Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
VI.. Accountability and Assessment
VI.. Accountability and Assessment
Pages 109-122
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 111... ...
.2 The rapid expansion of these programs generated significant opposition, rekindling the national debate on the appropriate role of the government in fostering new technologies. iFor an overview of SEMATECH, see National Research Council, Securing the Future: Regional and National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry, op.
|
From page 112... ...
policy by providing a pragmatic, results-oriented perspective. To this end, the study has applied a variety of economic assessment methods to partnership activity, ranging from laboratory S&T parks to the accomplishments of the SBIR program.
|
From page 113... ...
Perhaps a more compelling argument for assessment is that government involvement in market processes is fraught with risk. There are cases of major successes resulting from federal support of the computer or sem~conductor industries, where the Department of Defense served as a source of R&D and as a reliable, early buyer of products.8 There are also cases of major frustration; illustrative landmarks here would include projects such as the supersonic transport, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Clinch River breeder reactor.
|
From page 114... ...
Yet federal funding of research and development has led to such advances as atomic energy, the Internet, the Global Positioning System, lasers, solar-electric cells, communications satellites, jet aircraft, genetic medicine, and a wide array of advanced materials and composites.~° Even critics of some technology programs are careful to note that the overall result of public support of new technologies has been highly positive. They recognize that government support for a wide range of technologies has helped build the foundations of the modern economy.
|
From page 115... ...
" In the United States, discussions of best practices concerning partnerships between the government, industry, and universities often include statements to the effect that the government cannot or should not "pick winners or losers." Many of these arguments have been articulated with regard to the relatively modest, but high profile Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce. For example, a recent General Accounting Office study described two views of the ATP as follows: "ATP is seen by some as a means of addressing market failure in research areas that would otherwise not be funded, thereby facilitating the economic growth that comes from the commercialization and use of new technologies in the private sector." Advocates of programs such as the ATP believe that the government should serve as a catalyst for companies to cooperate and undertake important new work that would not have been possible in the same period without federal participation.
|
From page 116... ...
For increasing relationships between non-profit research institutions and for-profit firms, see Chris Adams, "Laboratory Hybrids: How Adroit Scientists Aid Biotech Companies with Taxpayer MoneyNIH Grants Go to Nonprofits Tied to For-profit Firms Set up by Researchers," Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2001, Al.
|
From page 117... ...
To a remarkable degree this is accurate, yet the fact remains that the government does intervene in the market in many ways, be it through the provision of R&D support, development of a favorable regulatory framework, or procurement decisions for technologies for government missions in defense, space exploration, and health. The government role, of course, is not confined to investment incentives.
|
From page 118... ...
The time lag, from the conclusion of Phase I and the receipt of Phase II funds, can create cash-flow problems for small firms. The Fast Track pilot addresses the gap by providing expedited review and essentially continuous funding from Phase I to Phase II as long as applying firms can demonstrate that they have obtained third-party financing for their technology.25 Two years after the launch of the Fast Track initiative the Under Secretary of Defense asked the National Research Council's Board on Science, Technology, 23See Otis L
|
From page 119... ...
The research team assembled by the Committee examined the SBIR program awards and the Fast Track initiative from three perspectives: · Survey Research: As a first step the research team developed a survey instrument and then commissioned an outside consulting firm experienced with the program to carry out a large-scale survey of DOD SBIR awarders, using a sample of firms that have participated in Fast Track and a control group. The roughly 300 firms28 (294 firms doing 379 projects)
|
From page 120... ...
30Although the research overseen by the Committee represents a significant step in improving our understanding of the SBIR program, these findings should be appreciated for what they are, that is, a preliminary and limited effort by independent researchers and an informed Committee to understand the operation of an important government-industry partnership. The Committee did not recommend that Fast Track be applied to the entire SBIR program at DoD, considering that to do so might put at risk other goals, such as research and concept development.
|
From page 121... ...
ATP's support for innovation, which is intended to generate significant spillovers yielding broad national economic benefits, has to be evaluated in the context of risks and benefits inherent in funding innovation. While its approach poses risks,36 ATP's interest in enabling technologies with high spillover potential means that it is also a source of substantial potential benefit for the economy.
|
From page 122... ...
partnership program. The Advanced Technology Program arguably represents a "best practice" in the United States in terms of the concept, management, regular assessment, and potential contributions.42 Whatever improvements might be made in the ATP and SBIR programs, the policy dialogue surrounding such programs certainly can be improved.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.