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
285792419
label
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 5/2/91-5/3/91 [2 of 2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792419
contentType
document
title
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 5/2/91-5/3/91 [2 of 2]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62079-004
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
285792419
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
376b1badca58d792
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:
Organization Files - PCAST
OA/ID Number:
62079
Folder ID Number:
62079-004
Folder Title:
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 5/2/91-5/3/91 [2 of 2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
CRADAS
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
Background Materials
UOTABLE
"[The Department of Energy's defense laboratories] have got 12,000
Ph.D. engineers and 6,000 Ph.D. scientists and I'd like to turn everyone
of those into a technology transfer advocate. That doesn't require extra
dollars, that's people.
"Right now, we might have 50 out there at most of these types of
guys trying to make [tech transfer] work and every time we go out [to
the labs] we find more and more converts coming to us and giving us
lectures about their great ideas. If we could just get half of these guys
trying to set up relationships with industry in which their expertise
could be shared with industry, the potential is unbelievable. But these
guys have been locked behind a chain linked fence for 40 years now and
they've developed that culture.
"It's not that the have purposely not participated in this process, its
just never been open to them as an opportunity and as the doors start to
open, the light makes them blink like everyone else and then they say,
"My God, there's something out there.
"At the Los Alamos CRADA [Cooperative Research and De-
velopment Agreement] signing ceremony on Capitol Hill [on March 21,
1991], the Japanese press guy assigned to the White House came over to
talk to me and I did everything I could to make him think the end was
near. The national labs, a resource they didn't have in Japan, were join-
ing with industry and we were going to take over.
"We cannot have a negative attitude."
-BRIAN SIEBERT, Director, Office of Classification, Office of Security
Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy.
WHAT IS A CRDA ?
Any agreement between one or more Federal laboratories and
one or more non-Federal parties under which the Government,
through its laboratories, provides personnel, services, facilities,
equipment, or other resources with or without reimbursement (but
not funds to non-Federal parties) and the non-Federal parties
provide funds, personnel, services, facilities, equipment, or other
resources toward the conduct of specified research or
development efforts which are consistent with the missions of the
laboratory; except that such term does not include a procurement
contract or cooperative agreement as those terms are used in
sections 6303, 6304, and 6505 of title 31, USC.
Section 12 (d)·(1) P.L. 99-502 Technology Transfer Act
(October 20, 1986)
WHY WAS CRDA CREATED ?
PROMOTE ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO FEDERAL
LABORATORIES
PROVIDE AUTHORITY FOR LAB DIRECTORS TO ACCEPT
FUNDS, PERSONNEL, SERVICES, AND/OR PROPERTY
PERMIT INDUSTRY TO OBTAIN RIGHTS TO INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY CREATED BY GOVERNMENT
PERMIT GOVERNMENT LABS AND PERSONNEL TO
PARTICIPATE IN COMMERCIALIZATION ACTIVITIES
COMMERCIALIZING FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY
The Reagan and Bush Administrations have dramatically improved
the private sector's ability to develop the commercial
implications of federally-funded R&D in the last ten years and
the Department of Commerce has played a central role in bringing
about these improvements:
1980- The Bayh-Dole Act made it possible for small
businesses and.non-profit institutions to hold title to
patents derived from R&D performed with federal funding.
The Department of Commerce led executive branch efforts to
secure passage of this first, and most fundamental portion
of the technology transfer laws.
1983- President Reagan's patent policy memorandum ordered
all agencies to make available to all Government
contractors, to the extent permitted by then-existing law,
the same benefits concerning the ownership of patents
derived from federally-funded R&D made available to small
businesses and not-for-profits under the Bayh-Dole Act. The
Department of Commerce worked closely with the White House
and other executive branch agencies in the formulation of
this important document.
1984- The Bayh-Dole Act was amended to provide the same
patent ownership rights to university-operated laboratories
as were given to small businesses and non-profit
institutions. Once again, the Department of Commerce played
a leading role among executive branch agencies in working
for this extension and improvement of the technology
transfer laws.
1984- The National Cooperative Research Act lessened the
antitrust risks of companies engaged in cooperative
research. It authorized the recovery of actual (rather than
treble) damages, the application of the "rule of reason"
standard (rather than the standard of per se illegality) and
the recovery of attorney's fees from plaintiffs who
initiated spurious litigation. More than 160. consortia have
been registered under the Act and the Bush Administration
has proposed legislation extending these provisions to cover
cooperative production activities, as well as research.
The Department of Commerce was a forceful advocate for these
changes within the executive branch and before Congress.
1986- The Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) amended the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to
improve the process for private sector commercialization of
federally-funded R&D.
Government-owned, Government-operated ("GO-GO")
laboratories were permitted to enter into cooperative
research agreements with private companies,
universities and others.
Title to or licenses for federal inventions could be
granted to participants: ownership rights in inventions
resulting from the collaborative effort could be waived
in advance: and royalties could be received as part of
these agreements (at least 15% of which must go to the
employee responsible for the invention).
The Department of Commerce once again led executive
branch efforts to secure these important improvements
to the technology transfer process.
1987- President Reagan issued Executive Order 12591,
Facilitating Access to Science and Technology, which carried
out the provisions of the FTTA and preceding legislation:
directed agencies to assist in technology commercialization
and to award title to inventions resulting from federally-
funded R&D to all contractors; and required that
international Science and Technology agreements conform to
the requirements of domestic law. The Department of
Commerce made significant contributions to this document,
working directly with the White House and other concerned
agencies.
1989- The National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act
of 1989 amended the FTTA to authorize Government-owned and
contractor-operated Department of Energy laboratories to
engage in cooperative research agreements on the same basis
as GO-GO labs. It also amended the Freedom of Information
Act to permit federal labs to withhold from disclosure
certain types of information developed in connection with
cooperative research efforts with private sector partners.
Commerce played a critical role in persuading Congress of
the importance of broadening the FTTA in this manner.
1990- The Department of Commerce has led executive branch
efforts in drafting a bill, recently submitted. to Congress
on behalf of the Administration, providing copyright
protection to federal computer software made in cooperation
with the private sector. Passage of this bill would mark
another important step forward in creating effective
mechanisms for the commercialization of federally-funded
research. The bill would have significant impacts on the
commercialization of federally developed computer software -
removing concerns private firms might have that their
collaborative work with the federal labs may fall into the
public domain and encouraging federal employees to develop
commercially viable software as part of such collaborative
research.
SAMPLE OF COMPANIES/ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
AIR TECHNIQUES
EASTMAN KODAK
ALUMINUM ASSN.
EXXON
ARMSTRONG
FUSION SYSTEMS
ASTRON
GENERAL ELECTRIC
ASTM
IBM CORP.
AT&T BELL CORP.
INTEL CORP.
BDM CORP.
ONTOLOGIC, INC.
CARBORUNDUM CORP.
ROCKWELL
CEM CORP.
TANDEM COMPUTER
DEC
UNION-CARBIDE
DENTSPLY
WARNER-SWASEY
DIONEX CORP.
3-M CORP.
DUPONT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
UNDER CRDAs
TITLE TO, OR LICENSES FOR, INVENTIONS MADE BY
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MAY BE ASSIGNED IN ADVANCE TO
THE COLLABORATOR
GOVERNMENT CAN WAIVE IN ADVANCE RIGHT OF
OWNERSHIP IT MIGHT HAVE TO INVENTIONS RESULTING
FROM CRDA COLLABORATION
GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS NONEXCLUSIVE, PAID-UP
LICENSE TO PRACTICE INVENTIONS WORLDWIDE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
(NIST)
Traditionally Has Provided Measurement
Technology and Standards Services to
Industry, Other Agencies, and State and
Local Governments
Trade Act of 1988 Expanded NIST Mission
To Emphasize Technology Assistance
to Industry and State and Local
Governments for Manufacturing
Modernization and Economic
Development
TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION
OBJECTIVE: Assist U.S. Industry in Rapid
Commercialization of Federal Technology
Collaborative R&D Activities Drawing from
NIST Technology and Expertise
Independent Research Using NIST Facilities
Patents and Licenses of NIST Developed
Technology
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AT NIST
NIST Conducts Basic and Applied Research in:
Physics
Chemical Science and Technology
Computing and Applied Mathematics
Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Building and Fire Technology
Manufacturing Engineering
Materials Science and Engineering
Computer Systems
KEYS TO NIST SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING
PARTNERSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY
Strong Technical Credentials of Programs
and Staff
Open Door Policy to Industrial Partnering -
Supported at All Levels of NIST
Long Standing Attitude by Bench Level
Staff that Cooperative Research
Programs Are Worthwhile Pursuing
Flexible Administrative Requirements/
Agreements
Good Technical Outreach Effort to
Industry To Identify and Capitalize
on Cooperative Opportunities
SUMMARY
CRDAs ARE EFFECTIVE TOOLS FOR R&D PARTNERING
100
NIST IS A LEADER IN USE OF CRDAs
K
COMING IMPROVEMENTS TO CRDAs WILL EXPAND USAGE
NEW TECHNOLOGY WEEK CONFERENCE
Wednesday May 15, 1991
Capitalizing on CRADAs:
The New Currency for Technology Transfer
CRADAs and other Technology Transfer Opportunities
at the National Institutes of Health
Reid G. Adler, J.D.
Director
Office of Technology Transfer
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
(301) 496-0750
1. A broad Congressional mandate to encourage commercial development of Government
inventions and collaborative research with the private sector was enacted with the Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA). The NIH is recognized as one of the leading
Federal agencies in the implementation of a formal technology transfer program under the
FTTA. This outline describes the organization and key elements of the NIH program and
the NIH Office of Technology Transfer (OTT). It also identifies technology transfer from the
Government and identifies opportunities for counsel to facilitate the process.
2. Implementation of the FTTA at NIH reflects five general principles: (1) awareness of our
central mission as a basic biomedical research institution, (2) adoption of procedures that
complement but do not unduly complicate our research efforts, (3) recognition that public
health and U.S. industrial competitiveness both are served by efficient technology transfer
activities, (4) decentralized technology transfer authority, and (5) the involvement of industry
in the review of emerging policies and draft model agreements.
3. NIH is the world's largest basic biomedical research facility. It is located on a 300-acre
campus in Bethesda, Maryland, about 12 miles north of the Capitol, that is shared with the
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), a sister agency of the
Public Health Service (PHS). The NIH and ADAMHA consist of 21 research institutes,
divisions, centers and bureaus, with an integrated 540-bed research hospital and laboratory
complex. Over 14,000 NIH employees include more than 2,300 permanent staff with doctoral
level degrees. The NIH provides about $7 billion per year in "extramural" academic grants,
and spends about $900 million on its in-house, "intramural" research program. Currently,
about 1,300 active patent cases make up the PHS patent portfolio, and over 300 cases are
filed annually. The OTT also handles patents and licensing for the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) and patents for the Food and Drug Administration.
4. The FTTA authorizes Government laboratories to enter into cooperative research and
development agreements (CRADAs) with outside collaborators, analogous in many ways
(other than outside funding) to the sponsored research conducted at universities. Under a
CRADA, Federal laboratories and the private sector jointly conduct a specified research and
development project and, at the NIH, the collaborating company acquires an option at the
outset to negotiate for exclusive patent rights. The CRADA program at the NIH reflects an
acknowledgement of our basic research mission and an emphasis on contributing to scientific
knowledge, as well as maintaining the research agenda of our component institutes.
Accordingly, for example, NIH will not agree to reserve its research findings as trade secrets
made available only to corporate collaborators. Over 150 CRADAs have been entered into
by NIH since enactment of the FTTA.
5. As an incentive for innovation and a reward for inventive efforts, the FTTA also mandates
the sharing with inventors of license royalties from inventions developed under CRADAs as
well as from inventions made through the NIH intramural research program.
1
6. The licensing of intramural inventions is authorized by the patent law in Title 35 of the
United States Code, discussed below, which also, for example, provides for university
ownership and commercial licensing of inventions made with Federal grants.
7. A key element of the Patent Policy Board's technology transfer program is the "Policy
Statement on Cooperative Research and Development Agreements and Intellectual Property
Licensing." This policy statement defines NIH's primary statutory missions in terms of
conducting basic biomedical and behavioral research, rather than in terms of transferring
technology. It affirms a commitment to transfer technology within a framework that
promotes the free exchange of information. For example, NIH investigators retain the
freedom to publish their research results. Generally, attempts are made to safeguard the
collegiality and integrity of NIH/ADAMHA research programs, as well as public confidence
in these institutions. Specific sections of the "CRADA/Licensing Policy Statement" treat
questions of "fair access" by outside companies to the NIH/ADAMHA laboratories, and the
handling of confidential or proprietary information.
8. As directed by the Patent Policy Board and consistent with the programmatic principles
discussed above, the OTT has implemented a technology management program for NIH,
ADAMHA and CDC with wide-ranging activities. In conjunction with the various
subcommittees of the Patent Policy Board, the OTT convenes an annual technology transfer
forum, and formal in-house training initiatives including a "Technology Transfer Briefing" for
scientists and a monthly speakers series called the "Technology Transfer Grand Rounds." The
OTT, along with the Drug Discovery Management Subsection of the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association, co-hosts a major national technology transfer conference in the
spring (this year on April 25-26) to explore several issues in government-academia-industry
research collaborations.
9. The OTT has three operational branches: the Technology Licensing Branch, the Patent
Branch and the Technology Management Branch. Current permanent staff is about 30
employees.
10. An Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB), an effort of major significance for the PHS
technology transfer programs, is a computer-based information system which provides access
via modem to a variety of essential data. The EBB provides downloadable copies of PHS
technology transfer guidelines and model agreements, and downloadable full-text files of
patent applications available for licensing. The Board includes the names and phone numbers
of PHS researchers interested in potential CRADA collaborations with private industry.
