Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285791549
label
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285791549
contentType
document
title
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62034-006
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285791549
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b09ee5c211080cd9
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
OA/ID Number:
62034
Folder ID Number:
62034-006
Folder Title:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION/CABINET MEMBER
ORIGINATOR: 02
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121797
STATUS I
DIRECTORATE STATUS
FROM:
MOSBACHER, Robert A.: THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
TO:
DR. D.A. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 06/17/91
SUBJECT: RE: OVERSEAS COMMERCE DEPARTMENT TECHNOLOGY
ATTACHES. ACCEPTANCE OF OSTP'S OFFER TO PREPARE A
COMPREHENSIVE "THINK PIECE" OUTLINING
PROCEED.
DIRECTORATE
ASSIGNED: INDUSTRIAL
ACTION
REQUIRED: FOR DAB SIGNATURE
ACTION:
STAFF ASSIGNED: STAFF 20cu Doys
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
07/25/91
STAFF DUE DATE
DATE COMPLETED:
DATE COMPLETED/DEPT:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Ken Yale
INTERNATIONAL/POLICY
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
REMARKS:
EXT:
CLOSED
OSTP RECEIVED: 07/19/91
FILE: P-CABINET MEMBER*TECHNOLOGY Industrial
DEPT RECEIVED:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 26, 1991
Dear Bob,
Thank you for responding so positively to my letter on developing a system of technology
attaches. As promised, I have enclosed the short think piece that my staff has prepared.
I hope you find it useful in developing your thoughts on the question.
Tom Ratchford and Bill Phillips, two of my Associate Directors, are available to meet
with Mike Farren and Bob White, and any others at Commerce you deem appropriate,
to discuss the matter in greater detail. My staff will be contacting yours shortly to set
up a mutually convenient meeting.
I look forward to hearing what our colleagues develop from this proposal.
Sincerely,
AIR
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
The Honorable Robert Mosbacher
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Report
Establishing a US Technology Attache System (6 pp.)
(b)(1)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Date Closed:
3/10/2010
OA/ID Number:
62034-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121739
ORIGINATOR: 02
STATUS C
DIRECTORATE STATUS
FROM:
GOOD, Mary L.: ALLIED SIGNAL
TO:
DR. D.A. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 06/10/91
SUBJECT: LETTER TO DR. JAMES C. McGRODDY REGARDING HOW TO
BETTER COORDINATE THEIR WORK ON THE JHLAP GROUP, IN
PARTICULAR, CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. BROMLEY.
DIRECTORATE
STAFF
ASSIGNED:
ASSIGNED:
ACTION
STAFF
REQUIRED:
ACTION:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
STAFF DUE DATE
DATE COMPLETED:
DATE COMPLETED/DEPT:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
INDUSTRIAL
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
EXT:
REMARKS:
OSTP RECEIVED: 06/14/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL
DEPT RECEIVED:
9121739
llied
Signal
Allied-Signal Inc.
RECEIVED
P.O. Box 1021R
Morristown, NJ 07962-1021
Telephone (201) 455-4729
Mary L Good
Sr. Vice President
91 JUN 14 A10: 25
Fax: (201) 455-2956
Technology
OFFICE OF THE
June 10, 1991
DIRECTOR
Dr. James C. McGroddy
IBM Corporation
Research Division
T.J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, NY10598
Dear Jim:
I very much appreciated your FAX of June 3 setting out how we might
better coordinate our work on the JHLAP group. I wholeheartedly agree with your
approach to the problem and I appreciate your taking the time and effort to put your
thoughts on paper. I particularly believe that it is important for the Panel to have
some conversations with Allan Bromley so we have a better idea of what our
objectives are in this whole enterprise.
I appreciated and enjoyed your participation in the last meeting in Hakone. I
look forward to the opportunity of visiting with you soon.
Sincerely,
Many Mary L. Good
MLG/jr
cc:
Mr. J. P. McTague
Dr. Orville Bentley
Dr. Allan Bromley
Prof. James Gibbons
Dr. John Hulm
Mr. Richard Messinger
Dr. Howard Simmons
Dr. Robert White
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121686
ORIGINATOR: 02
STATUS C
DIRECTORATE STATUS
FROM:
WEINERT, Donald G.: NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
TO:
DR. D.A. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/23/91
SUBJECT: LETTER TO DR. PHILLIPS EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR
HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE RECENT IAG MEETING.
DIRECTORATE
STAFF
ASSIGNED:
ASSIGNED:
ACTION
STAFF
REQUIRED:
ACTION:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
STAFF DUE DATE
DATE COMPLETED:
DATE COMPLETED/DEPT:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
INDUSTRIAL
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
EXT:
REMARKS:
OSTP RECEIVED: 06/10/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL
DEPT RECEIVED:
9121686
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
HN Bromby
RECEIVED
91 JUN 10 44
May 23, 1991
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
Mr. William D. Phillips
Associate Director for Industrial
Technology
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
Executive Office of the President
Old Executive Building #432
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Bill:
On behalf of NSPE President Neil Norman and all of the
members of the National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE) Industry Advisory Group (IAG), I want to express
appreciation for your participation in the recent IAG meeting
at the Four Seasons Resort and Hotel. The information you
presented was comprehensive in scope and detailed in content.
You were also very candid and responsive in answering
questions and in the lengthy discussions which followed your
presentation. It was clear from the response of the IAG
members that your presentation stimulated their interest and
was greatly appreciated by all.
As you recall, during your presentation your discussed the
OSTP Report on Critical Technologies. You indicated OSTP was
seeking input and that we could get a copy of the report. If
that is possible, we would very much appreciate your sending
us a copy. Also, you indicated it would be possible to get
copies of all of the Vu graph slides you had with you. I
will ask my Administrative Assistant, Polly Collins, to
follow up with your office.
Looking to the future, there was discussion of the
possibility of the Industry Advisory Group acting as a
sounding board for the OSTP sponsored Critical Technologies
Institute and as a source for identification of problems and
opportunities related to critical technologies. We would
like to follow up on that idea with you and develop a means
whereby the IAG can be useful to OSTP in that role. Please
let me know if you wish to discuss it further.
1420 KING STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2715
703/684-2800
FAX 703/836-4875
Mr. William D. Phillips
May 23, 1991
Page Two
Again, thanks for your excellent contribution to the Industry
Advisory Group meeting.
& Best regards,
Donald G. Weinert, P.E.
Executive Director
DGW:gl
CC: Dr. Bromley
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121458
FROM:
MACLACHLAN, Alexander: DU PONT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/14/91
SUBJECT: A THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AT THE LAVOISIER MEDAL
CEREMONY, AND A CONTINUING REQUEST TO VISIT THEIR
RESEARCH FACILITIES IN WILMINGTON.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Steve Olson
INDUSTRIAL
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 05/17/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL*THANK YOU
9121458
OUPONT
RECEIVED
Du PONT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Wilmington, DE 19898
91 MAY 17 A : 08
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
May 14, 1991
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
Dr. Allan D. Bromley
Office of Science Technology & Policy
Executive Office of the President
17th & Pennsylvania Avenues N.W.
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Allan:
All of us in Du Pont are most appreciative of your outstanding
comments at our Lavoisier Medal ceremony. Your clear understanding of
the major technological competitive issues facing our country was
constantly evident and reassuring to those of us who are concerned. It's
important for us to feel our top government officials are getting such
good council.
As a member of one of the few U.S. industries that still has a
strong balance of trade, we nevertheless worry about our future and the
future of U.S. industries already in trouble. The list of critical
technologies that your group and others have recently made available are
not mere academic chips that should be allowed to fall where they may. If
we should lose more and more ability to excel or have access to them, as
you said, we do not have a very bright future. I hope our government will
continue to look for ways that might galvanize U.S. industries to do more
R&D and effective development of leading-edge critical technology areas.
Sometimes it appears we are more interested in delving into new areas of
mischief rather than thinking through substantive systemic support
approaches. One of my colleagues at Du Pont recently told me of the
debate around charging industry for use of such government facilities as
synchrotron beam lines. Industry already had invested heavily in the
analytical technologies to use such capabilities because of agreements to
gain free time. This kind of behavior does not lead to a lot of trust or
collaborative risk taking.
Better Things for Better Living
VP-10415
Dr. Allan D. Bromley
- 2 -
May 14, 1991
We are still very anxious to have you and any of your staff
members who are interested visit our research facilities in Wilmington.
We can promise you an interesting day and would be glad to tailor a
program to your liking.
Thanks again. We all enjoyed meeting you and the luster you
added to our Lavoisier ceremony was invaluable. I hope to see you again
soon.
Very truly yours,
a Mar Jacklan
Alexander MacLachlan
AM:jmp
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121418
FROM:
MAIBACH, Michael: INTEL
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/13/91
SUBJECT: A COPY OF "TECHNOLOGY 2000: THE FUTURE OF COMPUTING
AND COMMUNICATIONS"
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Dr. Wong
Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: Enclosure to DAB, E. Wong and W. Phillips
DATE RECEIVED: 05/14/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL+TECHNOLOGY
9121418
R
intel®
RECEIVED
Michael C. Maibach
Director of Government Affairs
91 MAY 14 P12: 02
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR May 13, 1991
Allen, bene +Bill -
Dear Colleague:
I have enclosed TECHNOLOGY 2001: THE FUTURE OF
COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS, I think it will be of interest to
you. Chapter three was authored by Intel managers. IBM, Cray
Research, Texas Instruments, Xerox Corp. and other leaders of
technology development are contributors to this work as well.
Enjoy!
Cordially,
Micht
Intel Government Affairs 1825 I Street NW #400 Washington, DC 20006 #202-429-2054 Fax: #202-296-7332
Intel Corporation 3535 Garrett GR1-63 Santa Clara CA 95052-8119 #408-765-1428 Fax: # 408-765-1402
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121357
FROM:
GREYBER, Howard
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/04/91
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SHOW THE ARTICLE," WHY NOT A U.S. HIGH
TECHNOLOGY BANK" TO THE PRESIDENT ALONG WITH MR.
GREYBER'S COMMENTS.
ASSIGNED TO: D. Allan Bromley
DAB what de with sh'd all 72
ACTION REQUIRED: AS/IF APPROPRIATE
DO
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
05/22/91
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 05/07/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGY
May 4, 1991
The White House
Dr. D. Allan Bromley, Science Adviser RECEIVED to the President
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Dr. Bromley:
91 MAY 7 :
I hope you liked my proposed Major Education Inititative for the Bush
Administration" that I handed to you at the APS banquet. A copy was sent to
Brent Scowcroft. Sununu brushed 01 off with the "handed to staff". 435 High
Schools of Science & Technology would OTOR major milestone that Pres. Bush
could be proud of long after he leaves office in 1997, Jan. 20th. They would
also advance our national security, guiding more Americans into productive R&D.
Please show the idea to the President. One can start with just 10 schools per
year, costing $250 million, and increase as the economy permits.
Encouraged by your remark at APS, "don't be so sure the Administration is
hobbled by fear of 'industrial policy'", I enclose an article that I wrote
in April 1989. It was sent to Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher, but
was deflected into the bureaucratic maze. I sent my article to Lester Thurow,
director of the MIT Alfred Sloan School of Management, for comment and his
reply is attached at the end of my article, "Why Not a United States High Tech-
nology Bank?". Notice he says "I believe in proposals such as yours - - -".
Please show the article to President Bush along with my comments below:
Mr. President, with all due respect, we already have literally hundreds of
examples of industrial policy in the USA, for instance
1. restrictions on sugar imports, keeping the price far higher than world price.
2. subsidies to shipbuilders and restrictions that allow only U.S. ships to
carry cargo between U.S. ports.
3. restrictions on automobile imports
and hundreds of other examples.
Japan's economic warfare on us, seizing one key industry after another, is
as deliberate as their war plans in World War 2, where I was a naval officer
(radar officer, APA-21) just as you were. Privately Japanese admit scorn for
how, while their markets are closed, we allow our "seed corn" young high
technology companies to be bought out! Their $500 million per year lobbying
effort coined the word "Japan-bashing" to stop any attempt for America to
defend its future.
Besides Treasury loans, the USHTB would be financed by selling bonds and
Japan could buy some too!
*
*
*
I hope you like the High Technology Bank concept and convince the
President. It would be a tremendous feature of his presidency long remembered.
Lets hear from you. Best wishes,
Sincerely,
Afward Howard Greyber
10123 Falls Road
Potomac, MD 20854-4107
301-299 8168
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02a. Resume
Resume of Howard D. Greyber [personal information
(b)(6)
redacted] (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Date Closed:
3/10/2010
OA/ID Number:
62034-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02b. Article
Article by Howard D. Greyber [biographical information
(b)(6)
redacted] (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Date Closed:
3/10/2010
OA/ID Number:
62034-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Why Not A United States High Technology Bank ?
Submitted for publication - by Howard D. Greyber
(b)(6)
For far too long, the response of the United States to the tremendous
growth in the production of technology-intensive goods by Japan has been
haphazard and inadequate. Inside of a huge $65,000,000,000 trade surplus with
the United States, Japan has today a surplus of more than $13 billion in high
technology goods (an area we once dominated). Similar strides are being made
by the "Four Dragons", South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. When
mainland China someday escapes the shackles of communist dogma, the economic
challenge from a nation with more than one billion people may be immense.
Using its gigantic new wealth, Japan is not only buying out huge chunks
of American real estate, major companies (such as Firestone Rubber Co.) and
building Japanese owned and controlled companies here, but also has surpassed
the U.S.A. in the percent of GNP devoted to research and development. Accord-
ing to the National Science Foundation, already back in 1985 it was 2.8% for
Japan and 2.7% for the USA, and/is there probably more difference today. In addition
a far larger share of our R&D dollars are spent on military research, so the
gap in civilian R&D is much greater.
