1
Erin Beaumont
PADM 552
Literature Review
Prof. Mario Rivera
A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER & THE
GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION
United States science and technology policy evolved after significant historical events
such as World War II, the Cold War, and the decline of United States dominance in the
economic and technological environment. These events not only threatened the state of our
nation <?, but also had long-term effects on the <NATION’S? policy formation and
implementation. Prior to these two <?? significant events, the United States government did
not play a major role in funding science or technology for economic development
purposes<CLARIFY. War, the United States decline, and the evolution of technology<ODD
SOUNDING SEQUENCE impacted the economy in many ways, and as a result, forced the
United States to transition from the Industrial Age to the modern Information Age<?? THE
INDUSTRIAL AGE WAS BETWEEN THE 17TH AND 19TH CENTURIES. United States
history inspired science and technology policies <???and the evolution of technology transfer
are described in the following literature review. <UNCLEAR SENTENCE
THE BIRTH OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
2
During the post World War II era, President Franklin Roosevelt and his administration
made a historic decision to establish a comprehensive federal policy for supporting science and
innovation. The movement towards new science policies was an acknowledgement by
President Roosevelt that many of the successes of World War II could be credited to the
scientific advances and new technologies what were developed and utilized by the United
States military. The resulting federal policy developed by President Roosevelt’s science
advisor, Vannevar Bush, was exemplified in Bush’s 1945 report Science, The Endless Frontier.
The intentions of the policy were aimed at providing industry and United States military with
an endless pool of scientific knowledge to ensure economic growth and superior defense
capabilities. This new federal policy redefined the different roles of government, industry, and
universities in regards to how they participated in the science and technology sector (Atkinson
& Pelfrey, 2010). In summary, the national policy described in Science, The Endless Frontier
provided that the federal government would support basic research through funding research
universities who would produce the pool of fundamental technologies that industry and the
military could pull from. As a result, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was established
and devoted to supporting basic research and education in all scientific and engineering
disciplines. Prior to establishing this science and technology policy and prior World War II,
the federal government provided almost no support for research in universities. Atkinson and
Pelfrey (2010) claim that Bush’s Science, The Endless Frontier “remains to this day the single
most important document on U.S. science policy ever written” (p. 40).
The post World War II era resulted in preliminary outcomes of loosely coordinated
policy to further the missions of individual federal agencies toward adoption of science and
3
technology policy. Ham and Mowery (1995) report that during the 1950s, defense-related
spending accounted for 80% of federal research and development funds allocated to basic
research. Along with defense related procurement, this spending assisted with the growth of
high-technology industries such as semiconductors, computers, and commercial aircrafts, and it
supported the enormous growth of university-based scientific research (Ham & Mowery 1995,
p.91). This led to the creation of technology transfer, which is a mechanism for turning basic
research into an actual goods and services that generates income and are beneficial to the public
in general. The new importance of technology transfer inspired by Bush’s executive document
caused university-based research funded by the federal government to flourish. Industry
sponsored partnerships with universities declined as a result of the large amount of federal
research funding that was being provided by the government (Atkinson & Pelfrey, 2010).
Nevertheless, the federal government had successfully generated a mechanism for research
universities to create a considerable pool of basic research for industry to select from.
However, there were limitations on the ability of industry to dictate the types of innovations
that were being generated, so although there was a large pool of technologies, the majority of
these technologies were defense related and did not fit as viable opportunities for
commercialization.
THE ESCALATION <ESCALATION IS THE WRONG WORD< OF UNITED STATES
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
4
In the 1970s and throughout the Cold War, the United States government sought to
further develop technology and science policy to encourage technology transfer and enhance
the nation’s competitiveness. To address some of the difficulties in technology transfer, <THE
federal government came up with additional enhancements to technology policy initiatives that
included tax credits for research, funding for public/private research, and lessening antitrust
regulations to stimulate research partnerships. In addition, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) was established in 1976 with a mandate to advise the President on
the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The OSTP’s
mission was defined in the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976. The 1976 Act charged the OSTP with leading the efforts to develop and
implement effective science and technology policy to accelerate the private sector, state and
local governments, and research universities. During this same era, Russia had many
successful advances in space related technology. In efforts to stay competitive, the United
States formed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As a result of NASA and DARPA, the
emergence of spin-off companies from large corporations and universities became a new model
for commercializing basic research (Bauer, Lang & Schneider, 2012). Unlike NSF, DARPA
was able to fund projects in a flexible fashion without relying on the complicated peer review
grant application process that was required by NSF (Alic et al. 2003). Bauer et al. (2012)
describe that DARPA used this new flexible funding approach to inspire competition between
start-up firms, which resulted in increased competition amongst large industrial research
laboratories as well.