Existing CRADAs are listed along with a brief description, and a PHS "resource" directory
of the various Technology Development Coordinators will assist users in gaining access to the
system. This system can be used by counsel to identify collaborative research opportunities
for client companies as well as technologies available for licensing.
2
11. The licensing of inventions made with Federal funding is governed by the patent law, 35
U.S.C. $ 200-212, and its implementing regulations at 37 C.F.R. Part 404. For inventions
made at Federal laboratories, 35 U.S.C. $ 209(a) sets forth the requirement that no license
may be granted without the submission of a plan for the development and/or marketing of
the licensed invention. This is amplified by 37 C.F.R. $ 404.5(a)(1), which requires that the
"plan" be satisfactory and that the applicant for license also supply the licensing agency with
information about the applicant's ability to fulfill the plan. The patent statute (§ 209(f)(1))
further requires "periodic" reporting on a licensee's efforts with particular reference to the
plan submitted, and the regulations (§ 405(b)(5)) require that the licensee carry out the
submitted plan for development. Finally, the license may be terminated if the licensee is not
executing the plan submitted with its request for a license, or cannot otherwise demonstrate
to the licensor's satisfaction that the licensee can take effective steps within a reasonable
period of time to achieve practical application of the invention (§ 209(f)(2) and $
404.5(b)(9)(i). Similar provisions have been adopted by NIH/ADAMHA for the licensing of
CRADA inventions.
12. A license application form is available from OTT. In general, a license applicant will be
asked to respond to the following topics: Product and Market Analysis, Product
Development Plan and License Terms. (Note that where various fields of use can be
identified, these topics should be treated separately for each field in which license rights are
sought.)
13. Also required for the exclusive licensing of intramural (non-CRADA) inventions are
formal findings by the licensing agency that: (1) the Federal and public interests are best
served by exclusive licensing; (2) expeditious practical application of the invention is unlikely
to occur under a nonexclusive license; (3) exclusive licensing is a reasonable and necessary
incentive to attract investment of risk capital; (4) exclusive licensing will not tend
substantially to lessen competition or result in undue concentration; and (5) the proposed
terms and scope of exclusivity are not greater than reasonably necessary. Applicants for
exclusive license to intramural inventions should supplement the foregoing license application
with persuasive comments on these additional criteria. The foregoing findings are not
required by the FTTA, and it is the expectation of NIH that collaborators may obtain an
exclusive license upon request, subject to the submission of a satisfactory commercial
development plan.
14. NIH believes that the FTTA and the technology management program implemented at
NIH have begun to play a critical role in the transfer of Government inventions in the
biomedical field to the health care companies in the private sector for commercial evaluation
and product development. This process is an essential component of caring for the public
health. The model license agreements and license application forms at the NIH are intended
to facilitate the technology transfer process. Comments and constructive suggestions from
the private sector, however, are imperative, if these technology transfer efforts are to achieve
their potential utility and effectiveness. Because counsel for industry have a major presence
in negotiating joint research projects, in licensing transactions and in patent-related matters,
they can play a major role in developing NIH's technology transfer potential.
3
Cooperative R&D Opportunities
with Army Laboratories and Centers
More
of STATES 1175 UNITED AMERICA ARMY
OF THEARMY THE
than
a
National
Defense!
Army Domestic Technology
Transfer Program
procedures can be avoided.
Opportunities for
Legal Background
CRDA's provide an easy way for U.S.
industry to collaborate with Army R&D
The Stevenson-Wydler Act (15 USC
Cooperative R&D
activities. The intellectual property
3701 et seq.) made technology transfer
created by work under the CRDA can
part of the mission of every federal
be exclusively exploited by the com-
laboratory. The Federal Technology
Army Domestic
pany for commercial uses, while the
Transfer Act of 1986 (PL 99-502), which
Technology Transfer
government retains a license to use the
amended the original law, provided
technology for its own purposes
significant new authorities for Army
Program
laboratories to establish CRDA's with
ORTA's-Points of Contact
private companies, as well as public
for Industry
and nonprofit organizations. Further, PL
99-502 authorized and Executive Order
By law, each federal laboratory is re-
12591 required that the commander or
quired to establish an Office of Re-
director of each appropriate Army R&D
CRDA's and Industry
search and Technology Applications
activity be delegated the authority to
The Army Domestic Technology
(ORTA) to actively seek technology
enter into CRDA's and to license, as-
Transfer Program seeks to promote the
transfer opportunities. The ORTA is
sign, or waive rights to intellectual prop-
transfer of Army technology and éxper-
also a point of contact for potential
erty on behalf of the government
tise to the private sector, so that this
users of the laboratory's technology.
technology can be exploited for improv-
The Army Domestic Technology
Partnership with Industry
ing U.S. competitiveness. One mecha-
Transfer Program is intended to work
through the decentralized but coordi-
Army laboratories and centers have a
nism for such transfers is the use of
wealth of technology, advanced facili-
Cooperative R&D Agreements
nated activity of the ORTA's at the
ties, and expertise that can be used for
(CRDA's) between Army R&D activities,
laboratories and centers. As part of a
more than national defense. Army tech-
and U.S. industry.
network of federal laboratories called
nology can also help to produce a
The CRDA is a contract to cooperate
the Federal Laboratory Consortium
stronger civilian economy, but only in
and share intellectual property resulting
(FLC), each ORTA can provide assis-
tance and make referrals to appropriate
partnership with U.S. industry, which
from joint efforts. Private organizations
can bring new products and processes
can contribute resources to the coop-
sources of technology among the fed-
to the marketplace.
erative effort, including personnel, serv-
eral laboratories.
ices, property, and funding, while the
For help in identifying the appropriate
government can contribute all of these
Army technology for your needs and in
except funding. Since the CRDA is not
developing a cooperative relationship,
For additional information on technology transfer contact:
Clifford E. Lanham
a procurement (the government does
contact the appropriate ORTA (see
Manager-Army Domestic Technology Transfer Program
not provide funding for services or
reverse of flyer) or call the one nearest
U.S. Army Laboratory Command, AMCLD-TT
2800 Powder Mill Road, Adelphi, MD 20783-1145
products), complex military procurement
you for information.
DRAFT
As of July 8, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SEPTEMBER 12-13, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 11:15 AM
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL AND COFFEE
9:00 - 9:15
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:15 - 10:00
THE COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
GEORGE
FISHER
10:00 - 10:15
DISCUSSION
10:15 - 10:45
S&T STATISTICS AND DATA COLLECTION
JANET
NORWOOD
10:45 - 11:00
DISCUSSION
11:00 - 11:15
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
AND MOVE TO INDIAN TREATY ROOM,
ROOM 474, OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
DRAFT
HURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 Continued.,
CLOSED SESSION 11:00 - 1:00 PM
INDIAN TREATY ROOM
ROOM 474
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
CLOSED SESSION 1:00 - - 5:00 PM
ROOM 476
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
11:15 - 12:15
PCAST PANEL PROGRESS REPORTS
- Technology and National Security
- High Performance Computing and Communications
- Global Environment and Natural Resources
12:15 1:00
LUNCH
1:00 - -
-- Move to Room 476, OEOB --
1:00 - 2:30
PCAST PANEL PROGRESS REPORTS
- Education and Human Resources
- Megaprojects in the Sciences
- Bioscience and Biotechnology
- International Economic Competitiveness
2:30 - 3:00
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON
ALLAN
COMPETITIVENESS
HUBBARD
- An Overview
3:00 - 3:15
BREAK
3:15 - 4:00
S&T AND COMPETITIVENESS
SECRETARY
BRADY
4:00 - 4:30
DISCUSSION
4:30 - 5:00
OTHER BUSINESS
DR. BROMLEY
AND CLOSING REMARKS
DRAFT
RIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
ROOSEVELT ROOM
WEST WING
WHITE HOUSE
8:30 - 8:50
ARRIVAL AND COFFEE
(DR. BROMLEY'S OFFICE, ROOM 358, OEOB)
8:50 - 9:00
MOVE TO ROOSEVELT ROOM
9:00 - 9:15
PREPARATION FOR THIS MORNING
DR. BROMLEY
9:15 - 9:45
THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
ADMIRAL
ADVISORY BOARD
INMAN
- An Overview
9:45 - 10:00
DISCUSSION
10:00 - 11:00
OTHER BUSINESS
:00 - 11:30
DISCUSSION OF OCTOBER AGENDA
DR. BROMLEY
AND FUTURE MEETING FORMAT
11:30 - 12:00
OTHER BUSINESS AND
DR. BROMLEY
CLOSING REMARKS
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PANEL CALENDAR
July 10, 1991
Technology and National Security Panel
June -
Sol Buchsbaum held several conversations with Deputy
Secretary Atwood.
June 26
Fact-finding meeting with Sol Buchsbaum, Johnny Foster, Tom
Welch and Charles Herzfeld.
Aug 5,6
Tentative Panel meeting in Washington.
High Performance Computing and Communications Panel
1990
August 1
Fact-finding meeting was held.
1991
March 15
Fact-finding meeting was held.
Global Environment and Natural Resources Panel
April 3
Fact-finding meeting was held.
May 1
Fact-finding meeting was held.
Megaprojects in the Sciences
June -
John McTague holding conversations with presenters and
Tom Ratchford.
June -
Background Binder sent to all Panel members.
September - Meeting of experts.
November - U.S. E.C. Joint Consultative Group meeting.
Education and Human Resources
June -
Peter Likins has received a positive responses from all Panel
presenters. Dr. Likins and Dr. Drake will receive presenters
separately.
Bioscience and Biotechnology
June -
Dan Nathans is waiting for response from presenters before
scheduling a meeting.
International Economic Competitiveness
June -
Panel presenters not selected as of July 7, 1991.
PCAST PANEL ACTIONS
(July 10, 1991)
Sol, Ralph
Ralph, Harold
Dan, Norman
Peter, Chuck
Sol, Johnny
Tom, David,
John
Foster, David
Norman
High Perfor.
International
Bioscience
Education
Technology
Global
Megaprojects
Computing
Economic
and
& Human
& National
Environ. &
in the Sciences
& Commun.
Competitive.
Biotech.
Resources
Security
Natural Res.
Information
MAR '90
MAY '90
APR '90
APR '90
FEB '91
MAY '90
FEB '91
Briefing on Topic
JUL '90
JUL '90
FEB '91
Issues & Panel
MAR '90
APR '91
MAY '90
JUL '90
FEB '91
FEB '91
FEB '91
Members Discussed
MAR '91
SEP '90
MAR '91
MAR '91
MAR '91
APR '91
Terms of Reference,
APR '90
MAY '91
MAY '91
MAY '91
APR '91
MAY '91
MAY '91
Members Approved
Progress
JUL '90
JUL '91
JUL '91
JUL '91
JUL '91
JUL '91
JUL '91
Report #1
Progress
APR '91
Report #N
MAY '91
JUL '91
PCAST Briefed
PCAST Position
Taken
Meet With
President
Status
Review
PCAST MEETING CALENDAR
AND EXPECTED PCAST ATTENDANCE
1991
Member
May 2-3
July 11-12
Sep. 12-13
Oct. 10-11
Nov. 14-15
Dec. 12-13
Borlaug
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Buchsbaum
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Drake
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gomory
Yes
Yes
N. 12, Y 13
Yes
N 14, Y 15
Yes
Likins
N2, Y 3
N 11, Y 12
Yes
No
No
No
Lovejoy
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
McTague
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nathans
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Packard
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Shapiro
Yes
N 11, Y 12
Yes
N 10, Y 11
No
Y 12, N 13
1992
Member
Jan. 9-10
Feb. 6-7
Mar. 5-6
Apr. 2-3
May 7-8
June 4-5
July 9-10
Aug. 6-7
Sep. 10-1
Oct. 15-16
Nov. 5-6
Dec. 3.4
Borlaug
Yes
Yes
Yes
"Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Buchsbaum
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Drake
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Gomory
N9, Y 10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N9, Y 10
Yes
N 10, Y 1
Yes
No
Yes
Likins
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y2,N3
Yes
Y4,N5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y 15, N 16
Yes
Yes
Lovejoy
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
McTague
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nathans
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Packard
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Shapiro
N9, Y 10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N9.Y10
Yes
N 10, Y 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
PCAST
Biographical Sketches
Joe Allen
Maryanne Bach
Robert Grady
Charles Herzfeld
Michelle Van Cleave
James Watson
DEPARTMENT or COMMERCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
ORIED STATES CF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
Biographical Data
Joseph P. Allen
Director, office of Technology Commercialization
U.S. Department of Commerce
The Office of Technology Commercialization is the principal
industrial liaison for the Department's Technology Administration
created to spur Government-industry cooperation. The mission of
the Office of Technology Commercialization is to improve the
process of commercialization of new technology in the U.S. The
Office oversees four separate programs: Advanced Manufacturing,
Federal Technology Management, the Clearinghouse on State and
Local Initiatives and the National Medal of Technology.
Joe Allen has been involved in the passage of major laws making
possible joint R&D projects between Federal laboratories,
universities and the private sector -- the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act,
its amendment in 1984, and the Federal Technology Transfer Act.
He is now responsible for oversight of these laws for the
Department. Joe was very involved in the passage of a bill
signed into law by the President giving significant authorities
to the Department of Energy's laboratories to work with industry.
Before coming to the Department of Commerce he was Executive
Director of Intellectual Property Owners, Inc., a trade
association representing many research intensive companies.
There he helped coordinate the successful legislative campaign
establishing the new Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit --
a major court reform re-establishing uniform patent standards
throughout the U.S. after years of confusion.
