Technology transfer in the navy: The historical background

This report reviews technology transfer in light of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. Following a brief introduction, a section on “Definitions” explains the several meanings that the phrase “technology transfer” now carries in policy discussions. The next section, on “Passive Technology Transfer”, reviews traditional Department of Defense scientific and technical information programs that relate to technology transfer. A section on “Military Industrial Transfer” examines technology transfer from the Defense Department to private industry, expecially to defense contractors. A section on “The Stevenson-Wydler Act and Active Technology Transfer” describes the principal provisions of the new act and why Congress passed it. The next two sections, on “NASA’s Technology Transfer Program” and “The Federal Laboratory Consortium” outline the two existing Government programs Congress relied upon in developing ideas for the new law. A section on “Implementation of the Stevenson-Wydler Act”, discusses several important issues that must be considered by Navy laboratory management as the new law is put into effect in the Navy. Finally, a brief conclusion emphasizes the major point of the report: That Congress, in passing the Stevenson-Wydler Act, did not fully consider what relationship the new technology transfer programs it was requiring in the Executive Branch should bear to existing programs with similar purposes. If the public interest is to be served, the report argues, the Navy must consciously and carefully determine the proper nature of this relationship.     

Excuses,Excuses: Self-Handicapping in an Australian Adolescent Sample

The purpose of the present study was to examine gender differences in the self-handicapping tendencies of a sample of 337 Australian school attending adolescents, who were aged between 15 and 19 years. Self-handicapping, as measured by the shortened Self-Handicapping Scale, was examined in relation to self-esteem, performance attributions, coping strategies, and the potential behavioral self-handicaps of reduced study hours and inefficient study habits. Girls scored significantly higher on the Self-Handicapping Scale and endorsed using emotional and illness related excuses significantly more often than boys. High self-handicapping scores independently predicted lower study hours for boys, and were associated with less efficient study for girls. Coping and attributional predictors of self-handicapping were found to be rumination, luck attribution, and poor active coping strategies for boys, and ability attributions, behavioral disengagement, instrumental support, and poor active coping strategies for girls.