Japan is making real progress in scientific research (as exemplified by
their new "Science City") but the real shocker is their soaring progress in
technology. The N.S.F. report points out that from 1970 to 1986 the share of
American patents awarded to Japanese inventors leaped from 4 percent to
19 percent and Japan led all foreign countries! The National Science Founda-
tion report commented that these inventions were often cited by other inventors
and were often "very significant".
Surely no one can deny that the progress, not only by Japan, but by
the "Four Dragons" and West Germany and other EEC countries, contributes
to the economic problems America faces today. We must recover our lead in high
technology for economic, military and political reasons, or by 2000 A.D. (only
11 years away) we could sink to a second-rate status, unable to afford space
exploration except as "hitchhikers"on a Japanese or Chinese or European
spacecraft! Japan has a firm goal of raising the percent of GNP concentrated
on research and development. Can we keep up?
Bush Library Photocopy
Greyber, p. 2
The Japanese strategy has been to seize the lead in the highest
quality high technology manufactured items and use the profits to expand
in all directions. Their Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) has not only
guided funds to develop promising new technology areasall the way to production
of the commercial product, but has insisted on quality. Their major effort
to use the ideas of the American professor Deming on quality in manufacturing
is remarkable, (they still have an annual Deming Prize awarded at an elab-
orate governmental affair).
While our economic system does not permit us to copy MITI directly,
most of its advantages can be attained by the creation by Congress of a
United States High Technology Bank, (HTB) The HTB would be financed by a
large loan, say $10 billion, from the Treasury and run by dynamic tough
bankers, with a Board of Directors that would include the Secretary of the
Treasury as well as top technology executives such as William R. Hewlett of
Hewlett-Packard and Edwin Land of Polaroid Corp.. A high level Technology
Advisory Board, with representatives from all the major government labora-
tories as well as from the National Science Foundation and NASA headquarters
would insure careful technical evaluation of each proposal.
America has already strengthened the R&D aspect of our high technology
effort by (a) a successful Small Business Innovation Research program in
many government agencies, (b) establishment by N.S.F. of a series of Super-
computer Centers, (c) establishment by N.S.F. of a number of Engineering
Centers, (d) the plan to create three NIST Manufacturing Technology Centers,
and smaller private innovations. What is crucial to overtake the Japanese
in commercial high technology is to provide (as MITI does)
three things:
1. A committment to continuous financial backing for those high technology
companies in fields deemed ready for profitable commercial development of
products, until marketplace success.
2. A commitment to high quality efficient manufacturing and strongly
backed market penetration.
3. Close relations with pools of venture capital, with banks and with
American high technology companies of all sizes.
After identifying companies with the most promising high technology
(in such fields as for instance, high temperature superconductivity or
semiconductor chip manufacturing), the Bank would invite private sources
*If not ground up in the abstract theological debate over whether America should
have an 'industrial policy', the HTB would be a political plus, a bold major new
initiative for the Bush Administration. This is Protecting America's Future, (not
"Japan-bashing" (as Japan's army of lobbyists will claim).
Greyber, p. 3
of capital to join in the financing. Like a private venture capitalist, the
Bank would take convertible bonds for its investment, which would typically
be 5 to 10 percent of the financing. However the cachet of HTBsponsorship,
after careful technical and economic scrutiny, would aid the young struggling
high technology company in many ways not the least in gaining market
acceptance.
There are many critical high technology fields where the United States
simply cannot afford to concede leadership to/quietly the planned onslaught of
Japan, Inc.. These areas include ceramics for automobile engines, high
definition television, semiconductor chip manufacturing, telecommunications,
and biotechnology, among others. Of course there are private efforts in each
of these areas, with more or less government help or blessing, but these
valiant initiatives tend to be inadequate, - like putting a jeep against a
tank on the battlefield. A well financed United States High Technology Bank
could coordinate/make and it an equal economic battlefield.
Let us be clear that the creation of a United States High Technology Bank
is not a panacea, a cure-all for our problems. There is still the harrowing
condition of American public school education. There is also the deplorable lure
of huge financial coups (make your million by 28 years of age) that draws very
talented youth into corporate law, investment banking (merger & acquisitions),
who often are quite capable in high technology but turn it down. How can the
profitability of running a small growth high technology company compare with
the profits from a couple slick leveraged buyouts, which are encouraged by
outrageous tax code provisions ?
If the HTB is successful in financing a few successes, such as Digital
Equipment or Xerox Corp. in past decades, it will soon grow in capital, in
power and in influence so that America regains leadership in/production the of
high technology goodsby the end of this century. Japan right now is trading with
us as if America were her colony. Nontariff barriers keep thousands of American
products out of her markets, while they undercut and squeeze out American
manufacturers, (remember our baseball bats banned by some technicality?).
With the confidence of arrogance, they refuse to buy American lumber products
but insist on just purchasing the raw logs, (Britain used similar tactics with
her colonies). States in the U.S.A. compete to give Japanese companies huge
subsidies to build plants. These plants then compete with an American plant
(long established) that has no such subsidy. This is not fair trade.
Greyber, p.4
One example of rapid loss of American-owned high technology
companies to foreign ownership is described in a recent Washington
Post article (hundreds ofothers exist such as Amdahl Computers,
bought out by Fujitsu, etc.). Silicon wafers are the flat discs
from which computer chips are made, and the manufacturing technol-
ogy is believed to be vital to our national security. Yet three
U.S. producers have been sold to the Japanese in the last 31/2
years and a fourth sale is pending. Another sale, that of
Monsanto Electronic Materials, to Huels AG of West Germany, is
merely awaiting approval by a government committee.
It will probably be approved despite strong concerns by
Defense Dept. officials and industry spokesmen. Robert Noyce, the
president of the Sematech consortium commented, "We view with
alarm that the last American silicon supplier is foreign-owned".
A number of factors affect this hemorrhaging of American
high technology companies to foreign domination. One is that
Japan's carefully orchestrated informal barriers prevent thous-
ands of U.S. high technology products from being sold in Japan,
(while Japanese products
have free access to the huge
American market, and often their companies get huge subsidies
to locate their new plant in a particular state (!)). Monsanto
points out that despite 17 years of efforts, such barriers kept
it down to 2% of the Japanese market for silicon discs. These
well-documented Japanese tactics are harsh economic war against
us, a gradual "Pearl Harbor" eroding our economic base.
A second factor is the decline in the value of the dollar.
Japan's Makoto Utsumi, a top official in their Finance Ministry,
admitted that Japan's trade surplus vis a vis the United States
has actually widened as the dollar got weaker, in contrast to
what was expected by the "experts" when the Plaza agreement to
force down the value of the dollar was signed. He commented that
a further rise in the yen would simply make more "America for Sale"
for Japanese conglomerates.
A third factor is that Japan's network of interwoven banks
and trading companies (Gen. Douglas McArthur broke up this
network at the end of World War II, but it has long since re-
formed) directs floods of capital to Japanese companies breaking
into what they feel are strategic future markets overseas, and
Greyber, p.5
simultaneously prevent entry of foreign capital into Japan in
these areas until Japanese domination is established. Of course
their high savings rate and low interest rates assist their
strategy.
A fourth factor (partially due to our very low savings rate
and high interest rates) is Wall Street's tendency to value a
company according to its last quarter's earnings. A Japanese
electronic executive was quoted as commenting scornfully, "In
Japan, long-range means ten to twenty years, while in America
it means one to two years".
Other factors are well known such as the ferocious Japanese
insistence on quality and the much closer relations between
Japanese executives and workers on the factory floor than exist
today in American companies. We were better 50 years ago in both
areas than we are today. For instance, in 1940 most heads of
electric utilities were originally engineers - while today they
are M.B.A.'s or lawyers. As some Harvard Business School professors
admitted ruefully, too often M.B.A.'s care only about the immed-
iate bottom line, (ignoring long-range opportunities) ,which will
enable them to jump to another company at a higher salary.
In 1940 American products were generally of the highest
quality while Japanese products were commonly regarded as
cheap junk!
It is time that America realize we are in a deadly economic
war for survival as the leading economic power in the world. To
do this we must create a fair, level economic battlefield and
not accept the present field, strongly tilted against us by Japan
and West Germany, our erstwhile wartime enemies. Our future
standard of living, our military and political and economic pos-
ition in the world in the Nineties and the Century beyond are
at stake in this battle.
The creation of a United States High Technology Bank would
(if well financed and staffed) be a powerful focus for changing
the factors mentioned above in our favor to varying degrees. Besides
aiding American high technology companies to survive, compete and
prosper, the Bank's powerful authoritative American voice would
tend to counteract the increasingly malign influential lobbying by
large foreign corporations of Congressmen, Senators and Congress-
ional staff The Toshiba Corp. success in vitiating deserved
sanctions for its aid to the Soviet military ic a in noint
Greyber p. 6
Of course when presented with the concept of a United States High
Technology Bank, many bankers and venture capitalists will oppose it, fearing
competition and claiming that they are already doing the financing job ade-
quately. Such opposition reminds one of the opposition to the creation of
the Federal Reserve System, to the creation of the Export-Import Bank, etc.
Now bankers praise and profit from these institutions. The huge drop in our
economic status in a mere thirty years, i.e. since the bright future portrayed
by President Kennedy in his inaugural speech in January 1961, is proof
enough that more needs to be done.
Today, at the start of a new Administration with a new President, is
the ideal time to construct an initiative like USHTB. The fact that George
Bush has chosen as chief of staff an energetic engineer and former governor
with a Ph.D. from M.I.T., John Sununu, is very encouraging for the success
of HTB. If Mr. Bush appoints 7 Science Adviser, or, better still, an Assistant
experienced
to the President for Science & Technology, and permits the reestablishment of
a strong Advisory Board as existed under Eisenhower and Kennedy, the
chance for successful creation of the High Technology Bank would be enhanced.
Many people will argue that existing institutions could be modified and
do the job. It is a sad fact that institutions tend to become bureaucratic
and inflexible as they age. For this reason some have suggested a "sunset"
law that would automatically dissolve agencies after a fixed time. As the
Nobel Prize physicist, Richard Feyman,pointed out after serving on commission
investigating the Challenger disaster, simple bureaucratic inertia was a
factor.
A new institution, like the High Technology Bank, would (if properly
staffed) have a creative drive and elan to start to turn things around,
and make changes that would in a few years make America the leader in
high technology manufacturing in keeping with our diverse and outstanding
scientific establishment. The great mathematician, John von Neumann, once
remarked that frequently there are times when technology drives science rather
than the reverse. A successful USHTB could eventually be a tremendous
support for pure and applied science research, as well as preserve our
economy against the challenge of Japan, the "Four Dragons", the European
Economic Community and other developing countries.
10123 Falls Road
Potomac, MD 20854
Tel. 301/299-8168
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alfred P. Sloan School of Management Rarsar
50 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Telephone: 617-253-2932
Lester C. Thurow
Dean
September 21, 1989
Dr. Howard D. Greyber
Greyber Associates
10123 Falls Road
Potomac, MD 20854
Dear Dr. Greyber:
A number of proposals similar to your high technology bank have
been advanced in the past (Felix Rohatyn had a similar proposal) but
they have all floundered and not gotten off the ground. Basically they
were ground up in the abstract ideological debate as to whether America
should or should not have an industrial policy and whether private capital
markets do or do not need outside help to finance those things that ought
to be financed.
I believe in proposals such as yours, but I don't know what the
selling process is that would lead them to actually be implemented.
Sincerely yours,
Lester C: Thurownd
LCT:ml
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
May 9, 1991
Dear Dr. Greyber:
Thank you for your letter of May 4 enclosing a copy of your article on technology. I
will keep it available and share it as appropriate.
I appreciate your thinking of me.
Sincerely,
DMan Roamly
D. Allan Bromley
Director
Dr. Howard Greyber
10123 Falls Road
Potomac, MD 20854-4107
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121261
FROM:
MOSBACHER, Robert A.: THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/22/91
SUBJECT: A COPY OF THE 1991 EDITION OF THE "U.S. INDUSTRIAL
OUTLOOK". COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.
ASSIGNED TO: INDUSTRIAL
ACTION REQUIRED: FOR DAB SIGNATURE
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
05/13/91
DATE COMPLETED: 6/17
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
INTERNATIONAL/POLICY
Ken Yale
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: Enclosure to Dr. Phillips.
NOTE: after unding document, etem to Rom 31 OSTP Likem
6/17 pf).
DATE RECEIVED: 04/29/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL
912126
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Washington, D.C. 20230
RECEIVED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
April 22, 1991
DISAPR 29 P3: 35
DIRECTOR
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Director, Office of Science and Technology
New Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Allan:
I am pleased to send you a copy of the 1991 edition of the
U.S. Industrial Outlook, one of the Department's most important
and popular publications.
As the enclosed press release points out, this year's
Industrial Outlook includes new coverage of the international
competitiveness of individual industries, reflecting the
continuing role that exports play in propelling our economy.
I hope the fresh data and analyses in this 32nd edition of
the Outlook are useful to you. Your comments on the Outlook
are welcome.
Sincerely,
Ex
3
Robert A. Mosbacher
Enclosure
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
ADMINISTRATION
NEWS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230
CONTACT: Sally Carson (202) 377-4356
ITA 90-89
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE:
OUTLOOK FOR U.S. INDUSTRIES
6:30 PM EST Sunday, Dec. 30, 1990
POSITIVE DESPITE SLOWDOWN
Forecasts for 350 U.S. industries in 1991 point to continued
but slower economic expansion, Under Secretary for International
Trade J. Michael Farren said today in releasing the 1991 U.S.