From 1974-1981 he served as a Professional Staff. Member on the
Senate Judiciary Committee. On the Committee he was directly
involved in passing the Bayh-Dole University and Small Business
Patent Policy Act. This law is the basis for the present high
degree of U.S. university-industry cooperative R&D.
MARYANNE C. BACH
Assistant Director, Responsible for the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET)
Maryanne Bach is the Assistant Director, Repsponsible for FCCSET working directly
for Dr. D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Ms.
Bach came to FCCSET from the Department of the Interior where she most currently
was appointed by Secretary Manuel Lujan, Jr. to serve as the Department's Director of
the Office of Program Analysis. Reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, the Office oversees and coordinates major program and
policy development for Interior, including wetlands, global change, energy strategy,
and initiatives to enhance stewardship of our natural resources.
Prior to October 1988, Bach served as Special Assistant to the Secretary and the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks where she was key to the
Department's endorsement of major steps to enhance and protect prime wildlife and
wetland habitat, including legislation to expand the Everglades National Park and an
international wetlands agreement, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
She has also chaired the Department's Wetlands Working Group. In addition, Ms.
Bach serves as the Secretary's representative to the National Park Systems Advisory
Board, a sixteen member group that gives independent advise on Park matters.
Prior to her arrival at the Interior Department, Bach served eight years on the
Republican staff of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the U.S. House
of Representatives. As the Republican Science Coordinator, Ms. Bach oversaw major
policy development in the field on non-military federal research and development. This
included the coordination of the legislative and oversight activities for: the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the research and development
programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the environmental program
in the DOE, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
within the Department of Commerce (DOC), all international R&D activities, as well as
technology transfer and biotechnology issues under the jurisdiction of the Committee.
Formerly, she coordinated the work of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee,
as well as served as the principal Minority representative on the Committee's
Supercomputer and Biotechnology Task Forces during their existence in 1985-87.
A native of New York, Bach received her B.S. degree (cum laude) in biology from
Providence College, Rhode Island and a M.S. in Botany and Plant Ecology (magna cum
laude) from Iowa State University. While at Iowa State, she worked for the Science
and Humanities Research Institute and The Nature Conservancy.
Bach is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), Phi Sigma Tau, Phi Kappa Phi, the Iowa Academy of Science and The Nature
Conservancy.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
ROBERT E. GRADY
Robert Grady is Associate Director for Natural Resources,
Energy and Science of the Office of Management and Budget. He
was appointed by the President and joined OMB on Inauguration
Day, 1989. In that position, he oversees budget and policy
development for the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Departments of Interior, Energy and Agriculture, the National
Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. He has played a central role in drafting
the Administration's budget and Clean Air Act proposals
and the President's maiden State of the Union address in
1989.
Prior to joining OMB, Mr. Grady was a senior advisor on
President-Elect Bush's transition team. He also served as a
top advisor on the Bush-Quayle '88 campaign, drafting a number
of the candidate's principal policy speeches and advising him on
the development of economic and environmental policies. He held
the position of speechwriter in the Office of then Vice-President
Bush in 1986.
From 1983 to 1986, Mr. Grady was Director of Communications
for Governor Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, and was a principal
strategist in the Governor's 1985 campaign, which led to the
Governor's re-election by the largest margin in New Jersey
history.
From 1979 to 1982, Mr. Grady served in the office of
Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick (R-N.J.), first as Legislative
Assistant, then as Legislative Director, and, in 1982, as
Chief of Staff.
A native of Livingston, New Jersey, Mr. Grady holds an
AB degree, with honors, from Harvard College, and an MBA
degree from Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
# # #
CHARLES M. HERZFELD
At Present Dr. Charles M. Herzfeld is a Department of Defense Consultant
reporting jointly to the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. He will support the work of
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Panel on Technology
and National Security as Senior Director.
From March 1990 to May 1991 Dr. Herzfeld served as Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, Department of Defense.
From 1985 to 1990 he was vice chairman of Aetne, Jacobs and Ramo
Technology Ventures.
He was with ITT Corporation from 1967 to 1985 serving last as Vice President
and Director of Research and Technology.
He was Director of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
from 1965 to 1967.
Dr. Herzfeld has also served as a member of the Defense Science Board and the
Defense Policy Board.
Dr. Herzfeld graduated from Catholic University in 1945 with a Bachelor of
Science in Chemical Engineering and from the University of Chicago in 1951 with a
Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry. He was born in Vienna, Austria on June 29, 1925 and is
a naturalized citizen of the United States.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
MICHELLE K. VAN CLEAVE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
AND
COUNSEL
Michelle Kim Van Cleave was reappointed Assistant Director for
National Security Affairs and Counsel, White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, on October 1, 1989--positions she
had held from August 1987 through February 1989. Prior to
rejoining OSTP, Ms. Van Cleave served as Republican Counsel to
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives.
From 1981 through July 1987, Ms. Van Cleave was Assistant for
Defense and Foreign Policy to Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY),
serving concurrently as National Security Assistant to the House
Republican Conference and Associate Staff Member, House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, U.S. House of
Representatives.
From 1979 through 1981, Ms. Van Cleave was an associate with the
Los Angeles law firm of Horvitz and Greines, specializing in
appellate advocacy.
Ms. Van Cleave was Coordinator and Staff Attorney in the office
of the General Counsel, 1981 Presidential Inaugural Committee,
and assisted in the work of the Department of Defense Transition
Team Office of President-elect Reagan 1980. At the Republican
Convention in 1984, Ms. Van Cleave was a member of the Platform
Committee staff, with responsibility for foreign policy.
Ms. Van Cleave has served as a member of the Board of Advisors,
Center for Security Policy, and as consultant to, the Heritage
Foundation, the Fund for an American Renaissance, and the
American Security Council. She has spoken before a variety of
conferences and organizations including the Aspen Institute
Berlin, the New York Institute of Technology, the National
Defense University, Tufts University, Johns Hopkins School for
Advanced International Studies, Republican National Committee
regional meetings, the Military Operations Research Society and
the American Chamber of Commerce (Manila). She also served as &
Congressional Staff Advisor to the U.S. delegation to the United
Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament.
Ms. Van Cleave holds M.A. and B.A. degrees in international
relations from the University of Southern California and a J.D.
from the U.S.C. School of Law. She is a member of the State Bar
of California.
December 1989
Biographical Sketch of James Dewey Watson
James D. Watson is best known for his discovery of the structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) for which he shared with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins the 1962 Nobel Prize in
Physiology and Medicine. They proposed that the DNA molecule takes the shape of a double
helix, an elegantly simple structure that resembles a gently-twisted ladder. The rails of the ladder
are made of alternating units of phosphate and the sugar deoxyribose; the rungs are each
composed of a pair of nitrogen-containing nucleotides.
This research emphasized a concept central to the emerging field of molecular biology:
understanding the structure of a molecule can give clues about how it functions. Because each
nucleotide within a rung of the DNA ladder is always paired with the same complementary
nucleotide, one half of the molecule can serve as a template for the construction of the other half.
This complementary pairing explains how identical copies of parental DNA can be passed on to
two daughter cells. During cell division, the DNA helix "unzips," and two new molecules are
formed from the half-ladder templates. Later research showed that the "genetic code," which
determines the identity of a living organism and directs the manufacture of proteins, is contained
in the precise sequence of nucleotide rungs of the DNA ladder. Research on DNA-protein
interactions launched a revolution in biology which culminated in the development of modem
recombinant-DNA techniques.
In 1968, Dr. Watson became Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New
York. Under his direction, this renowned but financially-endangered institution was revitalized.
Dr. Watson steered the Laboratory into the field of tumor virology, from which emerged our
present understanding of oncogenes (cancer genes) and the molecular basis of cancer. In addition
to the high-level research on cancer, plant molecular biology, and cell biochemistry, the
Laboratory functions as a postgraduate university on DNA science. Each year some 4,000
visiting scientists from around the world are drawn to more than 52 professional meetings and
advanced courses held at Cold Spring Harbor. Thus, the Laboratory exerts an influence on
biological research that is far out of proportion to its relatively small size (375 employees).
Born in Chicago, Illinois, in 1928, Dr. Watson received a B.S. degree (1947) from the University
of Chicago, and a Ph.D. (1950) from Indiana University, both in Zoology. Following a National
Research Fellowship in Copenhagen and a National Foundation of Infantile Paralysis Fellowship
at the University of Cambridge, England, he spent two years at the California Institute of
Technology. He joined the Harvard faculty in 1955 and became professor in 1961, resigning in
1976 to become full-time Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. In 1988, he was appointed
Associate Director for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health. In 1989,
he became Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, the newly established
NIH component charged with administering its role in the Human Genome Project.
Dr. Watson was awarded the John Collins Warren Prize of Massachusetts General Hospital
(1959), the Eli Lilly Award in Biochemistry (1960), the Albert Lasker Prize, awarded by the
American Public Health Association (1960), the Research Corporation Prize (1962), the John J.
Carty Gold Medal of the National Academy of Sciences (1971), and the Presidential Medal of
Freedom (1977).
J.D. Watson
Biographical Sketch
Page 2
His memberships include the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1958), the American
Society of Biological Chemists (1958), the National Academy of Sciences (1962), the American
Association for Cancer Research (1972), and the American Philosophical Society (1977). He
holds honorary affiliations with the Danish Academy of Arts and Sciences (1963), Clare College,
Cambridge University (1968), Athenaeum, London (1980), the Royal Society, London (1981),
and the Academy of Sciences, USSR (1989).
Dr. Watson has received honorary degrees from 14. universities and has published five books:
Molecular Biology of the Gene, The Double Helix, The DNA Story, Molecular Biology of the
Cell, and Recombinant DNA: A Short Course.
He is married to the former Elizabeth Lewis, with whom he has two sons: Rufus and Duncan.
The PCAST dinner will be hosted by
Tom Lovejoy at his home in McLean, Virginia
on Wednesday evening. Transportation will
be provided from the Old Executive Office
Building leaving at about 6:30 PM and
returning at about 9:00 PM. Tom is
recommending lightweight, casual attire.
Dinner guests should meet in Dr. Bromley's
office, OEOB Room 358, at about 6:15 PM.
DINNER ATTENDEES
PCAST
D. ALLAN BROMLEY, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
NORMAN BORLAUG, Distinguished Professor, Department of Soils and Crop
Sciences, Texas A&M University.
SOLOMON BUCHSBAUM, Senior Vice President, Technology Systems, AT&T
Bell Laboratories.
CHARLES DRAKE, Albert Bradley Professor of Earth Sciences and Professor
of Geology, Darthmouth College.
THOMAS LOVEJOY, Assistant Secretary for External Affairs, Smithsonian
Institution.
PETER LIKINS, President, Lehigh University.
JOHN McTAGUE, Vice President, Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Company.
DANIEL NATHANS, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine.
WALTER MASSEY, Director, National Science Foundation.
BERNADINE HEALY, Director, National Institutes of Health.
OSTP Staff
D.A. HENDERSON, Associate Director for Life Sciences.
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD, Associated Director for Policy and International
Affairs.
CHARLES HERZFELD, Consultant to the Director
KEN YALE, Chief of Staff
MARYANNE BACH, Assistant Director Responsible for FCCSET
RACHEL LEVINSON, Assistant Director for Life Sciences
NANCY MAYNARD, Assistant Director for the Environment
KARL ERB, Assistant Director for Physical Sciences and Engineering.
THOMAS WELCH, Executive Director, PCAST
8
Directions to Drover's Rest"
8526 Georgetown Pike
GREAT FALLS
Mclean, Va.
0
703 442-0399
SEX
7.
193
195
"
Beltway
DROVERS
REST
2.5miles
EXIT 13
Maryland
LANGLEY
GREAT FALLS
rt. 193
ct.193
495
It:123
7.
921
CCCC
CHAIN
BRIDGE
Virginia
GEORGE
WASHINGTON
CANAL ROAD
PARKWAYE
RIO
POTOMAC
KEY
BRIDGE
In the last mile there will be a housing development on
the left, and on the right a sign for the "Greenway"
(Madeira School) entrance in the middle of an
extensive white fence. After the Greenway sign
the road goes downhill, curving to the right.
The Madeira white fence ends and there will be
a place to pull off the road. on the right.
If you go too far you will come to a new bridge
much wider than the road.
Traffic tends to tailgate vehicles moving slowly
while seeking-ländmarks. Don't feel-forced to go
factor than wich
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
FACT SHEET
Achieving Competitiveness in National Critical Technologies
Policies in Support of Technology Development in America
"If America is to maintain and strengthen our competitive
position, we must continue not only to create new
technologies but to learn to more effectively translate
those technologies into commercial products.
President George Bush
November 13, 1990
"For America to be number one in the development of critical
technologies and commercialization of related products, we
must have a healthy entrepreneurial climate for private
sector development of these technologies."
Vice President Quayle
April 24, 1991
INTRODUCTION
1.
The release of the Report of the National Critical
Technologies Panel provides an important opportunity to restate
those steps necessary to improve the U.S. entrepreneurial climate
and maintain our competitiveness. While the American private
sector is asked to invest in our future, the government must
continue to remove those unnecessary government restraints that
chill the climate for investment in new technology. The benefits
of technology will bring us closer to the national goals of
improved quality of life for all Americans, continued economic
growth, and national security.
2. This Fact Sheet incorporates points made in previous
Administration initiatives such as the critical technologies
reports of the Department Defense and the Department of Commerce,
U.S. Technology Policy prepared by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and the National Energy Strategy. These
policies encourage the development of technologies.
3.
Critical technologies are fundamental "building blocks" for
American industry and international competitiveness. Market
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 1
forces must be allowed to support their development, not
selection and promotion by government.
The Free Market
4.
The free market has served to make the United States the
world's largest economy. The United States has a $5.5 trillion
economy that achieves one-quarter of the world's production with
5% of the world's population. We are the world's leading
exporter of goods and services, and the world's leading importer.