5
By the early 1980s, government funded research and development contributed less and
less to commercial or non-defense related applications, and the focus of technological
development transitioned from civilian to military applications. The change in direction of
technology applications from civilian to military and the declining demand for defense-related
technologies triggered the economic viability of United States defense suppliers of hightechnology components and systems to rely more heavily on the more competitive markets
within the private sector. In summary, the technologies developed with military applications
had satisfied the demand requirements established by the United States military, so United
States defense contractors were forced to seek new business ventures in the civilian or nondefense related markets for their businesses to be competitive. In response to the shift in
commercial interest, the federal government looked for other ways to emphasize support for
technology adoption of non-defense related innovations through ‘dual-use’ technology
development programs suggested by the President William Jefferson Clinton Administration
(Ham & Mowery, 1995).
Since the 1980s and towards the end of the Cold War, the administrations of Presidents’
Reagan, Bush, and Clinton worked to reorient science and technology policy with bipartisan
support to address the fluctuating United States economy. This reorientation was in response to
the many changes in the international economic and technological environment that resulted in
the reduction of United States technological dominance and forced the United States to become
interdependent on foreign economies and markets. In particular, the Clinton Administration
sought to address the dependency of trade policy on technology policy and redirect federal
research and development spending towards non-defense related applications (Ham & Mowery,
6
1995). Although there was not much success at unifying technology and trade policies due to
the complexities of the global system, the Clinton Administration was successful at redirecting
federal support for basic science research from defense applications to non-defense applications
to support the growth of the private sector. This initiative supported the philosophy that
“government can play a key role in helping private firms develop and profit from innovation”
(Clinton & Gore, 1993; Ham & Mowery 1995, p. 89).
MODERN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICIES RESULTING FROM
EMPHASIS ON COMMERCIALIZATION
The 1980s were a pivotal time in the development of science and technology policy and
technology transfer. Block and Keller (2011) stated that the federal government continued to
take a proactive approach to encouraging innovation and technology transfer. However, the
trade deficit, caused by the competition in rival nations such as Japan and Germany catching up
to the American firms, continued to affect the United States economy and technological
dominance. Politicians and bureaucrats began to evaluate if science and technology policy
could be utilized as a tool to partly address the foreign trade deficit (Bauer, Lang & Schneider,
2012). Two pieces of legislation were introduced to improve technology transfer and both had
a strong emphasis on commercialization. The first technology transfer law was called the
Stevenson-Wyle Technology Innovation Act of 1980. This Act was the first of a series of acts.
The Act was established to promote dissemination of scientific research from the federal
government in attempts to foster public welfare, and it required national laboratories to practice
7
technology transfer by identifying and managing intellectual property filed to protect
innovations. This Act was later amended to become the Federal Technology Transfer Act of
1986, which encouraged cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs)
between national laboratories, generally in the form of Department of Energy (DOE) contractor
operated national labs, and research universities and/or industry (NSF, 2012).
Another very profound piece of legislation that was derived in the 1980s was the BayhDole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980. This Act was intended to stimulate
technology transfer and encourage commercialization of technology from universities and
national laboratories to the private sector. The Bayh-Dole Act allows university, small
business, and non-profit institutions to retain ownership of inventions and the associated
intellectual property developed from federal government-funded research. This Act also allows
these institutions to enter into royalty bearing licenses with third parties for rights to the
intellectual property. The underlying significance of the Bayh-Dole Act is to ensure that public
investment in basic research serves as a catalyst for national economic growth and improves the
overall quality of American lives (Atkinson & Pelfrey, 2010).
