Further, the Secretary of Commerce had to submit a one-time report to the President and the Congress on various computer software issues, such as copyrights of federal software. Finally, each agency was required to include in its annual budget submission to the Congress a report on its technology transfer activities. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS Ten of the 12 agencies we contacted had delegated authority to their laboratories to enter into cooperative agreements. In making the delegations, however, some agencies defined laboratories to be headquarters offices at higher organizational levels than field laboratories or research centers. In this regard, the 1986 act defines laboratories broadly, and thus allows agencies a lot of latitude in how they define a laboratory. For example, the Department of Agriculture considered its Agricultural Research Service as a laboratory, but did not consider as laboratories the Service's approximately 120 research laboratories and facilities. Agriculture officials said that most of these laboratories and research facilities are small and do not have the expertise or resources needed to enter into cooperative agreements. NASA and the Navy were the only agencies that did not delegate authority to their laboratories. NASA historically has worked with industry using agreements entered into under the Space Act of 1958. As allowed by the 1986 act, NASA opted to continue its technology transfer activities under its Space Act authority and therefore has taken little action under the authority of the 1986 act. Navy officials said it has not delegated authority to enter into cooperative agreements because its laboratories do not have the expertise to address liability issues that might arise. Without established procedures, the Navy officials said that the laboratories lack the legal capabilities to ensure that the government's interests are protected. These officials added that after the laboratories have more experience with cooperative research and development agreements, the Navy might delegate such authority to its laboratories. Of the 25 laboratories included in our study 15 had been delegated authority to enter into cooperative agreements, while 10 laboratories were either not considered to be laboratories or their respective agencies had not delegated such authority to the laboratory level. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS The 12 agencies we contacted reported, as part of their fiscal year 1989 budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget and their appropriation subcommittees, that they had entered into a total of over 1,200 agreements in each of fiscal years 1987 and 1988. However, the 1986 act provides agencies flexibility in defining what a cooperative agreement is, and we found that the agencies were reporting different types of agreements. For example, some agencies included cooperative agreements entered into under the authority of their respective authorizing acts, while other agencies included only those agreements entered into under the 1986 act. As of February 1989, the 12 agencies contacted reported entering into a total of 172 agreements under the 1986 act. (See attachment III.) The agencies with the most agreements were the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I should note that these agencies had experience in using similar types of cooperative agreements with industry before the 1986 act was passed. INCENTIVES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES The agencies contacted had taken some actions to implement the act's incentive provisions. The act, as amended, requires that agencies distribute at least 15 percent of royalties and other income, such as licensing fees, up to a maximum of $100,000 a year per person, to federal inventors and others that assign rights to inventions or intellectual property to the federal government. From October 1986 through September 1988, nine agencies collected about $4.6 million from royalties and licensing fees. (See attachment IV.) These agencies had distributed or planned to distribute to the federal inventor at least 15 percent of the royalties collected. The three agencies that had not yet collected any royalties each planned to distribute at least 15 percent to federal inventors once royalties are collected. The National Institutes of Health collected the most royalties, about $3.9 million. This amount was for agreements made prior to the 1986 act; primarily for the National Cancer Institute's AIDS-related inventions. No royalties had been collected to date for inventions made as part of the 1986 act agreements because, according to a National Institutes of Health official, it generally takes at least 2 to 3 years for inventions to be made and to reach the commercial marketplace. The Agricultural Research Service has established a new cash awards program focused on technology transfer. The Service established the program in September 1988 and plans to make its initial awards sometime this month. Other agencies are relying on their existing cash awards program to reward their employees for promoting technology transfer. Agencies disseminate information on these programs, as well as the possibility of royalties, through formal and informal mechanisms such as internal directives, memoranda, newsletters, and scientific meetings. STATUS OF MANDATED REPORTS Agencies have submitted to the Congress all but one of the reports mandated by the 1986 act. The only exception is Commerce's first biennial report to the President and the Congress on the act's implementation. Commerce has prepared a draft report, which is presently undergoing final review at the Department.2 In April 1988, the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer issued a report to the Congress and the federal agencies that contributed funds to the consortium.3 In May 1988, the Secretary of Commerce issued a report to the President and the Congress on various software issues.4 These reports cite numerous examples of technology transfer activities and portray the implementation of the 1986 act in a positive light. The agencies reported their activities performed in carrying out the act's technology transfer provisions in their fiscal year 1989 budget materials submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and their appropriation subcommittees. However, as I mentioned with respect to cooperative agreements, the reports do not provide uniform statistical information that can be aggregated to show the impact of the act on technology transfer activities. 2 Commerce's draft report is entitled The Federal Technology Transfer Act: The First Two Years. 3Activities of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, April 25, 1988. 4Barriers to the Commercialization of Federal Computer Software and Feasibility and Cost of Compiling an Inventory of Federally Funded Training Software, Department of Commerce, May 1988. |