Message-ID: <mailto:950629113452_104776748@aol.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:34:53 -0400 From: mailto:CTrossman@AOL.COM Subject: Congressional Hearing on Federal Technology Transfer To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Congress Considers Future of Federal Technology Transfer Programs.
On Tuesday, June 27, in Washington, D.C., two subcommittees of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives held a joint hearing to discuss the performance and future of technology transfer efforts of the U.S. Department of Energy's national laboratories. The hearing was timely in light of the current congressional debate to reduce or possibly even eliminate federal funding for the national laboratories' technology transfer programs. The hearing was headed up by Reps. Constance Morella (R-Maryland), chair of the Subcommittee on Technology, and Steven Schiff (R-New Mexico), chair of the Subcommittee on Basic Research.
Although many members of Congress argue that federal technology transfer programs have proven to be highly beneficial to the American economy over the years, and have yielded a significant return on previous government investments in research and development programs, funding for such programs in the fiscal year 1996 federal budget is under fierce attack. Some members of Congress feel that technology transfer amounts to little more than "corporate welfare" and provides the government with inappropriate opportunities to pick economic winners and losers.
Reps. Morella, Schiff, and several other members of Congress present voiced strong support for federal technology transfer programs. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) proved to be a popular program, touted by many members of Congress as a successful example of mutually beneficial government-business partnerships at work.
It was repeatedly stated, however, that the national laboratories must continue to improve the "user friendliness" of their technology transfer outreach programs. Throughout the hearing it was suggested by both members of Congress and witnesses that the national labs should increase the amount of licensing and royalty agreements with private sector firms in order to bring in more revenue and recoup as much as possible the government's original R&D investments. Indeed, during the hearing one witness noted a study indicating that U.S. universities receive a great deal of funding from royalties and licensing agreements for technologies developed at universities.
Rep. Morella, whose congressional district is home to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, noted that she and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), whose state is home to the National Technology Transfer Center, plan to introduce legislation early in July which would streamline and update many of the federal technology transfer programs in order to make them more responsive to potential private sector users.
Rep. Schiff, whose district is home to Sandia National Laboratory, also voiced strong support for federal technology transfer efforts. He noted that America's international trading partners utilize all means at their disposal to increase their economic competitiveness, and he advocated that technology transfer is one of America's greatest potential economic assets. Rep. Schiff stated that technology transfer should not be seen by the private sector as simply a gift from the government, but rather private firms receiving technological benefits from national labs must provide something in return.
Reps. Bill Baker (R-California), whose district is home to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Zach Wamp (R-Tennessee), whose district is home to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tennessee) echoed the comments of Rep. Schiff. Rep. Baker in particular stated that he would like to see greater a availability for technology transfer of classified military technologies which were protected as national security concerns during the Cold War.
Only one congressman, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), was openly opposed to further funding of technology transfer programs and for national laboratories in general. Rep. Tiahrt has a legislative proposal to establish a "national laboratory closure commission," conceived of along the lines of the national military base closure commission. Throughout the hearing, however, other members of Congress from both political parties derided Rep. Tiahrt's proposal so roundly that by the end of the hearing he made conciliatory comments and indicated an apparent willingness to rethink his proposal. He invited representatives of the national labs to meet with him to have an exchange of ideas.
A total of twelve witnesses, divided into three panels, testified at the hearing. The first panel consisted of Tina McKinley of the Federal Laboratory Consortium; Joe Allen of the National Technology Transfer Center; John Preston of the Association of University Technology Managers; and Robert Templin, Jr. of the Virginia Center for Innovative Technology.
The second panel consisted of Richard Marczewski of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; C. Paul Robinson of Sandia National Laboratory; William Martin of Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Peter Lyons of Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Ronald W. Cochran of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The third panel consisted of representatives of three private companies that had engaged in technology transfer agreements with federal laboratories. They were Thomas F. Fortin of Rio Grande Medical Technologies, Inc., Albuquerque, NM; William Elkins of Life Enhancement Technologies, LLC, Mountain View, CA; and Michael Ury, Fusion Lighting, Inc., Rockville, MD.
Many of the witnesses stated that now is an excellent time for individuals with an entrepreneurial spirit to become involved in the technology transfer process. It was stated that the national labs are working very hard to publicize and make available technologies with great potential commercial applications. One witness acknowledged that there have been disconnects between what the national labs had to offer and what potential licensees demanded, but he said the labs are working to bridge the gap and provide technologies in forms which may have wider commercial appeal. Indeed, it was noted that the best results are achieved when technology transfer efforts are market-driven, rather than research-driven.
Additionally, witnesses stated that the most successful technology transfer efforts have been the ones with the least regulatory limitations. Drawing a comparison between the United States and Japan, one witness stated one reason that the U.S. is more creative and innovative than Japan is the much higher degree of regulatory interference by the Japanese government. The U.S. can be even more innovative, it was argued, if private firms are allowed to utilize government-developed technologies with fewer regulatory roadblocks.
One witness advocated that effective technology transfer requires active, not passive, participation by the national labs. The labs must strive to engage industry more early on in the technology transfer process, in order to better provide for the true commercial needs of the private sector. The witness noted that there continues to exist a gap in marketing efforts by the technology transfer offices at the national labs. The labs must engage in more effective and targeted marketing efforts in order to attract potential private sector users to the technologies available, he stated. Other witnesses said there is a critical need for individuals with liaison skills who can help make deals between the national labs and private sector firms.
One of the most widely utilized assets of the national labs is the expertise of their scientists. Several lab officials noted that private sector scientists, shop floor managers, and technicians contact national lab scientists regularly to ask questions and receive expert advice on the use of complex machinery. Sandia National Lab, in fact, has a "machine tool hotline" which is widely utilized by the private sector. The labs are happy to cooperate, and their advice and assistance provides a cost-effective method for keeping private sector manufacturers on-line and productive.
It was noted that a technological concept developed by the national labs which has great potential for commercial success is the extremely high reliability built into nuclear warheads. If techniques to achieve such high reliability can be exploited for commercial purposes in the U.S., American-made products will have no equal throughout the world.
The issue of exclusive user rights was discussed. Officials of the national labs argued that use of government-developed technologies should be the exclusive right of only one private entity only if that firm had a large part in developing the technology from relatively early stages. Otherwise, government-developed technologies paid for by the American public ought to be available to any firm able to obtain the technology and pay licensing fees.
Witnesses representing private firms which have engaged in partnerships with national labs were by and large pleased with the help they received. They said that the labs provided valuable and cost-effective assistance when none was available on the open market. The labs were responsive to the companies' needs, and the start up and turn-around times for the work occurred in a reasonable time frame.
Following the hearing, a reception took place to encourage technology transfer networking opportunities for all who were interested. The five national labs represented at the hearing, Oak Ridge, Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, had booths set up to display and explain the technologies and technology transfer assistance programs available at their respective sites.
If you would like further information regarding this hearing, or if you would like to keep abreast of continuing actions in Congress and federal agencies which may affect technology transfer, please contact Chet Trossman at mailto:ctrossman@aol.com.