Prior to the 1980s legislation, the government retained ownership of the rights to any
patentable invention that was developed with federal funds. The difficulty of obtaining a
license from the federal government for a solely government owned invention made it
challenging to commercialize these inventions and prevented the likelihood of technology
transfer. For example, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 1978 that the
United States government upheld 28,000 patents, but fewer than 5% of those patents were
commercially licensed to the private sector. Proponents of the Bayh-Dole Act believe that
8
university or laboratory ownership of intellectual property is necessary to incentivize industry
to work more closely with universities and laboratories to spin technology out of the research
labs because industry would now have a more simplistic path to secure rights to the inventions
and their associated intellectual property (Lowe & Gonzalez-Brambila, 2007). Prior to the
Bayh-Dole Act, industry members were forced to negotiate highly bureaucratic licenses from
the federal government to these innovations, which proved to be too complex or costly to
attract industry’s attention regardless of the potential value of the technology. Therefore, prior
to the Bayh-Dole Act, many university-based innovations simply remained unlicensed and
corporate sponsored research agreements with universities were less appealing to industry.
Feldman and Desrochers (2004) suggest that the Bayh-Dole Act has resulted in the closer
associations between university and industry researchers, which have accelerated scientific
advancements and commercialization over the past three decades. Many technology transfer
experts report about the successes of the Bayh-Dole Act catalyzing technology transfer out of
universities; however, Link et al. (2011) report that neither the Stevenson-Wydler Act nor the
Bayh-Dole Act have sufficiently increased technology transfer out of the national laboratories.
Many national laboratory researchers are simply not incentivized to participate in technology
transfer and commercialization contradicts the research missions that they operate under.
Despite the difficulties in technology transfer from national laboratories, it is commonly agreed
that university technology transfer has increased and flourished, and as a result, many
technology transfer offices have been established.
9
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES ESTABLISHED FROM MODERN TECHNOLOGY
POLICY
An uncommonly known fact <REPHRASE!! VERY AKWARD about the Bayh-Dole
Act is that its foundation relies on the idea that once given ownership of patent rights to
universities and non-profits, these entities would devote sufficient resources to hire, train, and
perform technology transfer and commercialization (Swamidass & Vulasa, 2009). As a result
of the Federal Technology Transfer Act and the Bayh-Dole Act, many successful technology
transfer programs, otherwise known as Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), have been
established for almost all research based universities and national laboratories. TTOs work on
behalf of the research universities or national laboratories to market, commercialize, and
protect the federally funded inventions generated by its faculty or staff. These TTOs work
with the researchers to file intellectual property that protects inventions, to market the invention
to potential commercial parties, to enter into royalty bearing licenses with commercial parties
such as industry or start-up companies, and to maintain compliance of license agreements
among its licensees. This technology transfer process can be quite lengthy and complex since
many innovations are early-stage high-technology, developed without a commercial business
plan or market in mind, and may require additional technological advancements to be ready for
market. “High-technology is… one of the most difficult things to market” (Das, 2006;
Swamidass & Vulasa 2009, p. 344) and it is infrequent for business schools to teach hightechnology marketing, which is the majority of technologies that are developed at research
universities and national laboratories.
10
<SKIP THE CARTOON
Another important government agency that pays a critical role in technology transfer is the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO is responsible for issuing
patents and trademarks for inventions developed by inventors to establish intellectual property
identification for the designated owner of the invention. Intellectual property protection
inspires competition and generates value for the private sector. In many cases, the inventors of
an invention have employment obligations with industry, universities, national laboratories,
start-up companies, etc. that require or incentivize the inventors to assign their rights to the
invention to the entity employing or funding their research; therefore, the entity that files,
prosecutes, and becomes the assignee (or owner of the patent) is most commonly a company,
university, national laboratory, or TTO. Using patents as an example, intellectual property
protection for inventions provides the assignee the ability to publically limit others for twenty
11
years from making, using, selling, importing, or exporting products that incorporate or infringe
on their patent(s). The twenty year protection period is given exchange for disclosing the
details of the invention to the public (Lowe & Gonzalez-Brambila, 2007); however, for
federally funded inventions, the federal government retains a non-exclusive right to use the
technology without reporting to the patent owners. Once a patent has expired, the public then
has the right to profit or benefit from the invention freely. TTOs (and sometimes industry) use
intellectual property to seek potential licensee from the private sector or through the formation
of start-up companies that then license the intellectual property for industry specific licensing
fees in order to commercialize the technology.