Industrial Outlook.
The Outlook, which has been published annually by the
Commerce Department since 1959, provides industry-by-industry
reviews of the U.S. economy, with analyses and projections by
international trade administration experts.
"Overall, we see continued growth in 1991 for the majority
of industries, both manufacturing and services," Farren said.
"Exports will provide an important source of vitality for many
industries, partially counteracting weakness in other elements of
the U.S economy."
In manufacturing, most high-technology industries will again
outperform the rest of the economy. Semiconductors and related
devices are forecast to grow 8.9 percent in 1991. Computer
industry shipments are expected to increase 6 percent.
Aircraft, engines, and parts will experience another strong
year with real growth in 1991 projected to be 4.6 percent,
following 17.8 percent estimated growth in 1990.
Machine tools will also demonstrate strength. "This is an
indication that businesses will continue to invest in new
equipment needed to raise efficiency and productivity in today's
increasingly competitive environment," Farren said.
Two important industries not expected to perform well in the
coming year are motor vehicles and construction. Both will
experience negative growth, according to Farren, with new
(more)
- 3 -
Predictions for Industries' Growth in 1991
Growth Rate Estimates and Projections For
Growth Rates for Selected Service
Selected Industry Groups
Industries
(based on constant dollar shipments)
Rate of Growth
Industry
1988
1989
1990
1991
Industry
Unit of Measure
(percent)
New construction
-0.7
-1.5
-1.6
-2.8
1990
1991
Construction materials
0.2
1.5
-0.8
-3.2
Food and beverages
Electronic information services
2.5
Revenues
1.4
NA
1.3
20.0
1.3
Wood products
-0.4
Computer software
-0.3
Revenues
-1.6
20.0
-3.5
20.0
Paper and allied products
3.6
Computer professional services
Revenues
1.3
NA
1.6
17.3
2.2
Printing and publishing
0.7
Data processing
Revenues
2.1
15.0
1.0
16.0
2.1
Chemicals and allied products
4.6
Acounting
2.0
Receipts
1.6
12.6
12.7
1.0
Rubber and plastic products
Health services
2.2
Revenues
1.1
1.0
11.9
0.8
12.0
Steel mill products
Cable television
15.6
0.3
Revenues
-1.0
NA
-4.8
12.0
Machine tools
4.3
18.6
5.3
Management and consulting, and
5.0
Computers and penpherais*
14.9
public Relations
6.1
Receipts
9.9
4.4
10.3
5.6
Industrial machinery
10.7
Leasing
4.7
2.5
Equipment cost added
8.5
8.1
1.9
Telephone and communication equipment
Life insurance
1.8
2.6
Premiums
1.9
8.8
8.0
1.9
Electronic components and accessones
13.8
6.7
Property-casualty insurance
1.8
Net premiums written
4.4
6.2
6.2
Electrical equipment
Total retail trade
7.6
0.7
Sales
-1.1
-2.3
6.0
6.0
Motor vehicles and parts
5.5
0.0
Food retailing
Sales
-2.6
7.2
7.7
-1.4
Aircraft and parts
5.5
-14.0
Eating and drinking places
Sales
17.9
8.5
4.6
6.2
Scientific and medical equipment
7.6
Department stores
7.0
Sales
2.1
2.9
6.0
6.2
Household consumer durables
2.8
Apparel and accessories stores
Sales
1.3
-2.0
5.7
-2.0
6.1
Advertising
Receipts
5.1
5.6
in current dollars.
Banking
Assets
5.0
SOURCE: U.S. Industrial Outlook datafiles.
5.5
Prerecorded music
Manufacturers' dollar value
4.0
5.0
Legal services
Receipts
4.9
4.8
Home entertainment
Revenues
NA
4.0
Motion picture theaters
Receipts
0.0
1.6
Space commerce
Revenues
29.0
0.0
SOURCE. U.S. Industrial Outlook datatiles.
10 Fastest Growing Four-Digit Industries
10 Slowest Growing Four-Digit Industries
in 1991
in 1991
(based on constant dollar shipments)
(based on constant dollar shipments)
SIC
Industry
Percent
SIC
Code
Industry
Percent
Change
Code
Change
3111
Leather tanning and finishing
9.4
2021
Creamery butter
-14.6
3674
Semiconductors and related devices
8.9
2451
Mobile homes
3841
-9.5
Surgical and medical instruments
8.6
2053
Frozen bakery products, except bread
3842
-6.3
Surgical appliances and supplies
7.6
3732
2833
Boat building and repairing
-6.3
Medicinals and botanicals
7.1
3621
2835
Diagnostic substances
Motors and generators
-6.2
6.9
3631
2015
Household cooking equipment
-6.0
Poultry slaughtering and processing
6.8
2426
2836
Hardwood dimension and flooring mills
-5.0
Biological products except diagnostics
6.2
3634
Electric housewares and fans
3721
Aircraft
-5.0
6.0
3441
Fabricated structural metal
3843
-5.0
Dental equipment and supplies
5.9
2421
Sawmills and planing mills, general
-5.0
SOURCE: U.S. Industrial Outlook datafiles.
SOURCE: U.S. Industrial Outlook datafiles.
In current dollars.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1991
Dear Bob:
My staff and I are delighted to receive the 1991 edition of U.S. Industrial Outlook. I
have to believe that this is the "best selling" document published by the U.S.
government. It contains a wealth of information that will be useful to not only the
Administration and Congress, but to strategic planners in the private sector as well.
I applaud the addition of international industry competitiveness profiles, as well as
other new features.
Congratulations on a difficult but important task.
Sincerely,
Dyan
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
The Honorable Robert A. Mosbacher
The Secretary of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121165
FROM:
HILL, Chris: THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/17/91
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION PAPER ON TECHNOLOGY POLICY BY ERICH BLOCH
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Thomas Ratchford
Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON: PENNY GIBBS
REMARKS: Enclosures to DAB, TR, WP and the file.
Industrial
DATE RECEIVED: 04/18/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY*POLICY
9121165
THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
National Academy of Engineering National Academy of Sciences
REC 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
91 APR 18 P4: 47
Telephone: 202/334-1579
FAX: 202/334-2290
BITNET: [email protected]
April 17, 1991
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Members of the Manufacturing Forum
FROM:
Chris Hill, Executive Director CTH/pg
RE:
Discussion paper on technology policy by Erich Bloch
Enclosed are five copies of the discussion paper by Erich
Bloch entitled "Towards a U.S. Technology Strategy: Enhancing
Manufacturing Competitiveness," which returned to us from the
printer yesterday. You will recall that this paper was the
foundation for a discussion of U.S. technology policy that
Erich led at our January 11 meeting.
This is the first of a series of discussion papers
prepared for the Manufacturing Forum that we will issue on a
periodic basis. Each paper reflects the views of its author,
and we intend that the series will reflect a diversity of
viewpoints over time. The paper incorporates on the title
page a disclaimer of the responsibility of individual members
of the Forum, or of the Forum collectively, for the views
expressed in this paper.
The paper series is being distributed to several hundred
organizations and individuals from our office. Additional
copies in modest number are available from the Forum office by
calling Penny Gibbs at 202/334-1579.
Enclosures
The Manufacturing Forum promotes increased competitiveness of American manufacturing industries
through effective working relationships among government, industry, labor, and universities.
TOWARD
A
U.S. TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGY
Enhancing Manufacturing
Competitiveness
Discussion Paper Number 1
Erich Bloch
THE
THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
TOWARD A U.S. TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
ENHANCING MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS
By
Erich Bloch
Discussion Paper Number 1
February 1991
This paper has been prepared by the author for the Manufacturing
Forum and is published and distributed by the Forum as a public
service. Its publication implies no endorsement of its conclusions or
recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, or the
Manufacturing Forum, nor by any of their members.
THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
National Academy of Engineering
National Academy of Sciences
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
The Manufacturing Forum was established in 1990 by the National Acad-
emy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences to provide a means
by which policymakers from government, industry, and universities can meet to
discuss issues that influence the competitiveness of manufacturing industries.
The Forum is based on the recognition that future challenges to the performance
of U.S. manufacturing industries from increased foreign competition, from
developments in new technology, and from changes in our domestic economic
and societal climates can only be effectively met by a concerted effort on the
part of industry, government, and academia.
The Manufacturing Forum is a device for improving communications
among its members and to the larger community. It does not conduct studies,
provide advice, or make recommendations on specific issues or policies.
cover photo courtesy TRW Inc.
iii
MEMBERSHIP OF THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
RUBEN F. METTLER (Chairman), TRW Inc. (retired)
DONALD R. BEALL, Rockwell International Corporation
PHILIP E. BENTON, JR., Ford Motor Company
ELWOOD P. BLANCHARD, JR., E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
ERICH BLOCH, National Science Foundation (formerly)
MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, Council of Economic Advisers
D. ALLAN BROMLEY, Office of Science and Technology Policy
W. DALE COMPTON, Purdue University
RODERICK A. DcARMENT, U.S. Department of Labor
JAMES J. DUDERSTADT, University of Michigan
DONALD F. EPHLIN, United Auto Workers (retired)
JAMES F. GIBBONS, Stanford University
PAUL E. GRAY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JERRY R. JUNKINS, Texas Instruments Inc.
FRANK W. LUERSSEN, Inland Steel Industries, Inc.
W. HENSON MOORE, U.S. Department of Energy
THOMAS J. MURRIN, Duquesne University
ROBERT A. PRITZKER, The Marmon Group, Inc.
JOHN S. REED, Citicorp
JOHN E. ROBSON, U.S. Department of the Treasury
MORRIS TANENBAUM, AT&T
RICHARD H. TRULY, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ROBERT M. WHITE, U.S. Department of Commerce
S. LINN WILLIAMS, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Ex Officio Members
FRANK PRESS, National Academy of Sciences
ROBERT M. WHITE, National Academy of Engineering
Manufacturing Forum Staff
CHRISTOPHER T. HILL, Executive Director
PENELOPE GIBBS, Administrative Assistant
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. T. Samantha Solomon, Solomon
Associates, for her invaluable assistance in the researching, writing, and editing
of this report to the Manufacturing Forum.
He also wishes to thank the many members of the community who re-
viewed this report in draft and made valuable suggestions for its improvement.
V
FOREWORD
The Manufacturing Forum has identified many issues that need to be ad-
dressed and many opportunities that need to be grasped on the way to improving
the future performance and competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing industries,
including changes in management practices, changes in the climate for invest-
ment, upgrading of the manufacturing workforce at all levels, and changes in a
host of public policies intended to facilitate and/or constrain our manufacturing
industries.
To facilitate its consideration of specific manufacturing issues, the Forum
commissions experts in a variety of fields to prepare discussion papers. Each
author is encouraged to express his or her own views sufficiently sharply to
catalyze serious discussion. The Forum members offer their individual views,
which authors may accept or reject, but the papers do not in any sense represent
the views of the Forum as a whole.
Few issues arise more consistently and more insistently than the need to
discover, develop, apply, and continuously improve the technologies employed
in our manufacturing industries and in the other parts of the economy that
support or depend on them.
Ensuring a continual stream of new technologies and attending to their
effective application is first and foremost a responsibility of individual industrial
firms in the private sector. However, both our historical experiences and those
of competitor nations demonstrate that wise public policies can play critical
roles in encouraging and facilitating technological change and application in
industry, and that such policies can bring benefits not only to industrial perfor-
mance but to the nation as a whole through enhanced contributions of industry
to the economy, to national security, and to the quality of life for all citizens.
In this paper, Dr. Erich Bloch, former Director of the National Science
Foundation and a member of the Manufacturing Forum, presents his views on
changes that should be considered in formulating our national technology policy
in the interests of enhancing manufacturing competitiveness. This paper was a
basis for discussions of technology policy in a meeting of the Forum in January
1991.
Ruben F. Mettler
Chairman
vi
Executive Summary
Americans need to understand that the world they live in is fundamentally
changing. The United States was in a dominant position at the end of World
War II. It had the most advanced technology, and it had the manufacturing and
marketing resources to dominate international trade. Today, the U.S. trade
balance is overwhelmingly negative. Even the advantage in the high-technology
industries we once took for granted has virtually disappeared.
The United States does not lag behind its competitors in generating basic
research results or in the quality of its Ph.D. scientists and engineers. But
America's former competitive advantage in the commercial application of tech-
nological developments and discoveries is quickly being eroded by our competi-
tors who often deploy new technologies in products and processes with greater
speed than we do. The results are an American "manufacturing gap" and,
ultimately, an increasing deterioration of our technology base.
We are not just witnessing a "natural" adjustment in the post-war
economy, as has been suggested, but rather a profound and critical decline in
U.S. technology and manufacturing. While the primary responsibility for this
decline in manufacturing competitiveness falls on the private sector, federal
policies and practices-such as those affecting education, macroeconomic
policy, regulatory policy, antitrust guidelines, tax policy, trade and investment
policies, and science and technology policy-have a major impact on the
country's ability to compete. To be successful in ensuring that the United
States remains a world-class manufacturing competitor, then, its technology
policy must be accompanied by a variety of policies, programs, and actions by
government, industry, and universities in these other areas.
Because manufacturing is one of America's economic foundations, and
because it is of strategic importance to the competitive position of the United
States in the world economy and to the maintenance of national well-being and
security, these declines in national capabilities relative to our major competitors
require the immediate attention of both the private and public sectors.