5.
Creating and maintaining the proper entrepreneurial climate
for national critical technologies depends on:
A quality workforce that is educated, trained, and
flexible in adapting to technological and competitive
change;
A financial environment that is conducive to longer-
term investment in technology;
The translation of innovation into timely, cost
competitive, high quality manufactured products;
An efficient technological infrastructure, especially
in transfer of information;
σ
A legal and regulatory environment that provides
stability for innovation and does not contain
unnecessary barriers to private investments in R&D and
domestic production
The Private Sector Role
6.
In the free market system it is the role of the private
sector to identify and utilize technologies for commercial
products and processes. Responsibilities of the private sector
include:
Conduct R&D to advance industry-related knowledge and
technology;
Identify and aggressively pursue potential commercial
applications Sur technologies developed by private
laboratorie- 's well as by universities, Federal
laboratori
end foreign sources;
Increase
ty, output, and productivity by
undertaking necessary investments in physical capital;
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 2
Improve the skills and abilities of the private sector
workforce to meet its own needs;
In addition, the private sector can participate cooperatively in
improving the quality of U.S. education.
The Government Role
7.
The government role is to foster a stable economic
environment that is conducive to investment. Steady non-
inflationary growth and adequate national savings are critical
requirements for investment because investors need confidence in
the future. Investment decisions should not be dominated by
fears of erratic government policy, uncertainty in tax laws, or
excessive or uncertain regulation.
8. The government role regarding critical technologies should
be limited to (1) providing needed support to activities that are
clearly undersupported by the market because they generate
economic benefits that greatly exceed their profitability, and
(2) removing unnecessary and artificial barriers to proper market
functioning, including legal and regulatory barriers.
9. In order to assure that economic considerations determine
allocations of resources in the market, the government should
forego policies, tax laws, and practices that benefit specific
industries, products or sectors in relation to others except
where market externalities exist which prevent private sector
investment from realizing full economic benefit of the
investment. Actions that yield encouraging results for a
particular industry create a larger cost to the economy in terms
of reduced efficiency, productivity and standards of living.
ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSFER OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
10. Education, enhancement of technical knowledge in science,
and the conduct of research and development in science and
technology are responsibilities shared by government at all
levels and a broad range of private organizations. Scientific
literacy benefits all Americans.
11. The government helps to support research especially in
situations where the private sector cannot reasonably be expected
to recover sufficient benefits. Generic enabling technologies
that cut across industries and at the precompetitive stage, often
cannot be developed by individual firms acting solely on their
own. Support also may be needed for areas where the private
sector could not be expected to earn an adequate rate of return
on its R&D investments because it would be unable to assert
property rights if the research results were commercialized.
This precompetitive research is often crucial to maintaining
public health, safety, and national security.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 3
Federal Funding
12. President Bush's budget proposal to Congress for FY '92
allocates $76 billion to R&D, an increase of 13 percent over
FY' 91 enacted levels. Activities targeted for increases are
examples of the types of areas where Federal support is
appropriate:
Basic research at the National Institutes of Health
Basic research at the National Science Foundation
Defense R&D
Space activities
Mathematics and science education
Global change research
Biomedical (including AIDS) research
National Agricultural Research Initiative
Superconducting Super Collider
High-performance computing and communications
Energy R&D
Advanced manufacturing and materials R&D
Aeronautics R&D
R&D at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Federal Technology Transfer
13. Technology transfer between Federally-supported researchers
and the commercial market place is an important government
function that offers fruitful opportunities for development of
national critical technologies. Technology transfer conducted
under cost sharing arrangements increases the benefits from
Federal R&D expenditures and boosts government-private sector
partnerships. The climate for technology transfer is enhanced by
laws and arrangements that protect intellectual property rights
and avoid conflicts of interest. Defense-related research can
make major contributions when adequate safeguards for protecting
information important to national security are available.
14. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act
permitted universities, nonprofit corporations and small
businesses to retain patent rights resulting from Federally
supported R&D. The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986
allowed Federally owned and operated laboratories to manage
patentable rights. The 1986 Act also encourages directors of
Federal laboratories to form joint R&D projects with businesses,
universities and the states, and allowed Federal inventors to
receive a portion of royalties resulting from commercialization
of patents obtained from the research developed. Executive Order
No. 12591 further mandated implementation of technology transfer
by Federal agencies. In 1989 the provisions of the 1986 Act were
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 4
extended to the National Laboratories operated for the Department
of Energy.
Federal Procurement
15. Because the U.S. government is the country's largest
purchaser, spending nearly $200 billion for products and services
annually, it can influence the development of commercial
technologies. Government procurement practices generally should
not dictate which technologies to use, rather firms should be
able to compete to find the best way of meeting government's
needs. In this way, government procurement practices should
emulate the best commercial practices, allow government to
participate to the greatest possible extent in the commercial
marketplace, and take full advantage of the free market's ability
to generate innovation.
16. Two special issues in Federal procurement are technical data
rights and recoupment. Firms producing for the Federal
government should be able to provide their best technical
expertise without fear of its free release to their competitors.
And firms should have the right to appropriately profit from the
investment they make in commercial applications of technologies
developed under Federal contracts. The government benefits from
these practices through ready access to innovations occurring in
the commercial market place, expansion of the industrial base
supporting government activities, and price discounts recognizing
the value of commercialization rights. The Administration will
soon issue proposed regulations to ensure that government
purchases only those rights and data required to meet the
government's needs and to protect those it does not buy. The
Administration is now reviewing the requirements to recoup R&D
costs from contractors that develop commercial derivatives of
products.
17. The Administration is pursuing a number of other changes in
the Federal government's procurement practices that would
contribute to technological innovation and development. Federal
procurement statutes and regulations need to permit greater
integration of government and commercial production at the
factory level, as well as encourage greater innovation and
efficiency in development and production. Also, the government
should use commercial products, to the extent feasible, for
defense, space, and other government applications. For those
products and processes for which it is the sole or major consumer
and no commercially available products can be substituted, the
Federal government should (1) rely principally on the private
sector to undertake the development process; and (2) strengthen
the abilities of companies involved in developing and
demonstrating these products to use the same research and
technologies for commercial purposes.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 5
THE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CLIMATE
Antitrust Concerns
18.
Effective antitrust laws and their enforcement are crucial
to the maintenance of a competitive economy, and thus to
international competitiveness. Undue concern with antitrust
enforcement should not, however, provide an unwarranted deterrent
to activities that may in many circumstances enhance efficiency
and competition. In particular, American firms should be assured
that antitrust laws will not be applied in an overly restrictive
way to joint ventures, including joint ventures among
competitors, to engage in research and development of new
technology, and to commercialize that technology. Reducing
unwarranted antitrust uncertainties related to such interfirm
cooperation would facilitate, where parties so desire, the
pooling of limited resource and a rapid diffusion of results
while still protecting against anticompetitive practices.
19. The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 took an
important step to mitigate antitrust uncertainty with respect to
joint R&D. The Act clarified that R&D joint ventures should be
analyzed under the antitrust "rule of reason, which takes full.
account not only of domestic and international competition to
such ventures, but also of their potential procompetitive
efficiencies. The Administration has proposed expansion of the
NCRA to cover joint production ventures as well. Such ventures
could promote the commercialization of new technology and help
assure that United States leadership in basic scientific research
is translated into leadership in commerce as well. At the same
time, NCRA coverage of joint production ventures will permit the
antitrust laws to play their proper role in preserving
competition and thus the competitiveness of the American economy.
Intellectual Property Rights
20. Essential to the free market development of technology is
the right of the private sector to maintain ownership of
intellectual property rights of inventions at home and overseas.
The Administration is aggressively pursuing improved
international protection of intellectual property through the
achievement of international agreements that would increase
protections abroad in the Uruguay Round of the GATT, at the World
Intellectual Property Organization and in trilateral talks with
the European Community and Japan. Bilateral negotiations are
also conducted under the provision of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act. The Administration also supports
strengthened domestic patent protection.
Product liability
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 6
21. The current product liability system generates excessive
litigation and concomitant transactional costs, thereby
increasing the cost of doing business in the United States and
discouraging innovation for products and related services such as
health care. The Administration supports the adoption of a
single, Federal, uniform product liability law based on three
principles of fairness: the right to fair compensation for actual
damages where there is liability, the remedy of liability based
on responsibility for harm and not ability to pay, and the
encouragement of alternatives to costly litigation. These
proposals would maintain the appropriate incentives to produce
safe products while restoring balance to the tort system and
reducing uncertainty surrounding the introduction of new
products.
Prohibitions on Competition
22. Clearly among the potentially most damaging aspects of
government laws are prohibitions or restrictions on competition
in particular markets. Competition drives the free market to
optimal price and output for the benefit of consumers and society
generally, and creates incentives for innovations and the means
for new product introductions. When government erects barriers
to market competition, it reduces the economy's flexibility,
competitiveness and innovative capacity. In the energy area, for
example, the Administration's National Energy Strategy calls for
an end to unnecessary regulatory impediments to the expanded
utilization of natural gas and innovative technologies for
electricity generation. In telecommunications the Administration
is seeking to change the antitrust consent decree that prohibits
telephone companies from conducting R&D and manufacturing
telecommunications equipment.
Export Controls
23. Export controls restrict the export of specific "dual use"
products to certain destinations, for national security and
foreign policy reasons. In an increasingly international
economy, with rapid technological innovation in other countries,
these controls require continuing revisions to ensure that the
burden and delays associated with licensing do not adversely
affect American firms relative to foreign firms in their ability
to compete in international markets, and thereby, discourage R&D
investments in the United States.
Non-Tariff Trade Barr
is
24. Non-tariff trade arriers prevent open markets for
international commerc and thus, injure competition by reducing
opportunities for new products, particularly high volume products
such as certain electronic components. The U.S. is working
through GATT, other multi-national and bilateral negotiations to
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 7
ensure that U.S. firms will be allowed to compete fairly in
foreign markets. Private restraints on imports also can
constitute significant non-tariff barriers to trade by American
firms. Among the Administration's goals in the Structural
Impediment Initiative talks with Japan is more effective
enforcement of that nation's competition laws against private
restraints on imports in Japan, such as group boycotts.
Regulatory Concerns
25. In high technology industries, Federal regulation is a
critical determinant of the time and the cost required to bring a
product to market. Regulation is also a major factor influencing
investment decisions for new technologies. Regulatory
uncertainty or the expectation of burdensome regulation increases
risk for potential investors, and reduces incentives for
investment. Because technological innovation holds the promise
of providing new and better ways to meet the very objectives of
particular health, safety, or environmental regulations, those
regulations that discourage or penalize innovation are self-
perpetuating burdens on American industry.
26. In general terms, Federal regulations impose direct costs on
the economy of estimated to be $185 billion annually. While
appropriate regulation in response to market failures can serve
valuable social and economic functions, it may also impose
significant costs that particularly affect the ability and
incentive of firms to develop new high technology products. Some
regulatory regimes are no longer appropriate to new technologies,
others were developed without adequate consideration of the
burdens placed on international competition, and many regulations
explicitly impose greater burdens on new facilities and products,
such as the New Source Review provisions of the old Clean Air Act
and the rules for "new chemicals" under the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
27. Regulation most inhibits innovation when the regulatory
agency takes on the task of specifying which technologies or
designs industry must employ. Further, once a technology is
enshrined in regulation, firms have little incentive to invest in
better techniques. This has been the experience with numerous
environmental regulations in which the Federal government selects
control technologies. An excellent example is the old Clean Air
Act's mandate that firms employ "best available control
technology" (BACT) to reduce so, emissions. BACT was translated
into smokestack scrubber technology. Mandating scrubbers,
however, discouraged innovation of other means to remove sulfur,
such as removal from the fuel before combustion; and it
discouraged use of low-sulfur coal to begin with. The
Administration's new Clean Air Act cuts SO₂ by 50% -- but lets
industry choose how best to do so.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 8
28. In general, regulatory reform can substantially improve the
incentives for innovation by using market-based incentive
approaches that set performance goals but let industry devise the
best means to attain those goals. An example is the
Administration's emissions trading program to reduce acid rain in
the 1990 Clean Air Act.
29. The Administration has developed principles that Executive
Branch agencies are to use when developing regulations or
reviewing current standards. These principles offer a useful set
of guidance for minimizing the burden of regulation on
innovation.
Regulations should be issued only on evidence that
their potential benefits exceed their potential costs.
Regulatory objectives, and the methods for achieving
these objectives, should be chosen to maximize the net
benefits to society.
Regulations that seek to reduce health or safety risks
should be based upon scientific risk-assessment
procedures, and should address risks that are real and
significant rather than hypothetical or remote.
Regulation of prices and products in competitive
markets should be avoided. Entry into competitive or
potentially competitive markets should be regulated
only where it is clearly necessary to protect health or
safety.
Voluntary private standards and disclosure should be
relied on where possible instead of inflexible
regulation.
Health, safety and environmental regulations should
address ends rather than means. They should employ
performance-based incentives that harness the
creativity of market actors to design and continually
innovate better ways of reducing excess risks. They
should not specify technologies or designs that firms
must employ.
Where regulations create private rights or obligations,
unrestricted exchange of these rights or obligations
should be encouraged.
Federal regulations should not preempt state laws or
regulations, except to guarantee rights of national
citizenship or to avoid significant burdens on
interstate commerce.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 9
Regulations establishing terms or conditions of Federal
grants, contracts, or financial assistance should be
limited to the minimum necessary to achieving the
purposes for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated.
Licensing and permitting decisions and review of new
products should be made swiftly and should be based on
standards that are clearly defined in advance.