In order to perfect and establish <AWKWARD AND UNCLEAR –DELETE
‘PERFECT’ university and national laboratories best practices for licensing of federally funded
innovations protected by intellectual property, three major technology transfer associations
have been formed. First, the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) is
a United States network of federal laboratories that collectively provides a forum charged with
developing strategies and opportunities to aide in the transfer of national laboratory developed
innovations into global commercial markets. The FLC was originally formed in 1974, and then
reorganized in response to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 in attempts to make
transfer methods out of the laboratories more successful. The FLC is committed to lessoning
the barriers that exist in commercialization of laboratory technology due to their research and
government-based missions thereby furthering the socioeconomic well-being of the United
States (FLC, 2013).
12
Next, the Licensing Executives Society (LES) was founded in 1965 and is an
international non-profit organization dedicated to providing updated information about best
practices for licensing of high-technology. Members consist of business development
managers or technology scouts from industry as well as university and national laboratory
technology transfer professionals. Benefits of becoming a member include access to
technology transfer publications and surveys, licensing terms broken down by specific
industries, and sharing of individual contact information from industry (LES, 2013).
Finally, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) was established
around 1974 and evolved during the Bayh-Dole Act era. AUTM is devoted to promoting
technology transfer between research universities and private industry and was formed on the
objective of getting federally funded research out for public use (AUTM, 2013). AUTM
successes and other activities can be found in the Better World Project Report that is released
annually by AUTM. Its 3,500 members are made up of technology transfer professionals
primarily from United States research universities, and these members participate in evaluative
statistics collected in annual reports used to educate technology transfer professionals around
the world (Leydesdorff & Meyer, 2010).
PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED FROM MODERN TECHNOLOGY POLICIES &
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AGENCIES
In addition to TTOs and their associated technology transfer associations, United States
science and technology policies also delivered some successful programs during the 1980s, and
13
many were catered to the development of small business and start-up firms looking to
commercialize new technologies. Among the most popular are the Small Business Innovation
Research Program (SBIR) of 1982 and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program
(STTR) of 1992. The United States Small Business Administration Office of Technology
(SBA) administers these SBIR and STTR programs to focus on the formation and growth of
small or start-up companies focused on research and development. The SBA uses SBIR and
STTR programs to promote technology-based entrepreneurship through public-private
partnerships that enable financing for the start-up or small company as well as funds for
research and development within a university or national laboratory (Gilbert, Audretsch &
McDougall, 2004). This program inspires commercialization of new innovations through
requiring government funding agencies to grant a portion of their funds to start-up or small
companies that are collaborating in research with a university or national laboratory. Bauer et
al. (2012) report that federal funding agencies awarded approximately $2 billion in SBIR and
STTR programs to start-up or small high-technology companies in 2010 (p. 108). Most
technology transfer studies and scholars suggest that the SBIR and STTR programs have
successfully stimulated commercialization of innovations within the high-technology sector
(Link & Scott 2010; Bauer, Lang & Schneider, 2012).
Other programs that are similar in nature to the SBIR and STTR models are the
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and its successor program, the Technology Innovation
Program (TIP). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) enacted ATP, and
then TIP, through the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science Act (COMPETES Act). However, it was determined by
government sponsored surveys that ATP had only limited success (Bauer, Lang & Schneider,
14
2012). In 2007, the TIP was enacted to improve the United States international
competitiveness by promoting and accelerating innovation in the United States through
research universities, national laboratories, and industry by funding high-risk, high-reward
research areas to solve critically needed societal challenges. The intentions of TIP are to speed
up the development of technology under public-private partnerships that are of critical national
need by offering high rewards in the form of research grants, cooperative agreements, or
government contracts to competing constituents. Recent areas of requested innovation have
been advanced manufacturing materials and sensors for civil infrastructure, such as water
pipelines, roads, bridges, and tunnels (NSF, 2013).