First, industry, academia, and the federal government must look at science
and technology-as well as technology and manufacturing-as a continuum, in
which the insights of science, from the most fundamental through the applied,
are linked to basic technology developments and to products and services in the
marketplace. Today's trends in manufacturing toward shorter production runs,
shorter product cycles, increasing quality, a greater variety of products with
1
increasing customization, and a shorter time to market for new products de-
mand an integrated manufacturing environment and a greater harmonization of
public policy and private actions.
Second, just as American industry traditionally has too often separated
R&D from production, so has the U.S. government treated science and technol-
ogy as if they were separable entities. In 1945, Vannevar Bush's report to Presi-
dent Truman, Science: The Endless Frontier¹, put in place this country's first
federal science policy, but assigned no role to the government in technology
development. Yet, the report needs to be seen as a product of the times: when
Bush wrote his report, America's industrial technology base was very strong,
while its science base was relatively weak. Today, the reverse is true-our
science base and our basic research and higher education system are unparal-
leled in the world, while our civilian technology base is in trouble.
Third, the federal government has only lately addressed technology as an
issue. Nevertheless, America has had a "de facto" technology policy in place for
many decades. In important instances during the 1950s and 1960s, the federal
government supported the development of "generic" technologies-most often
as part of the war and national defense efforts-which later developed into
important new commercial industries for this country. In fact, for nearly 40
years after World War II "strategic technology" was developed mainly in the
context of military and space programs. This gave us world leadership in televi-
sion, integrated circuits, advanced computers, aerospace, lasers, nuclear energy,
polymers, and many other fields. However, because of recent developments;
namely, the emergence of the civilian sector as the precursor of new technology
development-supplanting the military sector, the end of the Cold War, and the
aggressive investment by our foreign competitors in coordinated public-private
sector initiatives for technology development, this traditional approach to sup-
porting strategic technology development and utilization has become less effec-
tive than it was in the past.
While the primary responsibility for civilian technology development and
commercial application lies with the private sector, the federal government can
and should play a more proactive, participative role than it has traditionally.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP's) publica-
tion in the fall of 1990 of the first "U.S. Technology Policy"2 is a step in the
right direction. What is now required is for the government and industry to
translate that policy into practice by jointly developing a strategy to enhance
economic growth and manufacturing competitiveness. To begin this task,
definite actions should be taken.
2
REVERSE THE CONTINUING LOSS OF THE
U.S. TECHNOLOGY BASE
Leadership
National security is no longer primarily a military concern. Economic
growth and security have become vital considerations, and the strategic impor-
tance of technology can be a significant contributor to America's future growth
and competitiveness. To disseminate this important message, President Bush
should include in an appropriate message to Congress and to the American
people his support for OSTP's newly issued "U.S. Technology Policy" and
should articulate clearly the need to develop jointly with industry, labor, and
academia a technology strategy and to establish a continuing industry-govern-
ment dialogue at the highest levels of government to address strategic issues in
science and technology.
Rebalancing R&D Expenditures
While a case can be made for additional R&D funding, the present R&D
budget must be scrutinized for reallocation and priority setting in order to
increase the effectiveness of current investments in our nation's science and
technology base. Today, over 60 percent of the U.S. R&D budget is allocated to
defense-oriented R&D. In view of the domain and role being assumed by the
civilian sector in technology development, there is a need for more equal bal-
ance between civilian and defense R&D by 1995. A better balanced division of
expenditures would enable the U.S. to achieve R&D spending on the civilian
side of the ledger more comparable to that of our major foreign competitors.
IDENTIFY AND INVEST IN STRATEGIC, GENERIC TECHNOLOGIES
Support for Generic Technologies
Government must play a larger role in ensuring that the United States has
the technology necessary to support economic growth and promote manufactur-
ing competitiveness. The federal government should support and participate in
collaborative efforts with industry and the universities to develop generic tech-
nologies in this country. There are generic technologies that are of prime impor-
tance to the future of American manufacturing and to America's technological
leadership in the world. Prominent among these are electronics technologies,
biotechnology, information technologies, manufacturing and process technolo-
gies, and advanced materials technologies.
3
The 1992 Budget Proposals
Congress should support the President's Fiscal Year 1992 initiatives in
science and technology, including the high-performance computing and net-
working initiative, the embryonic initiative in materials technology and process-
ing, and the manufacturing technology efforts in NIST, NSF, DOE, DOD, and
other agencies. Congress and the Administration should also press forward with
an imaginative education and human resource initiative to provide leadership to
stimulate upgrading the skilled workforce American industry needs to handle
tomorrow's advances in science and technology.
R&D Credit
Congress should make the R&D tax credit applicable to R&D related to
manufacturing processes, make the tax credit permanent, and make special
provisions for investment by firms in industry-government consortia and in
academia.
SPEED-UP THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
The Role of the Federal Laboratories
The federal government operates more than 700 laboratories with an annual
budget of approximately $21 billion-three-fifths of which goes towards defense
applications. This amount is almost one-third of the government's R&D expen-
ditures, and nearly one-sixth of the nation's total. From the perspective of the
American economy, these laboratories are an underutilized resource. As an
experiment, the missions of some government laboratories, or specific divisions
or projects of a single laboratory, should be redirected to support industrial
coalitions aimed at creating leadership positions in strategic, generic technolo-
gies. Through joint industry-government funding and management, these efforts
could become the nuclei of U.S. generic, precompetitive technology development.
ENHANCE COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTORS
Collaborative Mechanisms and Technology Transfer
Developing collaborative mechanisms for technology transfer between the
public and private sectors and within each sector is fundamental to the effec-
tiveness of any technology strategy. Any viable technology strategy must in-
clude vehicles to promote the collaboration of government with industry and
the universities. Such "partnerships" can take a variety of forms including
4
industry-government consortia like SEMATECH, industry-university-govern-
ment research centers like the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) Engineering
Research Centers and its Science and Technology Centers, multi-company
industry efforts such as the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corpo-
ration (MCC) and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), and technol-
ogy transfer centers like the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST's) five regional Manufacturing Technology Centers that focus on the
needs of smaller businesses.
Support for State and Local Initiatives in
Science and Technology
Over the past two decades, state and local governments have come to view
science and technology programs as keys to economic development. These
programs vary from state to state, but generally include funding for advanced
technology research centers-sometimes referred to as "centers of excellence,"
seed and venture capital funds, technical assistance, incubators, research parks,
R&D grants, and information dissemination and technology transfer. The
federal government should actively support these efforts and coordinate its
activities with state program developers and clients.
CONCLUDING NOTE
The end of World War II was a critical time for the country to establish the
science base, strategy, and organizational mechanisms to remain at the leading
edge of scientific research. Today, the end of the Cold War, the increasing
competition in the global marketplace, and the need for accelerating the eco-
nomic growth of the U.S. should spur the long overdue effort to put in place the
technology strategy and implementing mechanisms needed to return and keep
America on the leading edge of technology and manufacturing.
5
The New Environment
"The world is in political, economic, and technological upheaval unparal-
leled since World War II. We find ourselves in a new polycentric world in
which political, economic, and technological power is dispersed globally."
(Robert M. White, April 13, 1990)³
Americans need to understand that the world they live in is fundamentally
changing. Over the past 15 years, the United States and other nations through-
out the industrial world have faced and are continuing to face economic, politi-
cal, and technological realignment of unforeseen proportions. The United States
was in an economically dominant position at the end of World War II. It had
the most advanced technology, and it had the manufacturing and marketing
resources to dominate international trade. But that favorable position is gone.
Today, the U.S. trade balance is overwhelmingly negative. Even the advantage
in the high-technology industries that we once took for granted has virtually
disappeared. It is well recognized that the erosion of American manufacturing
capabilities has contributed heavily to the U.S. trade deficit.
The development and use of new and better technology is essential to the
future of manufacturing in this country. Although technology alone cannot
solve the competitiveness problem-it takes, in addition, a supportive social,
financial, and legal environment-technology can be an important tool in devel-
oping cost-effective products that will compete in world markets. Now, more
than ever, success in the global marketplace means creating and applying new
knowledge-which is to say new technology-faster than one's competitors.
That is the fundamental law in this competitive world.
In recent years, the markets in which we have to sell our products have
become international; we no longer have a large domestic market dominated by
our own industries. This is true for both new and established industries. During
this period we also saw technology become the foundation for a global economy,
a major impetus to economic growth, and a principal source of competitive
advantage. In addition, we witnessed the emergence of Japan, the Pacific Rim
countries, and now the European Economic Community as economic rivals in
an increasing number of industries, and the erosion of the U.S. economic posi-
tion in many of them.
6
Today, technology is critical to the continued growth of nations. Since
World War II, the world economy has been transformed into a knowledge-based,
skill-based economy. Industries based primarily on knowledge and fast-moving
technologies, such as semiconductors, advanced materials, biotechnology, and
information technologies, are the industries that are fueling economic growth.
In this new environment, competitiveness is determined less by a nation's
abundance of natural resources, low-cost labor, and other classical comparative
advantages of the past than by its abilities to generate, access, and rapidly de-
ploy new knowledge and technical insights, and to convert them into quality
products and processes.
Academics and analysts have repeatedly raised the question: Is America's
eroding competitiveness an inevitable result of our competitors' post-war invest-
ments in rebuilding their economies and in research and education, or is there
something fundamentally wrong with this nation's capacity to compete? The
answer is simple. We are not just witnessing a natural adjustment, but rather a
profound and critical decline in U.S. technology and manufacturing. This is
evident if we consider the loss in U.S. marketshare of automobiles, semiconduc-
tors, instrumentation and machine tools, and robotics in manufacturing pro-
cesses. This decline in national capabilities requires immediate attention by
both the private and public sectors because manufacturing is America's eco-
nomic foundation and is of strategic importance to the competitive position of
the United States in the world economy, and because it is essential to the main-
tenance of national security.
The reasons for our decline are many. While the primary responsibility for
the decline in manufacturing competitiveness falls on the private sector for not
being more alert to technological changes, increasing competition, the role of
quality, and market demands; federal policies and practices-such as those
affecting education, macroeconomic policy, regulatory policy, antitrust guide-
lines, tax policy, and science and technology policy-can and do have a major
impact on the private sector's ability to compete. In fact, the competitive
posture of industry has been inhibited by the lack of integration between the
government's economic policies and its ad hoc technology programs. To date,
the government has not acted to ensure that economic and related policies-
such as those listed above-are in place to provide the proper "business environ-
ment" for effective technology development and utilization in the private sec-
tor. While many of these federal policies and macroeconomic considerations are
difficult to alter, particularly in the short term, others are within our reach to
change.
However, our problems are not without solutions. America possesses
unparalleled strengths in basic research and higher education, in the openness of
our society to leadership and new ideas, in the enormous resources devoted to
R&D by both the public and private sectors, in our numerous outstanding
private and government laboratories, in our large domestic market, in the avail-
ability of venture capital, and in the free movement of people among the private,
public, and academic sectors.
7
But America is at a crossroads. If we persist in our traditional attitudes and
approaches and are unwilling to modify our institutions, our economic position
in the global marketplace will further erode. If we recognize the changes that
surround us, take advantage of our strengths, are willing to question established
wisdom and to create new collaborations and alignments, and shed outmoded
institutions and create new ones, the future can be bright.
8
Science, Technology, and Manufacturing
"So many of the world's most advanced technologies, from robotics to the
VCR, were first developed here. And yet, so many of those concepts were
ultimately brought to the marketplace by our competitors. We can do
better. And I am determined that we will do better."
(President Bush, March 7, 1990)4
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AS A CONTINUUM
America's economic growth and national security are intimately tied to its
standing in science, technology, and manufacturing. Today, the speed of
progress in research and development and product innovation makes it increas-
ingly inappropriate to divide the activities of science and technology as if they
are two separate spheres. Science and technology are a continuum, in which the
insights of science, from the most fundamental through the applied, are linked
to technology developments and to products and services in the marketplace.
An important element of this continuum is the scientific and technological
workforce that does the research, develops the technologies, and designs, mar-
kets, and services products.
Considering these activities as a continuum is not meant to imply that
science, technology, and manufacturing progress sequentially and linearly, and
that basic research results precede applied research or technology development.
There are numerous cases in which technology development preceded theory.
For example, electrical communication systems, the telephone, and the tele-
graph existed long before a theory of communications was established, and
steam engines were developed before thermodynamics became a scientific
discipline. Rather, science and technology should be seen as interactive and
interdependent - with stimulation and feedback flowing back and forth be-
tween parts of the system. The flow is neither linear nor unidirectional. While
science and technology share many things in common, such as the scientific
approach to experimentation, they also differ philosophically. Science asks:
"What is?" while technology asks: "What can be?"
9
TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING AS A CONTINUUM
Just as science and technology are a continuum, so are technology and
manufacturing. Technology is the driving force in the design and manufacturing
of products and the development of services. Technological innovation, design,
and manufacturing are interactive and interdependent processes. For example,
product development, design, and manufacturing all drive research and are, at
the same time, highly dependent on research for successful innovation.
In fact, the continuum runs from basic research to marketing - an ap-
proach that in the "best practice" companies is characterized by systematic and
incremental improvements in products and processes in response to changing
signals from the marketplace. Successful U.S. firms - and many of our major
foreign competitors - emphasize simultaneous improvements in engineering,
function, quality, cost, and speed of commercialization. In general, the most
competitive firms are closer to their customers and to their suppliers than their
less successful industrial counterparts; have greater functional integration
among research, design, manufacturing, and marketing; and have less hierarchi-
cal organizational structures.
The MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity⁵ correctly advocates a
systems approach to manufacturing. Such an approach encompasses a great deal
more than just what occurs on the production line. It includes designing and
developing products as well as planning, marketing, selling, and servicing them.
The technologies and processes used in these functions are also a part of manu-
facturing, as are the ways in which the workforce interacts with technology and
is educated and trained.
In contrast to its competitors - particularly those in Japan - U.S. industry
has too often placed artificial boundaries between research and design on the
one hand, and production and marketing on the other. This counterproductive
philosophy is embodied in many American companies in the physical separation
of research facilities from the factory floor. Today's trends in manufacturing are
toward shorter production runs, shorter product cycles, increasing quality, a
greater variety of products with increasing customization, and a shorter time to
market for new products. This new climate demands an integrated manufactur-
ing environment that facilitates making incremental improvements and refine-
ments in both manufactured products and the manufacturing process.
There is a consensus that the United States does not lag behind its competi-
tors in generating basic research results or in the quality of its doctoral scien-
tists and engineers. But America's ability to rapidly translate science and engi-
neering into commercializable products, and its ability to take advantage of the
detailed insights, understanding, and processes that are a prerequisite to product
design and product manufacturing is another story altogether. Thus, in recent
years it has become apparent that a "manufacturing gap"-like the technology
gap of earlier years-has emerged, and this time it is the United States that lags
behind.
10
Science Policy and Technology Policy
"America assumed that government support for science would be adequate
to provide for technology. It is not."
(Council on Competitiveness, 1988)⁶
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Before World War II, the federal government played a limited role in the
support of science. One major activity, besides the operation of its own labora-
tories, was the establishment of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronau-
tics (NACA). NACA helped spawn the aeronautics industry in the United
States and was the organizational forerunner to NASA. But World War II
changed the course of the way science was conducted in this country by har-
nessing the talents of numerous scientists and engineers to work on the war
effort to defend America's national security. The seminal experiences of organi-
zations and individuals during the war fundamentally changed the interactions
between the public and private sectors with regard to science and technology.
The war led to a massive increase in the level of federal science funding and
firmly established the concepts of awarding research grants and contracts for the
conduct of R&D in universities and industry, rather than in government-oper-
ated laboratories.
In 1945, Vannevar Bush, then director of the federally created Office of
Scientific Research and Development, submitted to President Truman his re-
port, Science: The Endless Frontier, thereby laying out this country's first
federal science policy. In the report, Bush stated that:
"New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous addition
to knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to
practical purposes This essential new knowledge can be obtained only
through basic research that the impetus can come promptly only from the
Government [since] basic research is essentially non-commercial in nature. 117
Subsequently, Vannevar Bush's report led to the establishment of the Na-
tional Science Foundation (NSF). For 40 years NSF, together with other,
11
mission-oriented R&D agencies of the federal government (e.g., DOD, NASA,
DOE, NIH, USDA), has kept the United States at the leading edge of basic
scientific and engineering research.
But in the same document, Bush made short shrift of any government role
in technology development, asserting that: "industry will fully rise to the
challenge of applying new knowledge to new products. The commercial incen-
tive can be relied on for that." However, Bush's view notwithstanding, during
the 1950s and 1960s there were important instances in which the federal gov-
ernment supported the development of generic technologies-as part of the war
and national defense efforts-that later developed into important new commer-
cial industries for the country. Television, for example, gained immensely from
radar and electronic developments undertaken for military and defense reasons.
In fact, for nearly 40 years after World War II, "strategic technology" was devel-
oped mainly in the context of military and space programs supported by DOD
and NASA. This gave us world leadership in integrated circuits, advanced
computers, aerospace, lasers, nuclear energy, polymers, and many other fields.
However, recent developments have made dependence on military programs to
support strategic technology development and utilization less effective than it
was in the past.
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Several factors make it less likely that defense and other mission-oriented
R&D will be a primary source of commercial technology development in the
years to come.
First, the fundamental shift away from U.S.-Soviet military confrontation is
likely to reduce the military R&D budget and make it less possible for military
agencies to develop important dual-use technologies.
Second, the time scales for the development of military products and com-
mercial products are diverging, making commercial products the precursor for
new technologies, and resulting in strategic technologies of the future being
increasingly developed in civilian contexts rather than in military or space
programs. Biotechnology, semiconductor manufacturing, robotics, artificial
intelligence, high-definition displays, and materials technology are all being
developed for and finding applications today in the civilian sector earlier than in
the military sector. This is the reverse of the situation that existed prior to
about 1980.
Third, federal government agencies are end-mission-oriented (e.g., defense,
health, agriculture) in their selection and funding of projects and are not ori-
ented towards the development of commercial technology. In addition, govern-
ment standards and specifications-especially those of DOD-optimize tech-
nologies with different goals in mind than those sought by producers of
commercial products. With defense accounting for close to 65 percent of federal
R&D spending, and with defense technologies becoming less relevant to the
needs of the marketplace and to the economic growth of the nation, it is
12
important that we consider a rebalancing and reoptimization of federal R&D
spending to utilize these scarce resources more effectively.
The governments of most other industrial nations-and assuredly of our
major competitors-have purposefully promoted research and technology for
economic development. The role that governments have assumed in supporting
research, technology development, and its applications varies over a wide spec-
trum of activities and programs. For example, in Japan emphasis is placed on
reducing ideas to practice and making the commercialization process more
rapid. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) promulgates a
broad strategy that harmonizes the efforts of government and industry in par-
ticular areas of technology development. The MITI-sponsored program on very-
large-scale integration (VLSI) is thought to be one of its primary successes to
date-a program that led to the dominance by Japanese manufacturers of the
production of semiconductors and to the near world monopolization of dynamic
random access memory (DRAM) chip production.
The governments of countries forming the European Community (EC)
address science, technology, and manufacturing issues across the board, ranging
from basic research to development of prototype products. Since its launch in
July 1985, EUREKA has demonstrated success in bringing about transnational
cooperation in fields of high technology close to the market. ESPRIT-the
European strategic program for R&D in information technology-is designed to
stimulate precompetitive R&D activities by means of projects carried out in
collaboration with governments, industry and research centers in member
states, and the EC. JESSI-the Joint European Submicron Silicon Initiative-is
one of the newer internal collaboration activities in Europe. Funded at a level of
$3-4 billion for the first half of the 1990s, JESSI could become a significant
challenge to established competitors in the semiconductor industry.
While our competitors engage in coordinated public-private sector initia-
tives for technology development and utilization, the debate in the United
States centers on whether and how America's policy should deviate from its
traditional approach of government-supported basic research, defense technol-
ogy, and mission-oriented R&D.⁸ Other than spinoffs from defense and other
mission-oriented technology programs, the commercial development and appli-
cation of new technologies have for the most part been considered the responsi-
bilities of the private sector.
In contrast to other countries, U.S. policymakers have not viewed science
and technology as a continuum; rather, they have tended to draw an arbitrary
dividing line between the two. Government involvement in science is widely
viewed as a legitimate role, while its support of technology is not. We have had
a science policy in place for over 40 years, concentrating almost exclusively on
support for basic research. But government support for science is not sufficient
to ensure a national comparative advantage in commercial technology develop-
ment and utilization, because the problems and issues addressed by technology
are different from those that form the basis of scientific research.
13
Because of the new international environment and the continuing erosion
of our technology and manufacturing base, in the fall of 1990 the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued what is the first "U.S.
Technology Policy. "The goal of U.S. technology policy," it states, "is to
make the best use of technology in achieving the national goals of improved
quality of life for all Americans, continued economic growth, and national
security." This statement outlines public and private sector responsibilities for
ensuring sound technology policy, and in its introduction it proposes that:
"A nation's technology policy is based on the broad principles that govern
the allocation of its technological resources. Competitive market forces
determine, for the most part, an optimal allocation of U.S. technological
resources. Government can nonetheless play an important role by supple-
menting and complementing those forces." (emphasis added)
In elucidating federal R&D responsibilities, the document outlines two
roles that are pertinent to this discussion:
"Increase Federal investment in support of basic research. Private industry
does not invest heavily in basic research because the payoffs are SO
unpredictable and diffuse that individual firms cannot be confident of
fully recovering their investments. However, the long-term potential
benefits of this research are so large that society cannot afford not to
make the investment, especially in university research which, in addi-
tion to new knowledge, also produces trained scientists and engineers of
the future."
"Participate with the private sector in precompetitive research on generic,
enabling technologies that have the potential to contribute to a broad
range of government and commercial applications."
In discussing the transfer of federally funded technology to the private
sector and ensuring closer collaboration among industry, federal laboratory, and
university personnel, the policy statement proposes two goals that build on
previous federal government efforts in technology transfer:
"Improve the transfer of Federal laboratories' R&D results to the private
sector. Where appropriate, these laboratories should give greater consid-
eration to potential commercial applications in the planning and conduct
of R&D, and these efforts should be guided by input from potential
users. To achieve this goal, there must be a closer working relationship
among these laboratories, industry, and universities."
14
"Promote increased industry-Federal laboratory-university collabora-
tion, including personnel exchanges, to help convert Federally-supported
R&D into new technologies that the private sector can then turn into
commercial products and processes."
OSTP's technology policy statement should be supported. What is now
required as the next step is a strategy to implement this policy. The end of
World War II was a critical time for the country to establish the science base,
strategy, and organizational mechanisms that would enable it to remain at the
leading edge of scientific research. Today, the end of the Cold War, increasing
international competition, and the need to accelerate the economic growth of
the U.S. should spur a long overdue effort to put in place a technology strategy
for the country and to establish the implementing mechanisms needed to return
and keep America on the leading edge of technology and manufacturing.
15
Generic Technologies
"This administration is also committed to working with [industry] in the
critical pre-competitive development stage where the basic discoveries are
converted into generic technologies that support both our economic com-
petitiveness and our national security."
(President Bush, March 7, 1990)¹⁰
Since World War II, the federal government has accepted its role as a sup-
porter of basic research. But over the years the government has been ambivalent
about taking a proactive role in providing financial support for generic technolo-
gies except in areas, such as defense, where the government is the principal
customer. We can no longer afford to be ambivalent. Rapidly growing techno-
logical complexity, increasing uncertainties, long lead times, and reduced mar-
ket shares have increased costs and decreased profits for many U.S. firms. These
circumstances militate against commercial firms investing sufficiently in ge-
neric technologies, and the indications are that these pressures will only in-
crease. Meanwhile, the benefits of targeted and publicly financed strategic
technology programs abroad continue to accrue to our foreign competitors.
These programs-in Japan and Europe-have reduced the risks associated with
technology and product development and those associated with investment in
capital, taken advantage of a limited skillbase, and assured long-term govern-
ment support for our competitors as well.
Numerous reports have been released recently describing technologies that
are termed "generic," "enabling," "strategic," "emerging," or "critical." The
Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Computer Systems
Policy Project, and the Aerospace Industries Association have produced lists,
and OSTP and the Council on Competitiveness are about to do so as well.
These lists have been assembled by a wide range of scientists, engineers, and
leading industrialists, and yet they are remarkably consistent in the kinds of
technologies identified as critical to America's economic and national security
and to its ability to compete in the global marketplace, as well as in their as-
sessments that the country is losing its technological leadership in the world.
The Department of Commerce report, released in the spring of 1990, identi-
fies 12 emerging technologies with a combined U.S. market potential of about
$350 billion in annual product sales by the year 2000 and a world market of
16
about $1 trillion. 11 However, competition from the world's other two economic
powers-Japan and the EC-is strong. This study indicates that, if current
trends continue, before the year 2000 the United States could lag behind Japan
in most emerging technologies and it could trail the EC in several.
What is meant by the term "generic"? And, what does the Administration
mean when it talks about "precompetitive R&D"? In a recent address, D. Allan
Bromley, the President's Science and Technology Advisor, defined these terms
as follows:¹²
"A generic technology is simply one that has the potential to be applied
to a wide variety of products and processes extending across many industries.
A generic technology is typically not something that is sold commer-
cially. Rather, it requires subsequent research and development, gener-
ally by the private sector, to result in commercial application."
"Precompetitive refers to a particular part of the innovation process. It
applies to activities before the point at which a company can tell whether
a specific technology has commercial potential. It would not apply, for
example, to the development of application-specific commercial prototypes."
Generic technologies are not related to narrow market sectors; rather, they
often span entire industries or even multiple industries and market sectors.
Generic technology stops short of design and development of particular products
for the commercial marketplace. By the same token, precompetitive invest-
ments are not related to specific products; they are aimed at the development of
common tools and technologies that will be used later in a variety of applica-
tions. Generic, enabling technologies include advanced materials, biotechnol-
ogy, engineering and production technologies, information technologies, semi-
conductors, robotics, and artificial intelligence. These are prominent among the
technologies that will fuel economic growth in the 1990s and beyond. It should
be noted that the generic technologies of the twenty-first century are much
more complex, more multidisciplinary, and more costly to develop than those
on which our twentieth century technology has been based.
The rationale for federal government support of generic technology develop-
ment is similar to the one that guides basic research investment: generic tech-
nologies require government support because of the high risks and high costs
involved in the research and because no one firm can capture a return sufficient
to justify the investment. Since the results of research and development on
generic technologies diffuse rapidly to competitors at home and abroad, assuring
adequate R&D investment in them requires a combination of industrial funds
and government support.
Realizing benefits to the U.S. economy from government investments in
generic technology requires that the private sector and universities be closely
linked to government-supported generic technology development if commercial
17
application is to follow in the United States. This implies two related imple-
mentation steps. First, we must strengthen technology transfer mechanisms
both between the public and private sectors and within each sector. Second, we
must manage and utilize all of our scientific and engineering resources-includ-
ing those in industry, the universities, and our more than 700 federal laborato-
ries-to the maximum possible advantage in the collaborative development of
generic technologies.
