policy, government-industry relationships in technology development and use, the management of innovation in industry, and indicators of scientific and technological development.     

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.     

The Role of Technology in Small Firm Diversification

Sophisticated technologies are finding applications in an ever-growing number of products, from medical devices to children's toys. As high-technology applications proliferate, their use and development is no longer associated only with large companies, universities, and national laboratories. Many small companies compete on the basis of high technology products, processes and materials. While small companies have long been recognized as fertile ground for developing new technologies, little recognition has been given to the important role they play in transferring technologies between industries. This article therefore describes the central role that technology played in the diversification efforts of nine New England defense contractors. One of the study';s key findings is that successful firms relied upon their existing technical and management capabilities to obtain a sustainable competitive advantage in their new civilian markets. The article also describes a number of other factors that contributed to the success of their diversification efforts.     

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.     

An introduction to protecting and licensing technology

Research institutions such as federal laboratories spend billions of dollars annually to develop new technologies. Recently there has been an overwhelming trend to encourage the licensing of these technologies to private industry. Without proper protection, they will be neither marketable nor licensable, as they could fall within the public domain, for free and unrestrained use. Few options effectively protect new technologies; these options are referred to as intellectual property.This article introduces basic concepts of intellectual property, with a special emphasis on patents. It considers intellectual property management and its influence on government and business.     

Menu of best practices in technology transfer (Part 2)

This menu accompanies the paper on the previous pages—“Doing Technology Transfer in Federal Laboratories (Part 1)”—and compiles best practices in technology transfer as defined by the institutions that use them. It is based on interviews with technology-transfer professionals in federal laboratories and universities. It highlights best practices in organizing the technology-transfer function, involving the science and technology staffs, capturing intellectual property, evaluating and patenting intellectual property, marketing technologies, preparing technologies for commercialization, transferring technology locally, using technology-transfer intermediaries, and using technology-search programs. The menu ends with a collection of conventional wisdom about technology transfer.     

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.     

Empty Promises? The Demise of Self-Bonding for Coal Mining Reclamation

Over the past few years, a number of major coal companies have undergone bankruptcy. The financial assurance these coal companies provided for reclamation of mines has become an important issue as federal and state agencies have sought to avoid footing the bill for reclamation of mining sites. In particular, the practice of self-bonding, as opposed to third-party bonding, has come under scrutiny. Recent bankruptcies of coal companies have exposed the risk that companies that go bankrupt, or do not come out of bankruptcy, will not be able to provide funds or assets in the amount that the company self-bonded. In other words, self-bonds amount to empty promises, particularly when the coal industry is distressed. Accordingly, federal agencies have discouraged self-bonding. Some states have abandoned the practice. Environmental groups have called for a universal prohibition on self-bonding. In recent bankruptcy proceedings, coal companies bowed to pressure to replace self-bonds with other collateral. But it is not clear that self-bonding is gone for good—or whether it should be.     

The states "race" with the federal government for stem cell research

This article presents an innovative study of the effect of individual states and private institutes in pushing forward stem cell research despite a federal ban on creating new stem cell lines. The author analyzes the impact of state legislation, proposing that states are reacting to federal policy by serving as laboratories for what is traditionally federally funded biomedical research.     

Optimizing federal technology transfer to promote commercialization

Federal technology transfer programs have two primary purposes: (1) to transfer technology (including knowledge, know-how, and ideas, as well as hardware) to companies to strengthen the companies’ commercialization of products and (2) to transfer technology to a federal agency from another federal agency or the private sector so the agency can execute its congressionally designated mission more efficiently and at reduced cost to the taxpayer. In the selection of technology transfer projects for funding, agencies often require that both purposes be satisfied. This study emphasizes the principles of technology transfer to strengthen companies’ commercialization practices.