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION POLICY
Recently, the TIP was modified by the America COMPETES Act that was updated and
enacted by President Barack Obama in 2011. The updates included additional funding,
integration of additional funding agencies, prizes for successful innovations, improved
publication and dissemination efforts, and initiatives to promote education in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). President Obama’s Administration has
also encouraged technology policy and innovation under the Strategy for American Innovation
initiative that provided a $780 billion stimulus package to combat the United States economic
crisis of 2008. The stimulus package sought to substantially increase the funding for national
institutions such as NSF and the National Institution for Health (NIH) who could then fund
more universities and national laboratories to conduct considerably more research (Bauer, Lang
& Schneider, 2012). The Obama Administration’s objective was to invest in the building
blocks of American innovation, promote competitive markets that drive entrepreneurship, and
15
catalyze breakthroughs for national priorities in such areas as alternative energy, heath
information technology, and manufacturing of advanced vehicles (OSTP, 2009). The Obama
Administration’s strategy is striving to promote economic growth that is sustained by long
lasting achievements of Americans through investment in innovation and STEM education.
This strategy encourages the United States to catch up to other technologically dominant
countries that not only dominate commercial markets, but also lead the world in the amount of
graduates going into the workforce in STEM fields.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is another historic policy change that was
enacted under the Obama Administration in 2011 and will greatly affect technology transfer
and commercialization for research universities, start-up companies, and independent inventors.
AIA is the most significant change to the United States patent system since 1952 and will
require the attention and devotion of many attorneys in order to interpret the new changes to
patent law in the coming years. Fundamentally, AIA switches the United States patent system
from ‘first to invent’ to ‘first to file’ system- meaning that an inventor can no longer receive a
patent for a technology by proving that he or she was the first to conceive the innovation unless
the inventor was also the first entity to file the patent. Under prior patent law, an inventor or
assignee could invalidate another party’s patent if the inventing entity could prove they were
the first to conceive the idea. Although there are many legalistic changes that will not be
discussed in this paper, another important change under AIA is the creation of a new filing
status called ‘micro-entity’ that allows universities, small businesses, and individual inventors
to pay smaller filing fees to the USPTO.
Opponents of AIA state that AIA will be advantageous to large industrial companies
because they will have the resources to file patents quickly on intellectual property that was not
16
necessarily invented by their firm, which eliminates the democratic nature of the ‘first to
invent’ system. In addition, opponents propose that AIA will drive up the cost of filing
intellectual property for universities and small companies because they will have to file patents
more quickly and frequently. Proponents have very polar opinions on the impacts of
AIA<ADD COMMA because they feel that AIA will provide more necessary funding to the
overly active USPTO that generates large revenues that are appropriated to other government
agencies and that AIA will provide for a less litigious society. Regardless of what side of the
spectrum is taken<REPHRASE—YOU DON’T TAKE ‘SIDES OF A SPECRTUM’ , it is
difficult to argue with the fact that the new AIA ‘first to file’ system will change the United
States patent system to match all other patent office’s systems around the world. This change
will provide some clarity to the ambiguous field known as intellectual property law.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN TECHNOLOGY POLICY,
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Geiger and Sa` (2005) state<THAT (THEN DELETE COMMA) “knowledge creation
and technological advancement are central to economic competitiveness” (p. 1). Economic
development and competiveness stem from the creation of new companies, jobs, and
opportunities from not only a national level, but also at the state level. Science and technology
policies are historically entertained by the federal government, but these policies end up
impacting universities, national laboratories, and companies that thrive within state
governments and local regions. Below, we will focus on how state-level policies leverage
17
technology policy, technology transfer, and commercialization to encourage economic
development.