Standards for receiving government licenses and permits
should not exceed the necessary minimum. If the number
of comparably qualified applicants exceeds the number
of available licenses, the licenses should be allocated
by auction or other market-based means rather than by
administrative procedure.
THE FINANCIAL CLIMATE: INCREASING THE POOL OF CAPITAL FOR
INVESTMENT
30. Recent Federal policy has been successful in improving the
environment for private investment in R&D. Important actions
have been taken to increase incentives to invest, including
investment in R&D. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 substantially
reduced marginal income tax rates for businesses and individuals.
The maximum tax rate on corporate income dropped from 46% to 34%.
The top personal income tax rate that had been 70% as recently as
1981 was dropped to 28% in 1986 and increased to 31% in 1990.
"Subchapter S" corporations generally can pass through their
income to shareholders and have it taxed at lower individual tax
rates and avoid the double taxation of corporate income.
31. Discipline must be maintained to curb the Federal budget
deficit. The single greatest contribution that the Federal
government can make to increase the pool of capital available for
investment is to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The budget
deficit has a major impact on the level of gross domestic savings
available for investment. Efforts to reduce the Federal budget
deficit (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) and to
impose Federal credit programs (Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990) will increase the availability of national savings for
private sector uses, including investment in new technology. The
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 will reduce Federal
budget deficits, and therefore national dissaving, by almost $500
billion over the next five years, and will virtually eliminate
the Federal budget deficit by fiscal year 1995. In addition,
better control of the deficit enhances the opportunity for the
Federal Reserve to pursue a noninflationary growth monetary
policy.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 10
32. Through the use of guarantees and interest rate subsidies,
the Federal Government redirects credit in the economy to certain
favored activities. In doing so, non-favored activities in the
economy are penalized and the efficiency of the resources
available to the economy is reduced. The Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 places the cost of credit programs on the same
budgetary basis as direct Federal spending. For 1991 it is
estimated that direct Federal loan guarantees will total $119
billion and direct Federal loans will total $16.8 billion; these
exclude secondary loan guarantees. Discipline will be needed to
constrain the growth of Federal credit programs.
Increased Savings
33. A larger pool of capital also would be assured if proposals
advanced by the Administration are enacted. These include the
capital gains tax cut, family savings accounts and enhanced IRAs.
Failure to act on these proposals will have a negative effect on
national savings and the availability of capital for investment.
34. Pressures to increase Federal expenditures continue for a
wide variety of purposes and programs. This has led to proposals
to raise marginal tax rates for upper income individuals and
corporations. Higher marginal tax rates reduce the return from:
investment. If Federal actions discourage investment, inevitably
economic growth will suffer. The Administration will continue to
resist pressures to raise marginal income tax rates.
Research and Experimentation Tax Credit
35. The Administration has proposed to make permanent the
Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit. Current law
allows a 20% tax credit for a certain portion of a taxpayer's
qualified research expenses. The credit is computed on the
increase in qualified expenses compared to a base period. The
credit will expire at the end of 1991 unless it is extended or
made permanent. A permanent credit would provide more certainty
for firms regarding the availability of the credit as they make
investment plans for future years. The credit cannot induce
additional R&E expenditures unless its future availability is
known at the time firms are planning future outlays. Thus, to
have its intended incentive effect, the credit should be
permanent.
R&E Expense Allocation
36. The Administration has proposed a change in the rules for
allocating R&E expenses on foreign source income for the purpose
of computing net income from foreign sources. Under the
proposal, there would be a lower allocation of U.S. R&D against
foreign source income than required by the original 1977
regulations. For companies with unused foreign tax credits, the
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 11
lower allocation would permit them to take a larger foreign tax
credit, and thus, lower their U.S. tax liability. The provisions
will expire at the end of this year unless extended by law.
Banking Reforms
37. The financial system has been undergoing change in recent
years as a result of deregulation, increased competition from
non-traditional sources and international competition. Yet,
America's depression era banking laws inhibit the ability of
financial institutions to respond to this changing environment
and they encourage excessive risk taking by banks. This has led
to unhęalthy lending practices in some instances and, in general,
the banking system is now restricting loans to many borrowers.
While tight lending practices of the banks affect all potential
borrowers, we should not overlook the fact that start-up
companies and firms that are developing new products or
attempting to bring them to market may be particularly hard hit
in a tight credit environment. The Administration's proposals
would improve the health and flexibility of the banking system.
of course, banking system reform should not hinge on improving
credit availability just for R&D; still those who are concerned
about the availability of capital for R&D should recognize that
there is a connection between restoring the health of the banking
system and the availability of capital for research, development
and competition.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 12
Thursday evening dinner will be at the West
Wing of the White House in the Executive
Room of the White House Mess. We ask that
you place a check (or cash) for $65 in the
basket during lunch to cover the cost of coffee
for today and tomorrow, and today's lunch,
cocktails and dinner. Please make checks
payable to D. Allan Bromley.
Cocktails will begin this evening at 6:30 PM
and dinner will be served at 7:00 PM. You
may enter the West Wing unescorted through
the Southwest gate of the White House.
DINNER MENU FOR DR BROMLEYS OSTP DINNER
MAY 2, 1991 7:00pm
STAFF DINING ROOM AT THE WHITE HOUSE MESS
MENU III
MUSHROOM MEDLEY SOUP
Seasoned beef broth reduced with wine and simmered
with three types of mushrooms.
MEDALLIONS OF VEAL CHAMPIGNON
Slices of select baby veal braised in a champagne
and mushroom sauce, served with a timble of wild
rice and fanned pencil asparagus and baby carrots.
BIBB AND BELGIUM ENDIVE SALAD
Fresh bibb lettuce and on a bed of crisp Belgium
endive tossed in a tarragon vinegarette
and garnished with fresh herbs.
STRAWBERRY CHEESECAKE
Rich cheesecake served with a strawberry puree and
topped with fresh whipped cream.
WINE SELECTION:
I. Monterey Classic White Wine
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JULY 11, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 11:15 AM
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL AND COFFEE
9:00 - 9:15
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:15 - 10:00
THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT
DR. WATSON
10:00 - 10:15
DISCUSSION
10:15 - 10:45
CRADAs - COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND
MR. ALLEN
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
- An Overview
10:45 - 11:00
DISCUSSION
11:00 -
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
AND MOVE TO INDIAN TREATY ROOM,
ROOM 474, OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
Note: Please use the Pennsylvania Avenue Entrance
to the OEOB.
Biographical Sketch of James Dewey Watson
James D. Watson is best known for his discovery of the structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) for which he shared with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins the 1962 Nobel Prize in
Physiology and Medicine. They proposed that the DNA molecule takes the shape of a double
helix, an elegantly simple structure that resembles a gently-twisted ladder. The rails of the ladder
are made of alternating units of phosphate and the sugar deoxyribose; the rungs are each
composed of a pair of nitrogen-containing nucleotides.
This research emphasized a concept central to the emerging field of molecular biology:
understanding the structure of a molecule can give clues about how it functions. Because each
nucleotide within a rung of the DNA ladder is always paired with the same complementary
nucleotide, one half of the molecule can serve as a template for the construction of the other half.
This complementary pairing explains how identical copies of parental DNA can be passed on to
two daughter cells. During cell division, the DNA helix "unzips," and two new molecules are
formed from the half-ladder templates. Later research showed that the "genetic code," which
determines the identity of a living organism and directs the manufacture of proteins, is contained
in the precise sequence of nucleotide rungs of the DNA ladder. Research on DNA-protein
interactions launched a revolution in biology which culminated in the development of modem
recombinant-DNA techniques.
In 1968, Dr. Watson became Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New
York. Under his direction, this renowned but financially-endangered institution was revitalized.
Dr. Watson steered the Laboratory into the field of tumor virology, from which emerged our
present understanding of oncogenes (cancer genes) and the molecular basis of cancer. In addition
to the high-level research on cancer, plant molecular biology, and cell biochemistry, the
Laboratory functions as a postgraduate university on DNA science. Each year some 4,000
visiting scientists from around the world are drawn to more than 52 professional meetings and
advanced courses held at Cold Spring Harbor. Thus, the Laboratory exerts an influence on
biological research that is far out of proportion to its relatively small size (375 employees).
Born in Chicago, Illinois, in 1928, Dr. Watson received a B.S. degree (1947) from the University
of Chicago, and a Ph.D. (1950) from Indiana University, both in Zoology. Following a National
Research Fellowship in Copenhagen and a National Foundation of Infantile Paralysis Fellowship
at the University of Cambridge, England, he spent two years at the California Institute of
Technology. He joined the Harvard faculty in 1955 and became professor in 1961, resigning in
1976 to become full-time Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. In 1988, he was appointed
Associate Director for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health. In 1989,
he became Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, the newly established
NIH component charged with administering its role in the Human Genome Project.
Dr. Watson was awarded the John Collins Warren Prize of Massachusetts General Hospital
(1959), the Eli Lilly Award in Biochemistry (1960), the Albert Lasker Prize, awarded by the
American Public Health Association (1960), the Research Corporation Prize (1962), the John J.
Carty Gold Medal of the National Academy of Sciences (1971), and the Presidential Medal of
Freedom (1977).
J.D. Watson
Biographical Sketch
Page 2
His memberships include the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1958), the American
Society of Biological Chemists (1958), the National Academy of Sciences (1962), the American
Association for Cancer Research (1972), and the American Philosophical Society (1977). He
holds honorary affiliations with the Danish Academy of Arts and Sciences (1963), Clare College,
Cambridge University (1968), Athenaeum, London (1980), the Royal Society, London (1981),
and the Academy of Sciences, USSR (1989).
Dr. Watson has received honorary degrees from 14. universities and has published five books:
Molecular Biology of the Gene, The Double Helix, The DNA Story, Molecular Biology of the
Cell, and Recombinant DNA: A Short Course.
He is married to the former Elizabeth Lewis, with whom he has two sons: Rufus and Duncan.
DEPARTMENT or COMMERCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
UNITED STATES Cff AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
Biographical Data
Joseph P. Allen
Director, Office of Technology Commercialization
U.S. Department of Commerce
The Office of Technology Commercialization is the principal
industrial liaison for the Department's Technology Administration
created to spur Government-industry cooperation. The mission of
the Office of Technology Commercialization is to improve the
process of commercialization of new technology in the U.S. The
Office oversees four separate programs: Advanced Manufacturing,
Federal Technology Management, the Clearinghouse on State and
Local Initiatives and the National Medal of Technology.
Joe Allen has been involved in the passage of major laws making
possible joint R&D projects between Federal laboratories,
universities and the private sector -- the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act,
its amendment in 1984, and the Federal Technology Transfer Act.
He is now responsible for oversight of these laws for the
Department. Joe was very involved in the passage of a bill
signed into law by the President giving significant authorities
to the Department of Energy's laboratories to work with industry.
Before coming to the Department of Commerce he was Executive
Director of Intellectual Property Owners, Inc., a trade
association representing many research intensive companies.
There he helped coordinate the successful legislative campaign
establishing the new Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit --
a major court reform re-establishing uniform patent standards
throughout the U.S. after years of confusion.
From 1974-1981 he served as a Professional Staff. Member on the
Senate Judiciary Committee. On the Committee he was directly
involved in passing the Bayh-Dole University and Small Business
Patent Policy Act. This law is the basis for the present high
degree of U.S. university-industry cooperative R&D.
commercial influences.
Let AT&T's Ross sum things up: "I think that having a basic
research activity within your company to work on your own spe-
cial missions, in addition to knowing what is going on in the
universities, is absolutely essential. Then you match your research
capability with whatever insights you can get into human needs,
and select the technologies to back." He continued, "You look
Avenue National about
at your needs. at your competitors. at what you can afford, and
you cut your cloth accordingly."
This article is also based on interviews by Alfred Rosenblatt, Tekla
S. Perry, Katherine T. Chen, Fred Guterl, and Peggy Trautman.
Federal laboratories
meet the marketplace
By D. Allan Bromley's estimation, "a significant number" of the
726 U.S. Federal laboratories-many in the Department of
Defense-may disappear within the next few years, having out-
lived their missions. President Bush's science advisor and a Yale
University physicist, Bromiey told IEEE Spectrum that "we'll see
a major change in the next few years" so that industry and univer-
sity can make better use of the remaining laboratories, some of
which he calls "national treasures."
Bromley faces a tough challenge, but the rewards would be
great. More so than in Japan and Germany, Government-funded
laboratories in the United States are a large part of the scientific
and technologic enterprise. So-called Federal laboratories con-
duct more R&D than the nation's universities and employ one-
sixth of U.S. engineers and scientists.
Indeed, in some hot areas like superconductivity, the Federal
labs are the main recipients of U.S. government funds. A single
big laboratory like Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
N.M., or a NASA field center like the Marshall Space Flight Cen-
ter. Huntsville, Ala., spends about as much on R&D-more than
US S1 billion a year-as a big research-oriented company like
General Electric Co. [see table, p. 41].
Past efforts. begun in the 1980s, to revamp the laboratories have
moved slowly or mired completely. In addition, "the Federal labs
still have a long way to go before realizing their potential as a
source of new ideas for industry," concluded a February 1990
report. "Making Things Better," by the U.S. Congressional Of-
fice of Technology Assessment (OTA).
But a dwindling budget and a looming trade deficit are forc-
ing more dramatic changes. New bills passed by the U.S. Con-
gress since 1986 (extending to a proprietary software bill to be
acted on next year) mean that most constraints on ventures be-
tween labs and industry are finally lifted, said Joseph P. Allen,
the Commerce Department director of Federal technology com-
mercialization.
Various indicators snow that Federal-lab cooperation with in-
dustry is happening taster than that of universities and industry
in the early 1980s. Allen told Spectrum. "It's not widely known
yet-the scale or what's happening-but it's really going up ex-
ponentially. he said.