Several vehicles exist to put such collaborative partnerships in place. One
such vehicle is the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which was created by
the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act to assist U.S. industry to
carry out R&D on precompetitive, enabling technologies. The ATP is a Depart-
ment of Commerce program administered by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST).
Another vehicle is the establishment of industry-government consortia
such as SEMATECH. For years the Japanese semiconductor industry has recog-
nized the advantages of cooperation in the precompetitive phases of R&D. By
contrast, U.S. industry has been characterized by relationships that are mostly
adversarial. Because U.S. firms have acted independently, each company is
burdened with the full costs of advancing all aspects of new technologies. In an
era of rapidly increasing costs of technology development, independent and
duplicative efforts hinder competitiveness. The U.S. semiconductor industry
has been late to recognize the advantage of such cooperative research efforts and
American firms have only recently organized to pool their resources. One result
is SEMATECH, a government-supported industry consortium dedicated to
improving semiconductor manufacturing technology.¹³
Recently, the Administration has adopted the goal of maintaining the
technology base of the country, at least in part, through the federal government's
support of generic technologies at the precompetitive stage. It has issued a
technology policy document and made public remarks to that effect, but it has
yet to take the strategic implementation steps necessary to accomplish this.
The first step is for the federal government, together with industry, to develop a
joint technology strategy. This strategy does not involve the government in
picking "winners and losers." The basic choices of which products to develop
and when remain within the private sector, backed by private money and disci-
plined by the marketplace. Instead, the strategy must encourage the creation of
collaborative coalitions between governments at the federal and state levels
(including the vast resources at our national laboratories), industry, and univer-
sities to develop a small number of generic technologies that are of strategic
importance to the U.S. economy now and in the future.
18
Towards a U.S. Technology Strategy
"The United States is not used to designing national strategies for helping
its industries catch up with dominant producers in the rest of the world."
(MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity, 1989)¹⁴
Over the past decade, the problems of U.S. competitiveness and the role of
technology have been studied by a wide variety of groups. These include Presi-
dent Reagan's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, the Council on
Competitiveness, the Computer Systems Policy Project, the National Academy
of Engineering, the MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Defense Science Board, and, more recently,
the National Advisory Committee on Semiconductors, the Vice-President's
Council on Competitiveness, the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Their reports
and studies all give voice to four consistent components that must be included
in an effective strategy:
Reverse the continuing loss of the U.S. technology base
Identify and invest in strategic, generic technologies
Speed-up the commercialization of new technologies
Enhance collaboration between the public and private sectors, and
within these sectors.
Although the primary responsibility for civilian technology development
and commercial application lies with the private sector, the federal government
can and should play a more proactive, participative role in these processes than
it has traditionally. The National Academy of Engineering's statement on
"Technology and Competitiveness" correctly proposed that in this critical time
of global competition, the government, working collaboratively with industry
and the universities, "must assume more responsibility for the national civilian
technology base in those areas of technology where industrial incentives or
motivation are inadequate to meet the needs of the economy as a whole. "15
For the government to assume this responsibility is a departure from the
past. Traditionally, the government has felt an obligation to provide the princi-
pal support for the nation's science base, but not its civilian technology base.
19
The result of this policy position has been that the government has put more
emphasis on basic research than on technology transfer and the commercializa-
tion of new technologies. As the OSTP report indicates, this is no longer a
tenable position: if it is to regain its competitive edge in manufacturing, the
United States cannot simply be content to dominate the basic research part of
the technological innovation process without taking steps to reap the benefits of
this investment in the marketplace. The release of this report and the planned
establishment of the Critical Technology Institute by OSTP is evidence that our
attitudes are beginning to change. But much more must occur before we can be
satisfied that we have indeed a viable approach to our technology base.
Addressing the four steps identified above suggests the following implemen-
tation steps.
REVERSE THE CONTINUING LOSS OF THE U.S. TECHNOLOGY BASE
Leadership
Our nation's technological leadership is being tested and challenged in the
global marketplace every day. The science and engineering enterprise has been
called on in the past to address problems of extreme complexity and national
importance, such as development of the atomic bomb during World War II, the
design and building of the interstate highway system in the 1950s, and the
Apollo program during the 1960s. Circumstances outside the research system
drove the extraordinary scientific and technological accomplishments in these
instances. Today, new, and in some ways more pervasive and threatening,
challenges face the nation-sustaining U.S. economic growth and our techno-
logical pre-eminence, and stemming the erosion of the manufacturing sector.
National security is no longer a purely military concern. Economic secu-
rity has become a vital consideration and the strategic importance of technology
can be a significant contributor to America's future growth and competitiveness.
To get this important message out to American citizens, President Bush should
include his support for the newly issued "U.S. Technology Policy" and should
articulate the need for an industry-government technology strategy-as well as
the implementation steps outlined below-in an appropriate message to Con-
gress and to the American people. The President should also address the need
for a continuing industry-government dialogue at the highest levels of govern-
ment to address strategic issues in science and technology.
Rebalancing R&D Expenditures
While a case can be made for additional R&D funding, the present R&D
budget needs to be scrutinized for reallocation and priority setting in order to
make our current investments in the nation's science and technology base more
effective. Today, over 60 percent of the U.S. R&D budget is allocated to
20
defense-oriented R&D. Since defense-oriented R&D is not the precursor to
civilian technology development that it has been in the past, there is a need to
introduce greater balance between civilian and defense R&D by moving towards
a more equal division of expenditures. Such a division of resources would
enable the U.S. to achieve levels of R&D spending on the civilian side of the
ledger more comparable to those of our major foreign competitors. One mecha-
nism for attaining this more effective division of R&D funds is to ensure full
public and private sector utilization of the vast resources found in the federal
laboratories by involving them in the development of civilian-oriented generic
technologies, rather than in development of defense-oriented technology.
IDENTIFY AND INVEST IN STRATEGIC, GENERIC TECHNOLOGIES
Support for Generic Technologies
Government must play a larger role in ensuring that the United States has
the technology necessary to support our economy and promote manufacturing
competitiveness. As was discussed earlier, NIST's newly implemented Advanced
Technology Program is one step on the road towards government/industry
collaboration in the development of generic technology. But much more is
needed. It is striking that after all the reports and analyses are made, a few areas
of technology come to the top of the priority list over and over. They are
Electronic technologies
Biotechnology
Information technologies
Manufacturing and process technologies
Advanced materials technologies
These generic technologies are among those that are of prime importance to
the future of American manufacturing and to the United States' technological
leadership in the world. As an experiment, the federal government should
redirect the missions of a small number of government/national laboratories so
that, through joint industry funding and management, they could become the
nuclei of generic, precompetitive technology efforts.
The 1992 Budget Proposals
Congress should support the President's FY 1992 initiatives in science and
technology, including the high-performance computing and networking initia-
tive, the embryonic initiative in materials technology and processing, and the
manufacturing technology efforts in NIST, NSF, DOE, DOD, and other agencies.
Congress and the Administration should also press forward with an imaginative
education and human resource initiative to provide leadership to stimulate
21
upgrading the skilled workforce American industry needs to handle tomorrow's
advances in science and technology.
R&D Tax Credit
Congress should make the R&D tax credit fully applicable to R&D related
to manufacturing processes, which it is not today. In addition, the tax credit
should be made permanent so that companies can plan their R&D expenditures
ahead of time and use this economic incentive more effectively. Finally, Con-
gress should make special provisions for investments by firms in industry-
government consortia and in academia as a means of enhancing the private
sector's participation with government in the development of generic, enabling
technologies. These actions would constitute first steps towards a much needed
integration of economic policy and technology policy.
SPEED UP THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
The Role of the Federal Laboratories
The federal government operates more than 700 laboratories with an annual
budget of approximately $21 billion-three-fifths of which goes towards defense
applications. This amount is almost one-third of the government's R&D expen-
ditures and nearly one-sixth of the nation's total. As military budgets decline,
many government laboratories must find new missions or go out of business.
Many already have no well-defined mission.
Although Congress adopted several laws in the 1980s to encourage the
commercialization of federal laboratory technology and to promote technology
transfer from the federal laboratories to the private sector, collaboration between
laboratories and industrial firms has been modest at best. Our national labora-
tories are an underutilized resource in our quest for economic growth. They
must become an effective, strategic resource.
Some government laboratories, or specific divisions or projects of a single
laboratory, should be redirected to support industrial coalitions aimed at creat-
ing leadership positions in generic technologies. Within these coalitions, indus-
tries and the laboratories would collaboratively agree on project content, and
both would provide financial, technical, and human resources.
Getting industry involved in working collaboratively with government to
develop generic technologies will positively affect the outcome of R&D by
applying a market test to the tasks and their execution. Such collaborative
ventures would also reduce federal funds that are now devoted to the laborato-
ries and make those funds available for other civilian R&D efforts.
22
ENHANCE COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTORS
Collaborative Mechanisms and Technology Transfer
Developing collaborative mechanisms for technology transfer between the
public and private sectors, and within each sector, is fundamental to the effec-
tiveness of any technology strategy. Any viable strategy for technology must
include vehicles to promote the collaboration of government with industry and
the universities and multi-company collaboration among U.S. industrial firms.
In order to make collaborative efforts between industry-government and univer-
sity-industry work, American firms must supplement such collaborative efforts
with in-house activities that are complementary to external ones so that they
can rapidly take advantage of the outcomes of collaborative efforts.
Such "partnerships" can take a variety of forms. One such vehicle is the
formation of industry-government consortia. SEMATECH, in the area of semi-
conductor manufacturing, is one example of this kind of joint venture. Another
mechanism for facilitating closer collaboration between sectors is the National
Science Foundation-supported Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) and Science
and Technology Centers (STCs). These centers were established to foster close
partnerships between universities, industry, and the government on industrially
relevant interdisciplinary science and engineering research and education.
Another mechanism that has been tried in various forms includes multi-
company industry efforts like the Microelectronics and Computer Technology
Corporation (MCC) and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC). An-
other mechanism that has been tried to increase collaborative technology devel-
opment and deployment is the establishment by NIST of three regional Manu-
facturing Technology Centers. These centers are charged with helping small
businesses improve their productivity through the transfer and application of
new manufacturing tools and methods. Two additional centers are planned for
1991.
Support for State and Local Initiatives in Science and Technology
Over the past two decades, state and local governments have come to see
science and technology programs as keys to economic development. Following
the examples of California's Silicon Valley, Boston's Route 128, and North
Carolina's Research Triangle Park, many states have adopted active technology-
based development strategies. These programs vary from state to state, but
generally include funding for advanced technology research centers-sometimes
referred to as "centers of excellence," seed and venture capital funds, technical
assistance, incubators, research parks, R&D grants, and information dissemina-
tion and technology transfer. The federal government should actively support
these efforts and coordinate its activities with state program developers and clients.
23
REFERENCES
1. V. Bush, Science-The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President on a Pro-
gram for Postwar Scientific Research (July 1945). Reprinted by the National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1990.
2. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
U.S. Technology Policy (Washington, D.C., September 26, 1990).
3. R.M. White, "Technology Policy in an Interdependent World," Address to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., April 13,
1990.
4. G. Bush, "Remarks by the President to the American Electronics Association,"
Washington, D.C., March 7, 1990.
5. M. L. Dertouzos, R. K. Lester, R. M. Solow, and The MIT Commission on
Industrial Productivity, Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge (The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989).
6. Council on Competitiveness, Picking Up The Pace: The Commercial Chal-
lenge to American Innovation, p. 2 (Washington, D.C., 1988).
7. V. Bush, Science-The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President on a Pro-
gram for Postwar Scientific Research (July 1945). Reprinted by the National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1990.
8. U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, Emerging Tech-
nologies: A Survey of Technical and Economic Opportunities (Washington, D.C., Spring
1990).
9. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
U.S. Technology Policy (Washington, D.C., September 26, 1990).
10. G. Bush, "Remarks by the President to the American Electronics Association,"
Washington, D.C., March 7, 1990.
11. U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, Emerging Tech-
nologies: A Survey of Technical and Economic Opportunities (Washington, D.C., Spring
1990).
12. D. A. Bromley, "U.S. Technology Policy: The Path to Competitiveness,"
Address to the Technology 2000 Meeting, Washington, D.C., November 27, 1990.
13. National Advisory Committee on Semiconductors, A Strategic Industry at
Risk, (Washington, D.C., November 1989).
14. M. L. Dertouzos, R. K. Lester, R. M. Solow, and The MIT Commission on
Industrial Productivity, Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge (The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989).
15. National Academy of Engineering, "Technology and Competitiveness: A
Statement of the Council" (Washington, D.C., January 1989).
24
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
The National Academy Press was created by the
National Academy of Sciences to publish the
reports issued by the Academy and by the National
Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine,
and the National Research Council, all operating
under the charter granted to the National Academy
of Sciences by the Congress of the United States.
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121102
FROM:
PRESS, Frank: NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/10/91
SUBJECT: LETTER TO JOHN ARMSTRONG CONCERNING THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST GUIDELINES FOR THE AAAS-SLOAN EXECUTIVE
BRANCH SCIENCE & ENGINEERING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Michelle Van Cleave
Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 04/15/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL
912102
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. D.C. 20418
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
April 10, 1991
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Director, Office of Science
and Technology Policy
Room 360, OEOB
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Allan:
The enclosed correspondence with John Armstrong should
interest you.