Recently, there has been a pattern of states switching their focus of technology transfer
from collaborative research from within their associated research universities and national
laboratories, to a new focus on technology-based economic development activities. The
rudimentary idea of using basic research to foster commercialization has proven to be a
difficult task, so states are now devising strategies to achieve similar ends through economic
development (Geiger & Sa`, 2005). States are looking for ways to encourage the formation
and growth of technology-based start-up companies as a mechanism to generate income and
equity from basic research that is developed within their research institutions. In the past, these
small firms and companies have been constrained by their inability to invest in basic research
due to the high-risk nature, longevity of the research, and the research institution’s requirement
to be able to publish (shortening the company’s opportunity for competitive advantage). Many
states also became overly competitive about ensuring the economic benefits would be captured
within the economy of their state; though, many innovative states are now working to
overcome this obstacle by taking a “rainforest” approach (Hwang & Horowitt, 2012). Hwang
et al. (2012) have proposed a radical new theory to explain the nature of innovation ecosystems
as human networks that generate extraordinary creativity and output. They argue that free
market thinking fails to consider the impact of human nature on the innovation process. This
concept suggests that the local, state, and national technological communities, defined at <AS?
‘human networks,’ interact to create innovation regardless <IRRESPECTIVE (YOU
OVERUSE ‘REGARDLESS of their physical location; therefore, state institutions should
18
attempt to facilitate connectors or ‘keystone organizations’ to assist these human networks with
interacting, which will that provide economic benefits (Hwang & Horowitt, 2012, p. 68).
Using keystone organizations to enhance the growth in human networks creates a ‘rainforest’
that will generate economic development. Scholars warn states and their respective
universities, laboratories, and TTOs must recognize that innovation will no longer occur
between researchers located in the same region, so new creative ways to encourage economic
development will be needed attract start-up companies, major corporations, and commercial
activity. Many states are looking into creative investment opportunities that include the
creation of incubation centers to inspire innovation and assist with funding of start-up
companies.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STATE INVESTMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY BASED
OPPORTUNITIES
Many states have invested or do invest in technology-based opportunities to promote
economic development through funds appropriated by endowment funds, legislation, or large
legal settlements. A popular example is in Pennsylvania where the state allocated 19% of the
state’s $11.3 billion tobacco settlement to develop a bioscience corridor that provided funding
for research, a small business incubation center, and a venture capital fund to commercialize
inventions and fund start-up companies (Lowe & Gonzalez-Brambila, 2007). Another
example is the new Utah Science Technology and Research (USTAR) initiative funded by the
state of Utah through the passage of a new bill that allocated monies from Utah’s general fund
19
and appropriated $5 million in additional funds in 2013. USTAR will support new research
facilities and a new bio-innovation center focused on leveraging innovative technologies to
generate more technology-based start-up firms and higher paying jobs (USTAR, 2013).
Finally, a most recent example in 2013 from New Mexico shows commitments to invest
directly in technology based start-up companies through the assistance and management of a
California based venture capitalist firm, called Sierra Ventures. With approval from the Private
Equity Investment Advisory, the New Mexico State Investment Council approved a $10
million fund to be managed by Sierra Ventures and invested in early-stage technology
companies in mobile communication, social media, video, cloud computing, and energy
technologies (Gerew, 2013). This recent announcement is followed by rumors of New Mexico
State funding of $5 million for a new innovation center that will be modeled after the
successful Gainesville, Florida Innovation Square located near the University of Florida. Only
time will tell if these investments will yield significant gains, but the intentions of the state are
to invest in the innovations and people behind the innovations to generate economic
development within their respective regions.
CONCLUSION
The history of science and technology policy is based on strategic movements by the
federal government to provide state-of-the-art technology for our military and to address
difficulties within the American economy. Although it has been difficult to measure direct
successes, it is apparent that the federal government should play a role in catalyzing the private
20
sector through basic research and increasing our knowledge base to keep the United States
competitive. Today, science and technology policy is used to encourage economic
development, and many states are looking for innovative ways to produce environments that
support entrepreneurism and start-up company activities to attract job opportunities and larger
corporations to their regions. An underlying message that resides in all science and technology
policies is the importance of scientific research and mechanisms to move research towards
commercialization. Without technology transfer processes, technology may become under
utilized and trapped within the bureaucracy under which it was created. There have been many
policy attempts that try to rectify or simplify the technology transfer process, and it is very
likely that there will be many additional efforts in this regard or new attempts to reinvent the
process. The technology transfer process, particularly related to start-up companies and
technology inventors, enhances the United States democratic nature by encouraging the
entrepreneurs and technologist to pursue the American dream. Moving towards the future,
there will be an increase in United States policies that advocate for STEM education and
graduates that will be necessary to sustain these high technology firms, research universities,
and national laboratories.