To better use each Federal R&D dollar. both the Pentagon and
the Department or Energy (DOE) are evaluating their extensive
laboratory networks. which. according to the OTA. account for
the lion's share or Federal lab funding of some US $15 billion
to S21 billion a year. Estimates vary with whether such facilities
as engineering test centers. regional extension facilities, or hospital
One of the more successful examples of technology transferred
laboratories are included.)
from the Federal laboratories is DYNA3D, a code originally de-
No one argues that the Federal labs should compete in the mar-
veloped at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for three-
ket. The task is to shed inefficient or redundant labs and en-
dimensional structural analysis of weapon systems. Now, more
courage industry, now that the laws are changed, to make use of
than 300 organizations use it, including automotive and com-
their world-class research.
puter manufacturers, aerospace companies, research laborato-
ries, and universities. Shown here in a series of computer-
John .4. Adam Senior Associate Editor
generated images is the effect of a steel ball breaking a steel plate.
Adam
rederal laboratories to nein L.S. industry compete
39
"There's a mind-set that's changing gradually" in the Depart-
for "those whose missions are less clear, the degree or absence
ment of Defense (DOD) laboratories that economic security is
of private sector interest may be a useful indicator as to whether
critical to national security and that the labs should aid U.S. com-
that facility's charter warrants reexamination."
petitiveness by sharing technology, said David Appler, the domes-
If there are no private sector buyers of obsolete labs, then clos-
tic technology transfer specialist in the Pentagon.
ing them presents an even stickier issue than shutting down mili-
Geroid Yonas, director of laboratory development at Sandia
tary bases, observed James Gover, a Sandia researcher who spent
National Laboratories told Spectrum that lab researchers "gener-
a year as an IEEE Congressional Fellow. Because local econo-
ally have an ethic of service to the nation" and now realize the
mies are boosted in communities with labs, the communities wish
imperative to bolster U.S.-based business.
to retain highly paid lab professionals. A staff member of the
But he added. "The world doesn't owe us a living. We're going
House Space, Science, and Technology Committee noted that the
to have to provide a good return on the taxpayer's investment."
initiative to close any labs will have to come from the Adminis-
tration because "Congress is a reactive body when it comes to
'Inadequate scrutiny'
consolidating anything" because of constituencies.
Each Government laboratory was created in support of a
specific mission. The history of laboratory innovation includes
Those big DOE labs
radar, graphite-epoxy composites, malaria vaccines, the clean
Special attention is also focusing on the nine big, multipro-
room, and contributions to magnetic resonance imaging.
gram DOE labs, which account for about one-sixth of total
But David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard Co., and
Government spending on Federal labs. Besides Sandia, the
other White House Science Council members complained in 1983
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national labs, in Livermore,
that the laboratory apparatus had grown to such proportions that
Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M., have billion-dollar budgets and
many laboratories had only ill-defined or obsolete missions and
concentrate on military work. Idaho National Engineering, Idaho
that "in most cases, the agencies' oversight means an excessive
Falls, Idaho, handling primarily defense research, and Oak Ridge
amount of reporting and paperwork, but inadequate scrutiny of
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., involved primarily in
the quality and relevance of the laboratories' activities." The
energy work, received US $503 million and US $425 million
members were concerned that laboratories would confuse their
respectively in 1989. Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley,
missions with activities guaranteeing their self-preservation.
and Pacific Northwest national labs have annual budgets for
In the last decade, the Government has relinquished only a few
primarily energy research that ranges from US $200 million to
of its labs, according to a House Science and Technology Com-
US $300 million.
mittee staffer. Cuts in fossil energy research funds forced the DOE
As reported in a 213-page, 1990 DOE review of its technology
to divest some small facilities in Grand Forks, N.D., and Laramie,
transfer program, each big lab has at least one and often many
Wyo. Packard's recommendation was all but ignored. A Govern-
"designated user facilities" to be shared with the private sector.
ment official, who is urging a private sector review of laborato-
Facilities extend from Brookhaven's National Synchrotron Light
ry missions, noted that "if you're doing the wrong research and
Source, Upton, N.Y., and Oak Ridge's Shared Research Equip-
have the wrong mission, tech transfer is a Band-Aid."
ment Microanalysis Facility to Los Alamos' National Genetic Se-
The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force each run their own labora-
quence Data Bank and Idaho National Engineering's Environ-
tories with budgetary oversight by the Pentagon. A Pentagon offi-
mental Research Park.
cial familiar with the labs told Spectrum that the current review
What distinguishes many DOE laboratories from most of
being done by the Defense Management Office aims to avoid
those of the DOD, the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
duplication among the labs of the three services.
tration (NASA), the Commerce Department, and most other
The most recent figures from the Pentagon on its laboratories
agencies is their operation by university or industrial contractors,
date from fiscal 1986. They show that 41 243 researchers. most-
a practice that the DOE says helps tap talent. Sandia, for instance,
ly civilians. worked with equipment valued at more than US $6
is operated by and modeled after AT&T Bell Laboratories and
billion and property worth that much again. The laboratory
often uses Bell Labs managers.
management office of the Pentagon said it monitors about 65
Now that some intellectual property is protected by exclusions
DOD labs.
from the Freedom of Information Act and Sandia's mission was
Some duplication (among the three services, not to mention
changed to include competitiveness, the lab is actively seeking
the private sector) mav be apparent from the services' medical
industry partners. Sandia's Yonas notes that "more than two
research. According to the 1986 documents. the Army maintains
dozen cooperative agreements are in the works" from energy and
an aeromedical research laboratory staffed by 136 professionais.
health to the environment and manufacturing. Over 85 percent
an institute of dental research and another of surgical research:
of Sandia's work has military ties. he told us. While he expects
two medical research institutes. one each for chemical defense
the lab to be "first and foremost" a national security facility, the
and infectious disease: a research institute of environmental medi-
proportion of military work will decrease.
cine: and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
The same could be said of the other big weapons labs at Liver-
The Navv nas its unique submarine medical research labora-
more and Los Alamos. With arms control reducing arsenals, work
tory but also a 95-person aerospace medical research lab. its own
with nuclear weapons will focus on reliability and safety as op-
dental institute. a health research center. and three other medi-
posed to development of new warheads, according to DOE Secre-
cal research institutes.
tarv James D. Watkins. Among new or strengthened missions for
The Air Force. like the Armv and Navy, maintains its own aero-
the DOE labs are work in arms control, the human genome proj-
space medical research lab. with a 384-person staff and a school
ect. the environment, and education.
of aerospace medicine.
Total medical staffing and in-house funding for fiscal 1986 at
Transferring technology
these research labs was 2600 professionais and US $164 million
Despite abundant resources. no Silicon Valleys or Route 128s
for the Army: 1054 professionais and US $57.3 million for the
have sprung up around the national laboratories. (One possible
Navy; and 893 professionais and US $61.5 million for the Air
exception is the biotechnology firms in the Washington, D.C., area
Force. The combined equipment and real estate value was esti-
around the National Institutes of Health.)
mated to exceed US $350 million.
The 1990 OTA report points out the Massachusetts Institute
Granted. some military medical labs have made important dis-
of Technology in Cambridge, with a research budget of some US
coveries. but how can their relevance be judged today? A July
$310 million and seven professional staff working on patents and
1989 report on Federal technology transfer by the Department
licensing, produces about the same number of licensing agree-
of Commerce suggests that. regarding Federal labs in general.
ments and new startups as do all of DOE's labs combined, with
40
IEEE SPECTRUM OCTOBER 1990
their budget exceeding US $5 billion.
and the DOD has been underfunded. A report by the DOD In-
Congress's OTA states that three-fifths of the US $21 billion
spector General last October sharply criticized the military labs'
appropriated for the labs each year is for defense applications;
failure to encourage technology transfer, decrying the lack of pat-
much of the rest is for basic research. Yet Leo Young, the Penta-
ent lawyers and policy guidance at low enough levels in the DOD
gon's ex-director of research and laboratory management, esti-
hierarchy. Within individual labs, however, such as Marshall
mates that most of the DOD laboratories' work has civilian ap-
Space Flight Center, Sandia, and the Naval Research Lab, tech-
plications. The private sector is already employing
nology transfer is receiving more attention, often at the direc-
spread-spectrum communications, and magnetic resonance im-
tor's level.
aging and ocean tomography research by the Navy for subma-
NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, hoped to
rine warfare has been useful for commercial medical diagnostics.
smooth the path of technology transfer by sponsoring a confer-
Although most of Sandia's work is for the military, Yonas told
ence where the innovators of some 50-plus "technologies with
us almost everything the laboratory does is of dual use. Appler
commercial potential" go one-on-one with industrial executives
of the Pentagon seemed to agree: "We do research in just about
looking for commercial products. But, the Great Lakes Federal
every scientific discipline that you can imagine. And it's all trans-
Technology Congress. to have been held October 16-17 in
ferrable, in varying degrees."
Cleveland, Ohio, was cancelled because of NASA's budget
For instance, nuclear weapons-not traditionally associated
uncertainties.
with much technology transfer potential-encouraged the de-
Security concerns, too, may dampen defense program technol-
velopment and improvement of supercomputers at Los Alamos.
ogy transfer. The Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.,
At Livermore, the DYNA3D computer code to model the struc-
requires outside researchers to have at least a secret clearance to
tural response of weapons systems has found applications in
work within the lab; Sandia requires a DOE "Q" clearance, which
scores of automotive, aerospace, and computer companies. San-
takes about nine months to process, according to a 1988 GAO
dia's expertise in process engineering-the lab is responsible for
report. But the lab has recently built a major facility outside its
more than 4500 parts of the 5000-odd components of a nuclear
secure area to facilitate technology transfer.
weapon-spawned the "clean room," and made the lab a part-
ner of Sematech Inc., Austin, Texas, and the cornerstone of a new
Recent collaboration
manufacturing consortium. Another of Sandia's nuclear weap-
The National Institutes of Health, which spends about US $1
on devices is finding use as a trigger for air bags in passenger cars.
billion in Federal laboratories, and the National Institute of Stan-
On the whole, the OTA states, technology transfer at the DOE
dards and Technology, which spends about US $180 million (the
A view of some U.S. government-supported laboratories
Budget, in
U.S. dollar
Research
Laboratory (operator)
billions
staffers
Technology transfer indicators
Technology spinoffs
Sandia National Laboratories
1.2
3601
28 licenses granted in 1990, 1 in
Laminar-flow clean rooms; n-tuple pattern recog-
Albuquerque, N.M.
1989; recent pacts on manufacturing
nition: radiation-hardened microchips; various
(AT&T for Energy Dept.)
and specialty metals
battery components; optical spark-plug probe;
hot-air solder leveler for circuit boards
Lawrence Livermore Na-
1.09
3304*
Some 50-100 spinoff companies; 25
Aerogeis for insulation; DYNA3D computer simu-
tional Laboratory
licenses projected for 1990, up from
lation code: blood cell sorter instrument; super-
Livermore. Calif.
1 in 1986: 21 cooperative R&D
computer information storage system; laser-drive
(Univ. of Calif.
agreements: money from industry
X-ray lithography
for Energy Dept.)
and Government collaborative proj-
ects up from US $0.4 million in 1986
to US $8.6 million in 1990
Oak Ridge National
0.5
2073
45 licenses: 16 cooperative R&D
Parallel computing architecture; optical data stor-
Laboratory
agreements: US $0.6 million royal-
age; motor current signature analyzer; ultrasonic
Oak Ridge. Tenn. (Martin
ties annually; 1500 visiting
range and detector system
Marietta for Energy Dept.)
researchers
Lincoin Laboratorv
0.426
1350
15 patents and 7 licenses granted in
Magnetic-core memory, binary optics, diamond
Lexington. Mass.
1989: 61 spinoff companies; consor-
transistors. designs for neural networks, micro-
(MIT for Defense Dept.)
tium with MIT. IBM, and AT&T on su-
acoustic waveguide
perconducting electronics
Naval Research Laboratory
0.361
1588
11 licenses in 1990; 2 cooperative
Pioneering radar work; erbium laser for surgery;
Washington. D.C.
R&D agreements; 26 patents award-
many medical diagnostic instruments
(U.S. Navy)
ed in 1989
Wright R&D Center
0.983
2081
2 licenses: 2 cooperative R&D agree-
Pioneering microelectronics work; efficient air-
Wright-Patterson Air Force
ments: US $63 000 royalties annu-
craft fueling; laser imaging
Base. Ohio
ally; working agreement with the
Ohio technology transfer organiza-
tion since 1984
George C. Marshall
2.6
2386
22 patents in fiscal 1990; 8 patent
Techniques for vacuum plasma spraying for coat-
Space Flight Center
licenses in last 12 months; 16
ing and forming metals; welding; metal clean-
Huntsville. Ala.
cooperative R&D projects in addition
ing and manufacturing with environmental con-
(NASA)
to 6 state agreements; 40 visiting
trols: albumin crystal growth; and collection of
researchers
lightning data for weather forecasting
National Institute of Stan-
0.321
1591
12 licenses: 90 cooperative R&D
Absolute voltage standard: real-time robotic con-
dards and Technology
agreements (95 in 1989); 1000 visit-
trols; software error correction
Gaithersburg, Md.
ing researchers daily
(Commerce Dept.)