Yours sincerely,
Drank
Frank Press
President
Enclosure
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. D.C. 20418
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
April 10, 1991
Dr. John A. Armstrong
Vice President for Science and Technology
Corporate Headquarters
IBM Corporation
Armonk, New York 10504
Dear John:
This is what we have been able to find out. I am
sending it over to the White House.
Best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Drank Frank Press
President
Enclosure
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418
April 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Frank Press
James R. Wright JRW
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
APR 09 1991
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AAAS - Sloan Fellows
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
The conflict of interest guidelines for the AAAS-Sloan
Executive Branch Science and Engineering Fellowship Program are
new with the Bush Administration. They apparently are derived
primarily from Section 208 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Section 208 (a) generally provides, in part, that except as
otherwise authorized by the Government, a Government employee may
not participate personally and substantially as a Government
employee in a "particular matter" (e.g., in a judicial or other
proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determina-
tion, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest)
in which, to his knowledge, he has a financial interest. The
term "financial interest" may be the interest of the employee
himself or his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization
in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general
partner, or employee, or any person or organization with whom he
employment. is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective
The letter from John Armstrong refers to a prohibition
on "all forms of compensation from their employer during the
tenure of the fellowship, including pension or insurance
contributions " It's interesting to note that another section
of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 209, which specifically
prohibits such salary supplements, does not apply to a Govern-
ment employee serving without compensation (see Section 209 (c)
This may be significant since it's my understanding that the
AAAS-Sloan Fellows are compensated by AAAS, not the Government.
Even when Section 209 does apply, it does not prohibit continuing
participation in a former employer's bona fide pension or welfare
benefit plan (see Section 209 (b) But OSTP seems to have
largely ignored Section 209 and instead adopted a fairly conser-
vative interpretation of the applicable conflict of interest
restrictions based primarily upon the "financial interest"
restriction of Section 208.
CC: Larry McCray
International Business Machines Corporation
Office of the Vice President for Science and Technology
Armonk. New York 10504
Corporate Headquarters
March 25, 1991
MITIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
APR C2 71
Dr. Frank Press
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Dear Frank:
This letter is to follow-up on our recent conversation about
what I believe are serious impediments to closer cooperation
between industry, universities, and government on matters of
industrial competitiveness. Neither technology transfer nor
coordination of policies between these sectors is possible
without the appropriate exchange of people, often on temporary
assignments. However, just as this matter is becoming more
urgent, it is my perception that it is becoming more difficult
in practice to create such exchanges.
The example that finally led to this letter is the following.
As you know, there is a new program called the AAAS-Sloan
Executive Branch Science and Engineering Fellowship Program.
The aim of the program is to provide "Fellows [who] will work
in the White House OSTP for one or two years ... providing
expertise in industrial R&D, technology transfer,
international competitiveness, and related issues." As I
mentioned, I was approached by an outstanding candidate from
industry, agreed with his request for a letter of
recommendation, and then was as dismayed as he was to receive
only then the Conflict of Interest guidelines of this new
program. It includes the following statement: "Fellows who
are employed by a for-profit business or industry must forego
all forms of compensation from their employer during the
tenure of the fellowship, including pension or insurance
contributions "
Dr. Frank Press
Page 2
March 25, 1991
Regardless of the reasons for such a provision, it guarantees
in practice that the group of industrial scientists with the
most to contribute will disqualify themselves from making such
contributions. There must be a way to combine appropriate
safeguards for the public interest with a less draconian
insistence on personal sacrifice.
Perhaps there is misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the
relevant rules; I believe it would be helpful for the Academy
to look into the matter.
Sincerely,
Vice President for Science and Technology
Jan John A. Armstrong
JAA:naw
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121091
FROM:
HAMMON, Denise A.: WENTWORTH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/08/91
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ANSWER A QUESTION CONCERNING WOMAN IN
TECHNOLOGY.
ASSIGNED TO: Dr. Phillips
ACTION REQUIRED: AS NECESSARY
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
04/26/91
DATE COMPLETED:
6/11/91
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
also # 9120678
to wind
Industrial
DATE RECEIVED: 04/12/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 11, 1991
Dear Ms. Hammon:
Thank you for the very timely question you posed in your letter to Dr. Bromley
concerning the apparent lack of progress by women "in the field of technology." He
has asked me to respond. This topic continues to be of concern. It was discussed
very eloquently in a May 21, 1991 article by Natalie Angier in the New York Times
entitled "Women Swell Ranks of Science, But Remain Invisible at the Top."
I also would like to refer you to a January 1990 report, "Science and Engineering
Personnel: A National Overview," by the National Science Foundation (Special
Report, NSF-90-310). They found that women have made substantial gains in science
and engineering (S/E) employment over the last decade, but still remain under
represented. Women scientists and engineers represented about 13 percent of the S/E
workforce in 1986, up from 8 percent in 1976. This trend is likely to continue in the
future since women, ethnic minorities, and older students are a rising proportion of
all undergraduate college students. Women do account for a larger percent of the
workforce in science, 26 percent, than in engineering, 4 percent. The NSF report does
not offer an explanation of why this is the case, but it is generously footnoted and
may be a resource for your master's thesis research.
Good luck with your graduate studies.
Sincerely
volley
William D. Phillips
Associate Director for Industrial Technology
Enclosure
Ms. Denise A. Hammon
Research Assistant to the
Vice President of Student Affairs
Associate and Bachelor Degree Programs
Wentworth Institute of Technology
550 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
9121091
RECEIVED Wentworth
E
91 APR 12 All 53
Institute of Technology
OFFICE 8, 1991
DIRECTOR
D. Allan Bromley, Ph.D.
Science Advisor to the President
of the United States of America
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Washington, D.C.
20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
During your recent visit to Wentworth Institute of
Technology, time ran out during the symposium and I was unable to
ask you my question. I would appreciate if you, or a member of
your staff, would be so kind as to consider my question at this
time.
QUESTION: Over the past ten to fifteen years, women have
made significant progress in the previously male-dominated occupa-
tions of specialized medicine, law, and economics, but not in the
field of technology.
It seems to me that many of the reasoning and aptitude
skills required for these other occupations are also required for
technology. Can you attribute the slow-to-start progress women
have made in this field to a particular factor or set of cir-
cumstances?
My personal interest in this question stems from my current
master's thesis proposal on the sociological aspects of women in
aviation technology. I would appreciate any consideration you
may be able to give my question.
Thank you for visiting our campus. Your presence made our
special day even more memorable.
Sincerely,
Nenine a. Hammon
Denise A. Hammon
Research Assistant to the
Vice President of Student Affairs
Associate and Bachelor Degree Programs. 550 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 617-442-9010
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
REQUEST FOR MEETING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120991
FROM:
MORIARTY, Thomas W.
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/01/91
SUBJECT: REQUESTS 15-20 MINUTES TO DISCUSS DR. BROMLEY'S
COMMENTS IN OCTOBER'S ISSUE OF "SPECTRUM", AS THEY
RELATE TO HIS OWN CAREER EFFORTS.
ASSIGNED TO: INDUSTRIAL
ACTION REQUIRED: AS APPROPRIATE
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
04/05/91
5/16/91
DATE COMPLETED: 6/19/91
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: Thomas Moriarty will be calling 04/05/91 to determine if a time
can be arranged. Marian left a message for Moriarty but did not
get a response. This has been reassigned to Phillips.
Sent letter. 6/19
INDUSTRIAL
DATE RECEIVED: 04/03/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY
9/20991
RECEIVED
6710 Hallwood Avenue
91 APR 3 P5: 07
Falls Church. VA 22046
April 1. 1991
'OFFICE OF THE
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley DIRECTOR
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 358
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Mr. Bromley:
I enjoyed reading your comments in October's Spectrum on the state of
technological research and development in this country and abroad, and am writing
to find out more about the successful merging of R&D and commercial
considerations. You see, I am one of those financial managers controlling
product development you mentioned. By the same token, I have continued my
education after graduate business school with courses in physics and have to say
that I agree with the position that short term financial success in the
marketplace may lead to a dearth of new product development as a result of
underfunded basic research.
The purpose of this letter, frankly, is to ask your advice regarding my
own career efforts. Given my strong academic and broad employment experience
in project management, accompanied by my interest in being involved in leading
edge technology development, I am determined to be part of the solution, not the
problem. My goal is to find a forward thinking organization that, as in the
German and Japanese examples you cited, recognizes how important it is to broadly
educate its decision makers. Between your experiences at Yale and here in
Washington, you would seem a unique source of information.
Realizing that your schedule is already filled to capacity, I still venture
a request for 15-20 minutes to allow you to expand upon your comments to
Spectrum. I will call your office on Friday the 5th to determine if a time can
be arranged. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Moriat
Thomas W. Moriarty
P.S. I am including a resume purely for a general idea of my background.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
03. Resume
Resume of Thomas W. Moriarty [personal information
4/1/91
(b)(6)
redacted] (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Date Closed:
3/10/2010
OA/ID Number:
62034-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 25, 1991
Dear Mr. Moriarty:
Dr. Bromley has forwarded your letter to me concerning your background and interest
in employment at OSTP. My directorate, at this time, does not have a need for a
person with your credentials. However, I will keep your resume on file if anything
should occur in the near future.
Thank you for your interest in our office.
Sincerely,
nopbly
William D. Phillips
Associate Director for Industrial Technology
Thomas W. Moriarty
6710 Hallwood Ave.
Falls Church, VA 22046
5/8
Mary,
Please reassign to Dr. Phillips.
Thanks,
Marian
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
REQUEST FOR MEETING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120991
FROM:
MORIARTY, Thomas W.
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/01/91
SUBJECT: REQUESTS 15-20 MINUTES TO DISCUSS DR. BROMLEY'S
COMMENTS IN OCTOBER'S ISSUE OF "SPECTRUM", AS THEY
RELATE TO HIS OWN CAREER EFFORTS.
ASSIGNED TO: D. Allan Bromley
ACTION REQUIRED: AS APPROPRIATE
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
04/05/91
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: Thomas Moriarty will be calling 04/05/91 to determine if a time
can be arranged.
4/9/91 Left message for Marian orianty
did not get port
mr
DATE RECEIVED: 04/03/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120940
FROM:
WHITE, Robert M.: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 03/27/91
SUBJECT: LETTERS TO FRANK PRESS AND DR. ROBERT M. WHITE
CONCERNING THEIR INVITATION TO HIM TO BECOME A
MEMBER OF THE MANUFACTURING FORUM. HE ACCEPTS.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: Cross reference with #9120892.
DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL
9120940
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
892
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Under Secretary for Technology
Washington, D.C. 20230
RECEIVED
A9/2APR981 A 9 : 29
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
Mr. Frank Press
President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20418
Dear Frank,
Thank you for your letter of March 20 and your invitation to
become a member of the Manufacturing Forum. I am pleased to
accept your invitation to represent the Department of Commerce.
I am honored to be asked to serve with such a distinguished group
of individuals.
The activities of the Forum are of keen interest to me, and
as you know, are closely related to the activities of the
Technology Administration.
I look forward to serving on the Manufacturing Forum and,
again I thank you for the invitation.
Sincerely,
Bit
Robert M. White, Ph. D.
CC: D. Allan Bromley
Ruben F. Mettler
Christopher T. Hill
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Under Secretary for Technology
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
MAR 2 7 !99!
Dr. Robert M. White
President
National Academy of Engineering
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20418
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your letter of March 20 and your invitation to
become a member of the Manufacturing Forum. I am pleased to
accept your invitation to represent the Department of Commerce.
I am honored to be asked to serve with such a distinguished group
of individuals.
The activities of the Forum are of keen interest to me, and
as you know, are closely related to the activities of the
Technology Administration.
I look forward to serving on the Manufacturing Forum and,
again I thank you for the invitation.
Sincerely,
Bob
Robert M. White, Ph. D.
CC: D. Allan Bromley.
Ruben F. Mettler
Christopher T. Hill
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120944
FROM:
WIDDER, Robert I.: BATTELLE
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 03/27/91
SUBJECT: A COPY OF BATTELLE'S 1991 R&D FORECAST, PER BILL
WELLS SUGGESTION.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
INDUS TRIAL
DATE RECEIVED: 03/29/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY
9120944
Battelle
Putting Technology To Work
SIMAR
Advanced Technology Office
Quincy Street Station
4001 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 600
'OFFIC
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 875-3340
DIRL703)243,5617 (fax)
March 27, 1991
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Director
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
Bill Wells suggested that I send you a copy of Battelle's 1991 R&D Forecast,
which has just come from the printers and is enclosed. Please call me at
(703) 516-7458, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert I. Widder
Senior Research Scientist
Encl: a/s
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120965
FROM:
GANAPATHY, S. Kicha: AT&T
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 03/22/91
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INTERCEDE AS "INTERESTED GOVERNMENT
AGENCY" BEFORE THE U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY ON BEHALF
OF AT&T BELL LABORATORIES AND DR. ARLENE COLE.
ASSIGNED TO: Dr. Phillips
ACTION
REQUIRED: Direct FOR DAB SIGNATURE reply
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
04/15/91
DATE COMPLETED:
4/18/91
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: upp
I referred tein to Sol Buchsbarm
9/12- genepather spde
to Bob Luby- If
us the way toget to DAB. OKwith him
Bob wants to act onet
JB 4/11/91
will will soneome
directly. jo
Industrial
DATE RECEIVED: 04/01/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
04a. Letter
To: Allan Bromley From: Kicha Ganapathy
3/22/91
(b)(6)
Re: Requst to Intercede [personal information redacted] (5
pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Date Closed:
3/10/2010
OA/ID Number:
62034-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
04b. Letter
To: Kicha Ganapathy From: Allan Bromley
4/18/91
(b)(6)
Re: Response to 3/22/91 letter [personal information
redacted] (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industrial: General [6 of 7] [1991]
Date Closed:
3/10/2010
OA/ID Number:
62034-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120892
FROM:
PRESS, Frank and Robert M. White
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 03/20/91
SUBJECT: LETTERS TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. WHITE AND DR.