<THIS CONCLUSION COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED MORE FULLY
REFERENCES
Alic, J.A., Mowery, D.C., Rubin, E.S. (2003). U.S. Technology and Innovation Policy: Lessons
for Climate Change. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Atkinson, Richard C., Pelfrey, Patricia A. (2010). Science and the Entrepreneurial University.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
21
AUTM. (2013). About Technology Transfer. Deerfield IL: Association of University Transfer
Managers. Accessed: http://www.autm.net/What_Is_Tech_Transfer.htm
Bauer, Johannes M., Lang, Achim, and Schneider, Volker. (2012). Innovation Policy and
Governance of High-Technology Industries: The Complexity of Coordination. Berlin,
New York: Springer.
Block, F., Keller, M.R. (2011). State of Innovation: The U.S. Government’s role in Technology
Development. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers.
Feldman, M.P., Desrochers, P. (2004). Truth for its Own Sake: Academic Culture and
Technology Transfer at John Hopkins University. Minerva. Volume 42(2): pp.105-126.
FLC. (2013). About the FLC. Accessed: http://www.federallabs.org/home/about/
Geiger, Roger L., Sa`, Creso. (2005). Beyond Technology Transfer: US State Policies to
Harness University Research for Economic Development. Minerva. Volume 43: pp. 121.
Gilbert, B. A., Audretsch, D. B., McDougall, P. P. (2004). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship
Policy. Small Business Economics. Volume 22: pp. 313 -323.
Gerew, Gary. (2013). SIC Invests $10 Million with California Firm. Albuquerque Business
First. Accessed: http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/blog/morningedition/2013/04/sic-invests-10-million-with-sun-mountain.html?ana=twt
Ham, Rose M., Mowery, David C. (1995). Enduring Dilemmas in U.S. Technology Policy.
California Management Review. Volume 37: pp. 89-107.
Hwang, V. W., Horowitt, G. (2012). The Rainforest: The Secret to Building the Next Silicon
Valley. Los Altos Hills, California: Regenwald.
LES. (2013). Member Benefits. Accessed: http://www.lesusacanada.org/join-now/memberbenefits
Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M. (2010). The Decline of University Patenting and the End of the
Bayh-Dole Effect. Scientometrics. Volume 83: pp. 355-362.
Link, A.N., Scott, J.T. (2010). Government as Entrepreneur: Evaluating the Commercial
Success of SBIR Projects. Research Policy. Volume 39(5): p.589- 601.
Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., Van Fleet, D.D. (2011). Public Science and Public Innovation:
Assessing the Relationship between Patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the
Bayh-Dole Act. Research Policy. Volume 40, Issue 8: pp. 1094-1099.
22
Lowe, Robert A., Gonzales-Brambila, Claudia. (2007). Faculty Entrepreneurs and Research
Productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer. Volume 32: pp. 173-194. .
NSF. (2013). Federal Technology Transfer and Other Innovation-Related Programs. Accessed:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4s7.htm
Swamidass, Paul M., Vulasa, Venubabu. (2009). Why University Inventions Rarely Produce
Income? Bottlenecks in University Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology
Transfer. Volume 34: pp. 343-363.
United States. Government Accounting Office. (1978). Technology Transfer, Administration of
the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities. Washington, DC: Publication No.
GAO/RCED-98-126. Accessed: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98126.pdf
United States. Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2009). A strategy for American
innovation: Driving towards sustainable growth and quality jobs. Washington, DC:
Executive Office of the President, National Economic Council, Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Accessed:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=biBKv0YExogC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq
=strate gy+for+american+innovation+2011+obama&ots=JM2p5I8Lm8&sig=tYDDUdCqm3Kgl5CwShplKlmav8#v=onepage&q&f=false
Utah State University Website. (2013). USTAR. Accessed: http://ustar.usu.edu/htm/funding/