Source: Laboratories listed
Includes 98 oostdoctoral fellows
Adam-Federal laboratories to help U.S. industry compete
41
rest of its budget is from other sources), have done collaborative
panies and universities are involved. Labs and industry collaborate
work with industry for years and have good reputations, observes
from basic research to product development, and industry re-
the OTA report. Such collaboration has been rare in the DOE
quests which projects to pursue. For work that industry funds
labs. But legislation passed in late 1989 should spur cooperation
by 50 percent or more, the DOE allows the withholding of tech-
with laboratories operated by DOE contractors.
nical data from publication for up to two years to give the firm
From 1985 to 1990, 140 startups were formed to commercial-
a head start in the market.
ize technology from DOE labs, according to recent testimony by
A state-aided industrial consortium in Ohio is tapping the
DOE chief Watkins. A few labs, such as Oak Ridge, provide ser-
billion-dollar military research program at the five laboratories
vices to entrepreneurs via a center created in 1985 by Oak Ridge's
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and also at NASA's Lewis
operator, Martin Marietta Corp., Bethesda, Md.
Research Center in Cleveland. Spinoffs from Wright-Patterson
At the end of 1988. agencies had negotiated more than 100
that eventually found commercial uses include artificial hip joints
cooperative R&D agreements (most by the Department of
made from carbon composite developed for missile nose cones,
Agriculture and the Health and Human Services Department),
computer-based information systems, and graphite-epoxy ma-
and the pace has accelerated. Commerce's Allen said the num-
terial used in tennis rackets and golf clubs. Industry, through the
ber of cooperative pacts has jumped to 500 now. Some examples:
recently formed Ohio Advanced Technology Center in Dayton,
The DOE set up high-temperature superconductivity centers
hopes to tap into automated manufacturing, quality manage-
at Argonne, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos laboratories in October
ment, materials, and electronics research.
1988 as an experiment in rapid technology transfer. Over 40 com-
Oak Ridge is working with 12 sponsoring companies to develop
Defense R&D: bucking the trend
As aerospace and defense industry executives in the United
years and most observers expect this work to continue for the
States, Japan, and Europe prepare for cuts in planned mili-
foreseeable future. The work focuses on applying AI to com-
tary budgets, many are betting that their research and develop-
mand and control, battlefield vehicles, ships, and aircraft, to
ment operations will emerge relatively unscathed. Nonethe-
aid in recognizing targets and otherwise reducing the infor-
less, most are hedging that bet by seeking commercial
mation and workload presented to crews and soldiers.
business and nondefense applications for some of their
In the systems area, widespread activity is devoted to de-
military-spawned technologies, such as radar, gallium ar-
veloping better infrared electro-optics for forward-looking pas-
senide semiconductors, and satellite communications.
sive sensors and other uses. And in semiconductor electron-
U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's 1991 budget re-
ics, gallium arsenide remains of intense military interest.
quest calls for a 6 percent reduction in funds for procurement,
Martin Marietta, for example, is trying to build a single-chip
R&D, testing, and evaluation-to US $116 billion. But defense
GaAs seeker for guided missiles by integrating a transmitter-
executives contacted by IEEE Spectrum noted that the De-
receiver pair operating at 30/95 gigahertz.
fense Department's ambitious plans to replace existing
Although commercial spinoffs of such R&D work may seem
weapons and platforms with more advanced ones, such as
improbable, defense executives have begun considering them,
stealth aircraft and robotic vehicles, are incompatible with
somewhat reluctantly. Most remember all too well the period
deep cuts in R&D.
after the Vietnam War, when many U.S. defense contractors
"My gut feeling is that R&D funding is going to increase
tried unsuccessfully to compensate for the decline in their
within the Department of Defense, even though there is going
defense businesses by pursuing commercial markets.
to be less production," said Robert G. Morra, vice president
But the need to supplement defense income in the near fu-
for technical operations at Martin Marietta Corp. in Bethes-
ture is fast becoming a foregone conclusion, and contractors
da. Md.
are confident they can avoid the mistakes of their last efforts
Japan's Defense Agency recently scaled back plans for a
to commercialize. This time many are staying with what they
five-year military buildup, to begin in 1991. But analysts there,
know best: selling to the Government. Their primary targets
too. are not expecting R&D to suffer-quite the contrary: many
are several large, nonmilitary, R&D-intensive projects planned
predict that Government funds will be redirected from
for the 1990s. They include: the National Aeronautics and
weapons systems and platforms to communications systems
Space Administration's Mission to Planet Earth, Space Explo-
and R&D. according to a recent report in The Nihon Keizai
ration Initiative, and space station; the National Aerospace
Shimbun. the largest Japanese financial newspaper.
Plane; and the Department of Energy's ongoing efforts to clean
The situation is somewhat different in Europe, where a few
up nuclear waste at its weapons plants, an effort that could
major military-development projects are already being refor-
take 30 years and cost an estimated US $200 billion.
mulated on a smaller scale. Executives at some of the largest
And despite the skepticism concerning commercial ven-
defense firms there said their own R&D operations may de-
tures, many defense firms that derive some of their business
cline moderately as European nations collaborate more and
from commercial markets are seeking to expand their share
more on defense research. This collaboration is taking place
of those markets. Hughes Aircraft Co., for example, depends
under international organizations, such as the North Atlan-
on the commercial market for less than 25 percent of its in-
tic Treaty Organization (NATO), and research initiatives, such
come, but hopes to increase that share to 40 percent within
as Euclid (European Corporation for the Long-Term in Defense),
five years, according to Milton E. Radant, vice president of
which is outlining a 10-year defense-research framework for
technology at the Los Angeles-based company.
NATO's Independent European Program Group. Such joint ef-
Hughes, a leader in military satellite and communications
forts have been mounted in Europe partly to better leverage
technology, is expanding its sales of receiving terminals and
military spending and partly as a result of a general empha-
central-hub control systems for business-satellite communi-
sis on collaboration associated with the European Commu-
cations systems and other nondefense customers. A subsidi-
nity's plans for market unification.
ary of General Motors Corp. since 1985, Hughes also hopes
to greatly increase its share of the automotive electronics
Commercial markets sought
market.
For now. few of these executives are planning significant
Last summer, Hughes and Delco Electronics Corp., Koko-
changes in the content or structure of their R&D programs,
mo, Ind., formed an affiliated subsidary called HE Microwave
SO today's R&D thrusts are likely to be tomorrow's as well. A
in Tucson, Ariz. Among other things, the venture will develop
recently released Department of Defense list of "critical tech-
and produce microelectronic modules for automotive radar
nologies" in the United States included photonics. signal pro-
applications, including collision-avoidance and near-obstacle
cessing, and software. For example, artificial intelligence (AI)
detection.
techniques have been an important area of investigation for
Several firms, both large and small, are adapting or selling
42
IEEE SPECTRUM OCTOBER 1990
intelligent software systems for finite element analysis.
tribute US $2.5 million and the Government, US $2 million.
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center reached agreement with
The DOE recently signed a pact with the National Center for
governors from six states-Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mis-
Manufacturing Sciences, a nonprofit consortium of more than
sissippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia-to help local companies
100 companies in Ann Arbor, Mich. The DOE has identified 39
manufacture more competitively. Researchers from the Marshall
technological innovations applicable to precision manufactur-
lab hold workshops, do consulting work. and occasionally visit
ing that have been kept out of the private sector. Work will also
local companies.
explore such areas as advanced controller software and artificial
Massachusetts, after learning of the DOD's new emphasis on
intelligence.
technology transfer. signed an agreement in February with mili-
Other ventures include the Department of Agriculture's Peo-
tary labs in the state, notably one at the Electronic Systems Di-
ria Biotechnology Consortium and the Army's Construction
vision Hanscom Air Force Base and an Army laboratory at
Productivity Advancement Research program. To spur more
Natick.
deals, the Department of Commerce's Allen recommends hold-
New York State last October agreed with the Air Force's Rome
ing conferences to bring industry in contact with laboratory
Air Development Center at Griffiss Air Force Base to conduct
researchers. Many labs-and even some Government agencies-
cooperative research in photonics.
are setting these up. The first, held by Health and Human Ser-
A Sandia consortium of 11 companies is to improve the quali-
vices in October 1988, attracted more than 250 representatives
ty of specialty metals such as nickel-based or titanium alloys,
from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. A similar
using the lab's furnaces. From 1989 to 1994, industry is to con-
conference on materials is to be held in October and one on the
environment is planned for early 1991, according to Allen.
Such collaboration can also be lucrative to lab researchers. Be-
cause of the 1986 Federal Technology Transfer Act, Federal
researchers earn at least 15 percent of any royalties their inven-
GaAs electronics originally developed for military use for ap-
tion may bring in. Since the act was passed, the number of Fed-
plication in commercial systems. Until 1988, tiny Anadigics
eral inventions has jumped markedly; for instance, the Army's
Inc. in Warren, N.J., produced prototype quantities of radio-
309 in fiscal 1987 increased to 424 in fiscal 1988. A Commerce
frequency microwave GaAs devices for military applications.
Department report published last year observed that university
It now produces 70 000 ICs a month for shipment to a Euro-
pean firm that uses them in the down-converter receivers in
patents jumped from 230 a year in 1976 to 900 in 1987.
its direct-broadcast satellite (DBS) system. "We're the only
Royalties for DOE contractor-operated labs have jumped from
company in the world cranking out gallium arsenide ICs in
US $14 in 1981 to US $584 in 1988. Royalties from Fed-
high volume," said chief executive officer Ronald Rosenzweig
erally owned and operated labs collected from the National Tech-
[see p. 65].
nical Information Service, Springfield, Va., rose from US $1.5
William Bardo, technical director of Britian's GEC-Marconi
million in 1985 to US $5.6 million three years later.
Defense Systems Ltd. in Stanmore, Middlesex, one of the
largest European defense firms, is encouraged by increasing
Non-U.S. vs. U.S. industry
civilian use of the company's microwave technology in DBS
The U.S. laboratories are a worldwide resource. A recent sur-
receivers for the home. The technology, developed after World
Warll, is the basis for missile-seeker heads, electronic-warfare
vey sponsored by Japan's Science and Technology Agency of 385
systems, and airborne radar. But over the last three years, GEC-
prestigious Japanese scientists rated the U.S. government's Na-
Marconi has applied the technology to the growing Europe-
tional Institutes of Health as the world's top research center, fol-
an DBS market. The company, which produced over a million
lowed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Germa-
DBS receiver antennas for home use last year, is now by its
ny's Max Planck Institutes.
own reckoning the world's largest supplier of such units.
Non-U.S. use of the labs has been a matter of some controversy.
A 1989 Commerce Department technology transfer report notes
UK situation different
that non-U.S. companies, unlike those in the United States, "are
Bardo told Spectrum that such commercial applications
adept at identifying valuable research projects at Federal fa-
may help defense-oriented firms sustain their research bud-
cilities."
gets, because "in the early stages of research, we don't dis-
tinguish between military and civil applications."
According to a 1988 report by the U.S. General Accounting Of-
He cautioned. however, that "the situation in the UK is a
fice. the 3597 non-U.S. researchers who worked during 1986 at
bit more complicated than elsewhere" in Europe, because the
50 large Federal labs comprised 30 percent of the total outside
British Ministry of Defense is now distancing itself from the
researchers. The most popular destination for both U.S. and non-
major Government research establishments that have tradi-
U.S. researchers was the DOE energy labs, followed by the Na-
tionally played central roles in military R&D.
tional Institutes of Health and NASA. More than 80 percent of
These establishments. including the Royal Signais and
the outside researchers were affiliated with universities and other
Radar Establishment. the Royal Aerospace Establishment, the
nonprofit groups. Japan sent the most researchers (758), followed
Admiralty Research Establishment. and the Royal Armaments
and R&D Establishment. are Government owned and staffed:
by the United Kingdom (448), and China (438).
they are charged with advising the Defense Ministry and
According to several research managers and administrators in-
procuring certain systems and technology for it. These func-
terviewed by the GAO, the best way to control non-U.S. partici-
tions are not expected to change, but in the future. the estab-
pation in R&D is to stimulate U.S. participation because staff-
lishments will have to compete for R&D funds rather than get
ing and space constraints limit the total number of researchers.
them automatically from the ministry, as they have in the past,
"By giving preference to U.S. researchers, the Federal laborato-
Bardo said.
ries would be able to limit foreign involvement to collaborations
Within Europe as a whole, Bardo doubted that the reced-
that are particularly useful," the GAO reported. Many managers
ing threat of war on the continent would lead to significant
stated that U.S. laboratories benefited more from the collabora-
cuts in defense R&D. Like many other defense specialists on
tions than the outside researchers and their countries.
both sides of the Atlantic contacted by Spectrum in mid-
August, he pointed to the worsening situation in the Middle
The 1986 Federal Technology Transfer Act tried to ensure that
East as evidence that continued rigorous R&D was necessary.
taxpayer-financed technology would not be given away without
"Probably the view will prevail that state-of-the-art capabili-
an adequate quid pro quo, according to the 1989 Commerce
ties must be maintained. So enough development programs
Department report. In 1988, Congress passed legislation requir-
will be funded to maintain them," he said.
ing that agreements with non-U.S. participants consider wheth-
-Glenn Zorpette
er symmetrical opportunities existed in other nations and whether
intellectual properties were protected. But the Commerce Depart-
Zorpette-Electronics consortia to impact products for generations
43
ment noted that "U.S. firms, until recently, have shown only limit-
such as off-the-shelf op amps and adders are now widely used
ed interest in working with Federal facilities, much less with those
in chip design. However, some engineers have their doubts about
operated by foreign Governments."
the future of reusable software: software engineers "don't want
The GAO report also noted that few U.S. researchers go abroad.
to use other people's reusable components," Mazzucchelli said.