WALTER E. MASSEY INVITING THEM TO BECOME MEMBERS OF
THE MANUFACTURING FORUM.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 03/25/91
FILE: INDUSTRIAL
9120892
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418 RECEIVED
March 20, 1991
91 MAR 25 P4: 24
OFFICE OF THE
The Honorable Robert M. White
Under Secretary of Commerce
for Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th & Pennsylvania, N.W.
Washington, DC 20230
Dear Bob:
In late 1989 the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering jointly established the
Manufacturing Forum. The purpose of the Forum is to promote the
increased competitiveness of American manufacturing industries
through effective working relationships among government,
industry, labor, and universities.
The Forum membership of twenty-five persons includes such
senior executives as Allan Bromley, Michael Boskin, Jerry
Junkins, Don Beall, and James Duderstadt. The chairman of the
Manufacturing Forum is Ruben Mettler, retired chairman and CEO of
TRW Inc.
We are pleased that you were able to attend the recent
meeting of the Forum in January and to present the views of the
Department of Commerce, which had been so ably stated by Deputy
Secretary Thomas Murrin before his recent departure to academia.
Tom has agreed to remain an active member of the Forum, now
representing the views of academia.
We should like to invite you to become a member of the
Manufacturing Forum. The perspectives of the Department of
Commerce are absolutely essential to the deliberations and
discussions of manufacturing strategy and policy within the
Forum. As a member of the Manufacturing Forum, you would be
invited to attend and participate in three or four meetings each
year at the National Academy of Sciences.
The active participation of federal officials is essential
to achievement of our vision of the Manufacturing Forum, and we
are gratified at the considerable commitment that the government
members have made to the Forum during its first year.
The Honorable Robert M. White
March 20, 1991
Page 2
To bring you up to date on the charter, membership,
activities, and plans for the Manufacturing Forum, enclosed is a
copy of a recent Forum status report. If you have questions
about the Forum, please contact either of us, Ruben Mettler, or
the Forum's executive director, Christopher Hill. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Prof
Deauh
Robert M. White
Frank Press
President
President
National Academy of Engineering
National Academy of Sciences
Enclosure
CC: D. Allan Bromley
Ruben F. Mettler
Christopher T. Hill
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418
March 20, 1991
Dr. Walter E. Massey
Director
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20550
Dear Walter:
In late 1989 the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering jointly established the
Manufacturing Forum. The purpose of the Forum is to promote the
increased competitiveness of American manufacturing industries
through effective working relationships among government,
industry, labor, and universities.
The Forum membership of twenty-five persons includes such
senior executives as Allan Bromley, Michael Boskin, Jerry
Junkins, Don Beall, and James Duderstadt. The chairman of the
Manufacturing Forum is Ruben Mettler, retired chairman and CEO of
TRW Inc.
We should like to invite you to become a member of the
Manufacturing Forum. The perspectives of the director of the
National Science Foundation are essential to the Forum's
discussions of the fundamental science and technology base on
which modern manufacturing rests and of the issues surrounding
the quality and adequacy of the human resources that are critical
to the success of manufacturing. As a member of the
Manufacturing Forum, you would be invited to attend and
participate in three or four meetings each year at the National
Academy of Sciences.
Erich Bloch played a key role in the initiation of the Forum
concept and has made major contributions to it. He continues to
serve as an active member. Fred Bernthal ably presented the NSF
view during his tenure as Acting Director. The active
participation of federal officials is essential to achievement of
our vision of the Manufacturing Forum, and we are gratified at
the considerable commitment that they and other government
members have made to the Forum during its first year.
Dr. Walter E. Massey
March 20, 1991
Page 2
To bring you up to date on the charter, membership,
activities, and plans for the Manufacturing Forum, enclosed is a
copy of a recent Forum status report. If you have questions
about the Forum, please contact either of us, Ruben Mettler, or
the Forum's executive director, Christopher Hill. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Robert Bol M. White
Deach Frank Press
President
President
National Academy of Engineering
National Academy of Sciences
Enclosure
CC: D. Allan Bromley
Ruben F. Mettler
Christopher T. Hill
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120829
FROM:
HILL, Christopher T.: THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 03/19/91
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REVIEW/COMMENT A DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE
JAPANESE INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS PROPOSAL
& ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY &
UNIVERSITIES
ASSIGNED TO: Dr. Phillips
Thomas Ratchford
ACTION REQUIRED: REVIEW/COMMENT TO
DAB FOR SIGNATURE.
SENDER'S DUE DATE: 04/08/91
OSTP DUE DATE:
04/04/91
DATE COMPLETED: 4/12/91
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: It is asked that you treat the paper as a confidential draft and
not a final paper for distribution.
Copy of letter & report to TJR/Whyman
on on4/29
Industrial
DATE RECEIVED: 03/19/91
FILE: TECHNOLOGY*INTERNATIONAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
April 12, 1991
Dear Chris:
I very much enjoyed reading the discussion paper by George R. Heaton, Jr. on
International R&D Cooperation: Lessons from IMS. It appears to accurately
represent the history of this proposed initiative from its infancy in Japan to the
present involvement of the United States and the European Community. Discussion
of the contrasting processes and differing government and private sector modes of
participation in advancing the IMS proposal in Japan and the United States to its
present state are of broad value.
The paper by George Heaton has great merit. One point that I feel could stand
somewhat greater emphasis and that clearly emerged in the work sessions conducted
by DOC is that the industry and university components of the U.S. private sector
have somewhat divergent objectives with regard to IMS. For the former, the objective
seems largely to be a window on Japanese manufacturing technologies and processes,
and, for the latter, new sources of funding.
Sincerely,
Dum
D. Allan Bromley
Director
Mr. Christopher T. Hill
Executive Director
The Manufacturing Forum
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
bcc: T. Ratchford
9120829
THE MANUFACTURING FORUM
National Academy of Engineering National Academy of Sciences CEIVED
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
91
Telephone: 202/334-1579
FAX: 202/334-2290
33
BITNET: [email protected]
March 19, 1991
OFFICE DIRECTOR OF THE
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Director
Office of Science and Technology Policy
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Allan:
As you are aware, the Manufacturing Forum, acting in
response to expressions of interest by several of its members,
has commissioned a discussion paper on the Japanese Intelligent
Manufacturing Systems (IMS) proposal and its implications for
government, industry, and universities.
We have received an excellent draft of the discussion paper
from its author, George Heaton, an attorney and adjunct associate
professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Copies of the
draft and the work statement are enclosed.
The paper will be discussed at the June 5 meeting of the
Manufacturing Forum. However, in order that the paper can be
made available in a timely way as the international discussions
of IMS go forward, Ruben Mettler and I decided to ask an ad hoc
subgroup of the Forum to review and comment on the draft over the
next few weeks so that it can be released as early as possible.
We are also asking a select group of experts outside the Forum to
review it at the same time. A list of the reviewers is enclosed.
It would be perfectly appropriate and quite desirable, in my
view, for you to ask other persons in OSTP to review the paper,
such as Bill Phillips or Tom Ratchford. We only ask that they
treat the paper as a confidential draft and not a final paper for
distribution.
Please send your comments to me at the Manufacturing Forum
in whatever form is convenient. I will share your comments with
the other Forum members in summary form and with George Heaton in
detail.
The Manufacturing Forum promotes increased competitiveness of American manufacturing industries
through effective working relationships among government, industry, labor, and universities.
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
March 19, 1991
Page 2
May I have your response by April 8, 1991? If you are
unable to comment, please let me know.
Thank you very much for your help.
Chris Christopher T. Hill
Sincerely,
Executive Director
Enclosure
CC: Ruben F. Mettler
MANUFACTURING FORUM
Ad Hoc Group to Review the Draft IMS Discussion Paper
March 19, 1991
Manufacturing Forum Members
Don Beall, Rockwell
Fred Bernthal, NSF
Allan Bromley, OSTP
Jim Gibbons, Stanford
Jerry Junkins, Texas Instruments
Frank Luerssen, Inland Steel
Tom Murrin, DuQuesne University
Linn Williams, USTR
Robert White, Dept. of Commerce
Expert Reviewers
Richard Getzinger, Head, AAAS Office of Int'l. Programs
(former US S&T Counsellor, Tokyo Embassy)
Stanley Krueger, United Technologies, Tokyo
Richard McClain, TRW, Tokyo
Denise Mishel, American Electronics Association
Roger Nagel, Prof. of Manufacturing Systems Engr., Lehigh
(former member, Manufacturing Studies Board)
Junichi Nishizawa, Pres., Tohoku University
(Japanese Semiconductor Research Association, Sendai)
William Owczarski, United Technologies, Wash., D.C.
(member, Ad Hoc Industry Group on IMS; chair NAM Tech.
Policy Committee)
Richard Samuels, MIT
(director, MIT Japan Program)
F. Karl Willenbrock, Assistant Director of Science,
Technology and International Affairs, NSF
ABRIDGED
STATEMENT OF WORK
Preparation of Background Paper for the Manufacturing Forum
on
"Principles for International Cooperation in Civilian Technology:
Lessons from the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Proposal"
The contractor will prepare a paper that identifies one or
more sets of principles, criteria, and/or considerations that
might guide United States government officials, U.S.
manufacturing firms, U.S. universities, and U.S. independent
research organizations in participating in international programs
of cooperative research and development related to civilian
technologies. The paper will describe and draw upon recent U.S.
experiences and discussions surrounding the Japanese proposal for
an international cooperative research program in Intelligent
Manufacturing Systems (IMS).
The paper should address, but need not be limited to,
consideration of the following topics and issues.
1. A descriptive summary of the IMS proposal, its history, key
events since its introduction, its status, and the nature of the
U.S. response by the Federal Government, industry, universities,
professional organizations, and manufacturing research consortia.
The paper should include a descriptive summary of the existing
set of international agreements and obligations that directly
affect cooperation in research, development and technology
transfer, especially those that affect industrially-related
technology and/or those involving the United States and Japan.
The paper should also summarize the views of Japanese
manufacturing interests regarding the IMS proposal. The summary
should provide an authoritative overview that will facilitate an
informed discussion of the IMS proposal by the members of the
Manufacturing Forum and by other senior leaders in the U.S.
manufacturing community.
2. An identification of key policy issues that have been raised
about the IMS proposal, including the approach to the U.S.
government and other institutions, Federal agencies' responses to
the IMS initiative, the nature and implications of international
agreements - including but not limited to the U.S./Japan
bilateral science and technology agreement - for the IMS
proposal, non-governmental organizations' involvement in
organizing a U.S. response, U.S. preparedness to initiate and/or
respond to international cooperative R&D activities in the
civilian industrial realm, the availability of human and
financial resources in the United States to participate in the
management and the conduct of cooperative international R&D
efforts, and the mechanisms of U.S. response to the IMS proposal
at each stage.
3. Development of one or more sets of principles for
participation in international cooperative industrial R&D
programs by U.S. organizations, including government, industry,
universities, and others. Such principles would not be intended
as legislated or administrative rules of conduct, but rather as
concepts and rules of thumb to guide potential participants as
well as policymakers responsible for such response and
participation. They might address such matters as domestic
preparation, mechanisms for domestic coordination, suggestions as
to venues for domestic discussions and for participants in such
discussions, and constraints and opportunities resulting from
international regimes and agreements governing political, trade,
and technology relationships. These principles might be useful
in discussions of any future international cooperative R&D
program proposals, as well as in the on-going discussions of the
IMS proposal in the United States. They should be targeted at
senior decisionmakers in all relevant sectors, including Federal
officials and chief executive officers of firms and universities.
The paper is to take into account extant documentation of
the IMS proposal and subsequent events and discussion, and should
include consideration of information gained via interviews with
key persons associated with the IMS project in the United States
and Japan. The paper should also reflect discussions with the
Manufacturing Forum members and staff, and the author's personal
knowledge of such matters as Japanese government-industry
relationships in R&D, U.S. -Japan relations, U.S. research and
technology policies, and international affairs. Every effort
should be made to reflect authoritatively the views of both
proponents and opponents of the IMS project in the United States,
including government officials, industrial leaders, and
academicians.
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120841
FROM:
BELDEN, David L.: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, THE
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 03/18/91
SUBJECT: A LETTER TO INFORM THAT HE IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE
INVITATION TO MEET WITH DR. BROMLEY AND OSTP STAFF.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Dr. Wong
Dr. Phillips
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 03/22/91
FILE: INDUSTRY*PHYSICAL SCIENCES
9120841
Я
EXS
The American Society of
M
Mechanical Engineers
David L. Belden, Ph.D., P.E.
RE
345 East 47th, Street
Executive Director
New York, NY 10017
212-705-7730
FAX 212-705-7739
91 MAR 22 A10: 35
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
March 18, 1991
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Director
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
Thank you for inviting me to meet with you and other senior of-
ficials of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is
my misfortune that I am unable to accept due to an unavoidable
schedule conflict.
I am particularly pleased that you are planning this interaction
with the executive directors of a number of the engineering
societies. ASME's relationship with you and others at OSTP have
been positive. ASME truly appreciated your participation in the
Industry Advisory Board meeting. Further, we were pleased to
prepare the technology policy and critical technologies position
papers.
Best wishes for a most successful meeting.
Sincerely,
David L. Belden