In Japan, for instance, the best research is often in corporate labs
Also, software developers must realize that object-oriented
that are not as accessible as Government labs. Federal labs sent
programming is not the answer to all their problems, cautioned
1679 researchers to work in another country in 1986, the GAO
Mary Shaw, a professor in Carnegie Mellon University's com-
reported; more than half of them worked for the Geological Sur-
puter science department in Pittsburgh and also with the univer-
vey, often on short visits in conjunction with conferences.
sity's Software Engineering Institute. Software engineering badly
Yonas noted that non-U.S. participation in U.S. research often
needs sound, theoretical rules that guide developers in deciding
benefits the nation's economy. Two of the companies in Sandia's
when to use each technology.
specialty metals consortium have overseas owners. Examining
criteria such as the number of jobs provided, where the technol-
New ways to navigate the waterfall
ogy resides, and how profits are reinvested, the lab's management
Whatever the programming technique used, software develop-
decided that the non-U.S. companies' participation benefited the
ment tends to follow the basic waterfall model: requirements,
United States, according to Yonas.
specification, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance.
Allen told Spectrum that scientists from abroad gain know-
The requirements are usually stated in narrative fashion, rather
how rather than patentable inventions from their laboratory stays.
than in a formal computer language, and express what the soft-
He added that there is a shortage of U.S. scientists, and many
ware must be able to do. They are translated into functional
non-U.S. scientists at the laboratories choose to stay in the Unit-
specifications, preferably written in a computer-executable lan-
ed States.
guage. The design encapsulates the structure of the software sys-
tem, detailing how the different parts of the program are con-
nected. Then the design is turned into code, written in a computer
Software R&D: from
language, and tested to ferret out bugs. But it is not until the main-
tenance phase-which consists primarily of fixing errors and im-
an art to a science
plementing changes in the design-that the real work begins: it
generally accounts for 60-80 percent of the time and money spent
"Software is an art, not a science" has long been an axiom of
on a program, a far larger share than for hardware.
that field of engineering. Its exponents have had the image, even
There are numerous variations on the waterfall model, and
among other engineers, of lone cowboys, programming largely
often parts of it are repeated as problems are discovered or the
by intuition in a field that lacks formal rules and physical laws
program's requirements change. Software engineers have recog-
to govern it. Another saying, "You can do anything-it's soft-
nized for years that the model is far from perfect, and different
ware," has meant not only that software can accomplish nearly
models are being explored. Some feel that it overemphasizes the
any task but also that it can be created in an unlimited number
production of documents, such as a requirements statement, with-
of ways, few of them measurably more effective than others.
out helping engineers produce them.
Although the perception of the individualistic software en-
Others feel that the process itself is sound but leaves room for
gineer may linger, the reality is changing. While the lack of phys-
error in execution. For example, if the specifications do not ac-
ical laws remains, formal rules and structures are being adopted
curately reflect the intent of the requirements, the end result may
to create a methodical engineering discipline along the lines of
be useless. Also, integrating a program's components can be ex-
electrical or mechanical engineering. "Software engineering is
tremely difficult when different teams of engineers are design-
not a freestyle event," said Lou Mazzucchelli, vice president and
ing and implementing the various pieces of a large system.
chief technical officer at Cadre Technologies Inc., Providence,
R.I., a manufacturer of computer-aided software engineering
One alteration of the waterfall model favors creating proto-
(CASE) tools.
types, long a staple of the hardware engineering process: a rough
version of the product is built and studied to discover problems
Development techniques are becoming increasingly structured
and solutions. For example, Microsoft developed a prototype of
and disciplined, and more attention is being paid to building a
the Windows 3.0 user interface to test for ease of use. Similarly,
mathematical basis of software engineering. Also, software en-
Synopsys Inc., Mountain View, Calif., created a prototype of its
gineers are modifying the classic "waterfall" model of software
recently released ECL synthesis tool for designers of emitter-
development more radically than before, stopping at certain stages
coupled logic (ECL) to test. However, a prototype robust enough
to build prototypes or changing the way the cycle progresses to
for customers to use fairly easily requires a significant investment
better accommodate the necessary maintenance.
of time and money to fine-tune it. Prototyping is possible at just
Perhaps the hottest technology today in software engineering
is object-oriented programming, which was first developed in the
about any step in the waterfall cycle and can actually help pro-
duce most of the necessary documents. In the past, some soft-
late 1960s and early 1970s. Regarded more as a research topic than
ware developers doubted the value of examining a prototype of
as a viable programming method, languages and support tools
a software project before code was written.
such as C⁺⁺ have proliferated only over the past few years.
Although the prototyping concept is borrowed from hardware
Object-oriented programming focuses on the structure and in-
trinsic functions of the objects that are manipulated, rather than
engineering, other changes in software engineering are moving
it closer to disciplines like electrical engineering. Thus, spend-
on the steps taken to manipulate the objects, as conventional
ing more time on the front end of the process, thinking about
programming techniques do. Objects are built in hierarchical ways
the problem to minimize difficulties in the later stages, is a hall-
and are largely self-contained: changing, say, the length of a data
mark of sound engineering. Instead of focusing on writing code,
field could be done in one step by changing the object, instead
engineers must look at how the program should be organized at
of altering the many parts of the system that use that data. The
procedures that call the objects need not know such details about
a higher level so that it will be easier to maintain. For example,
software engineers working on the Cadre's Teamwork products
the object, unlike those used in other programming methods.
The properties of objects qualify them almost ideally for
several years ago spent four to five months "just thinking, figuring
out how the products should work," Mazzucchelli said. Conse-
reusability-potentially a boon to software developers, who too
quently, the implementation phase went smoothly because the
often have to develop systems from scratch. Reusable components
architecture was sound, and even more time was saved when the
Erin E. Murphy Associate Editor
company began to work on the second version of the products,
he added.
44
IEEE SPECTRUM OCTOBER 1990
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 28, 1991
EXECUTIVE ORDER
-
EXTENSION OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF
ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,
and in order to extend the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology, it is hereby ordered that Section 4 (b)
of Executive Order No. 12700 is amended by deleting "June 30,
1991" and inserting "June 30, 1993" in lieu thereof.
GEORGE BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 28, 1991.
###
/
7 panels
2
Budget and requisting
3
because technologies - evit. Tech. Report
4
Facilities
Recent news accounts
>
PEAST concerned about integrity of
Above of overhead recovery by univs.
process for RtD and Facilities
>
Related issue : - pork bandle
earnething big problem
1
Also fundamental problem
1810 M FY 91 by Congress
upgrading unius to carry of out
their Pesponsibilities
PEAST wants to be helpful
- also integrity
- earnarhing
- outdated facilities
How can useful? we be most belpful?
5
Megaprojects
6
Acti-trust /
?
America 2000
As of May 1, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MAY 2-3, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL AND COFFEE
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - - 10:30
THE DECADE OF THE BRAIN
DR. PORTER
10:30 - 11:00
DISCUSSION
11:00 -
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
Roger J. Porter, M.D.
Deputy Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Born: April 4, 1942, Pittsburgh, PA
EDUCATION: B.S., Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL, 1964; M.D., Duke
University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 1968; University of California,
San Diego, Straight Medical Internship, 1969; University of California, San
Francisco, Resident in Neurology, 1971-1973; University of California, San
Francisco, Chief Resident in Neurology, 1973-1974.
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: Deputy Director, NINDS, 1987-present; Chairman,
Subcommittee on Brain and Behavioral Research, OSTP, 1990-present; Chief,
Medical Neurology Branch, and Chief, Clinical Epilepsy Section, NINCOS, 1984-
1987; Clinical Epilepsy Section, NINCDS, 1980-1984; Acting Chief, Epilepsy
Branch, Neurological Disorders Program, and Acting Chief, Clinical Epilepsy
Section, NINCDS, 1979-1980; Assistant Chief, Epilepsy Branch, Neurological
Disorders Program, NINCDS, 1978-1979; Senior Research Associate, Épílopsy
Branch, Neurological Disorders Program, NINCDS, 1974-1978; Medical officer,
Commissioned Corps, PHS (Medical Director) 1974-present; Investigator,
Diphenylhydantoin pharmacology project, University of California, San
Francisco, 1972-1973; Staff Associate, Section on Epilepsy, NINCDS, 1969-
19/1; Fellow, Research Training Program, Duke University School of Medicine,
1966-1967 (9 months); Research Assistant, Department of Pathology,
Metropolitan General Hospital, Cleveland, OH, 1965 (summer); Consultant-
Lecturer in Neurology, National Naval Medical Center, Bechesda, MD, 1978-
present; Clinical Professor of Neurology, Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, 1980-present; Adjunct Professor of
Pharmacology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda,
MD, 1982-present.
PROFESSIONAL ORCANIZATIONS: American Academy of Neurology, American
Electroencephalngraphio Society, American Epilepsy Society (past president),
American Neurological Association, American Society for Clinical Pharmacology
and Therapeutics, American Society for Neurologic Investigation (Honorary
Member), International League Against Epilepsy (Secretary-General), Society
for Neuroscience.
HONORS, AWARDS: U.S. Public Health Service Commendation Medal, 1977;
MacArthur Outstanding Alumnus Award, Eckerd College, 1977; Fulbright
Distinguished Professor Award, 1985; President, Assembly of Scientists, NIMH-
NINCDS, 1985-1986, U.S. Public Health Service Meritorious Service Medal,
1986; Letter of Commendation, Commanding Officer, National Naval Medical
Center, 1987; Letter of Commendation, Surgeon Ceneral C. Everett Koop, M.D.,
USPHS, 1988; Department of Defense Meritorious Service Medal, 1989;
Distinguished Alumnus Award, Duke University Medical Center, 1989; United
States Navy Commendation Medall, 1991.
PUBLICATIONS: Books-9; Articles and Chapters-139; Abstracts-90
OF THE THE 20
DECADE OF THE BRAIN, 1990 1999
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
The human brain, a 3-pound mass of interwoven nerve cells that controls our activity, is one of the
most magnificent - and mysterious - wonders of creation. The seat of human intelligence, interpreter
of senses, and controller of movement, this incredible organ continues to intrigue scientist and layman
alike.
Over the years, our understanding of the brain - how it works, what goes wrong when it is injured or
diseased - has increased dramatically. However, we still have much more to learn. The need for
continued study of the brain is compelling: millions of Americans are affected each year by disorders
of the brain ranging from neurogenetic diseases to degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's, as well
as stroke, schizophrenia, autism, and impairments of speech, language, and hearing.
Today, these individuals and their families are justifiably hopeful, for a new era of discovery is
dawning in brain research. Powerful microscopes, major strides in the study of genetics, and advanced
brain imaging devices are giving physicians and scientists ever greater insight into the brain.
Neuroscientists are mapping the brain's biochemical circuitry, which may help produce more effective
drugs for alleviating the suffering of those who have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. By studying
how the brain's cells and chemicals develop, interact, and communicate with the rest of the body,
investigators are also developing improved treatments for people incapacitated by spinal cord injuries,
depressive disorders, and epileptic seizures. Breakthroughs in molecular genetics show great promise
of yielding methods to treat and prevent Huntington's disease, the muscular dystrophies, and other
life-threatening disorders.
Research may also prove valuable in our war on drugs, as studies provide greater insight into how
people become addicted to drugs and how drugs affect the brain. These studies may also help produce
effective treatments for chemical dependency and help us to understand and prevent the harm done to
the preborn children of pregnant women who abuse drugs and alcohol. Because there is a connection
between the body's nervous and immune systems, studies of the brain may also help enhance our
understanding of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Many studies regarding the human brain have been planned and conducted by scientists at the
National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, and other Federal research
agencies. Augmenting Federal efforts are programs supported by private foundations and industry.
The cooperation between these agencies and the multidisciplinary efforts of thousands of scientists
and health care professionals provide powerful evidence of our Nation's determination to conquer
brain disease.
To enhance public awareness of the benefits to be derived from brain research, the Congress, by House
Joint Resolution 174, has designated the decade beginning January 1, 1990, as the "Decade of the
Brain" and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this
occasion.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby
proclaim the decade beginning January 1, 1990, as the Decade of the Brain. I call upon all public
officials and the people of the United States to observe that decade with appropriate programs,
ceremonies, and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of July, in the year of our
Lord nineteen hundred and ninety, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two
hundred and fifteenth.
ay Bush
E.O. Wilson
Thomas Lovejoy
James Gustave Speth
Harvard University
Smithsonian Institution
World Resources Institute
David Rall
Michael Glantz
National Institute of Environmental
Albert Gore, Jr.
National Center for Atmospheric
Health Sciences
U.S. Senator
Research
Some of the crackpots predicting
the world is coming to an end.
Recently, some of the foremost
of millions of homes along the coast.
Like reducing carbon dioxide
scientists and environmental
Because of the release of chloro-
pollution by cutting back on our use
experts from around the world met in
fluorocarbons, the Earth's protective
of coal and improving our energy effi-
the town of Boulder, Colorado.
ozone layer has been dangerously
ciency. Enforcing a worldwide ban on
The subject: the environment.
eroded. As a result, scientists are pre-
ozone-layer-depleting chlorofluoro-
The conclusion: If something
dicting a dramatic increase in the
carbons. And putting greater emphasis
was not done quickly, these experts
incidence of skin cancer.
on recycling wastes.
forecasted dire consequences for our
And the millions of tons of
Of course, you could say these
planet.
garbage and toxic waste produced
things are inconvenient.
According to computer projec-
annually threaten to contaminate
But, then again, just consider
tions, for example, the accumulation
precious drinking water supplies,
the alternatives.
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
and present a growing hazard to
Please make a donation to help
from the burning of fossil fuels could
human health.
establish scholarships for environ-
increase the Earth's average tempera-
Fortunately, these experts also
mental education. Send your contribu-
ture three to five degrees Fahrenheit.
happen to have some suggestions
tion to The Environmental Challenge
The result: Oceans will rise, causing
on how we can prevent these things
Fund, Radio City Station, P.O. Box
massive flooding and the destruction
from ever happening.
1138, New York, NY 10101-1138.
This advertisement was prepared for the TIME Environmental Challenge as (1 public service by Mandelbaum Mooney Ashlev. Inc.