Page images
PDF
EPUB

Members:
Mr. R Dedic

NASA UK TAP, Lexington, KY
Dr. J. Gumnick

ORAU, Oak Ridge, TN
Mr. J. Hall

DoAg-ARS, Beltsville, MD
Ms. S. Ingalls

DOD-AFWAL, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
Dr. W. Marcuse

DOE-BNL, Upton, NY
Mr. C. Miller

DOE-LLNL, Livermore, CA
Mr. H. Moran

DOE-SERI, Golden, CO
Mr. A. Norris

FDA-NCTR, Jefferson.AR
Dr. L. Schmid

DOE-PNL, Richland, WA
Mr. R. Stromberg

DOE-Sandia, Albuquerque, NM
Mr. J. Wyckoff

DOC-NBS, Gaitherburg. MD
Subcommittee on Small Business:

Chairman: Mr. J. Hall
Subcommittee on Governments:

Chairman: Mr. R Dedic
Subcommittee on Universities:

Chairman: Dr. J. Gumnick MARKETING & PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:

INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMITTEE:
Chairman:
Mr. J. Bortman, Code 024

Naval Air Development Center

Warminster, PA 18974-5000
Members:
Mr. J. Griffin

DOD-NUSC, New London, CT
Mr. T. Janis

ARAC, Indianapolis, IN
Mr. C. Lanham

DOD-Army HDL, Adelphi, MD
Mr. E Lehmann

DOC-CUFT, Springfield, VA
Mr. G. Linsteadt

DOD-NWC, China Lake, CA
Mr. A. Norris

FDA-NCTR, Jefferson, AR
Mr. R Stromberg

DOE-Sandia, Albuquerque, NM
Mr. P. Taylor

US F&WS, Fort Collins, CO
Mr. J. Wyckoff

DOC-NBS, Gaithersburg, MD
AGENCY LIAISON GROUP:
Members:

Mr. J. Hall, DoAg-ARS
Mr. R Breazcale, DoAg-Forest Service
Mr. J. Allen, DOC
Mr. E Tiernan, DOC-NOAA
Dr. J. E. Clark, DOC-NTIS
Mr. E Lehmann, DOC-CUFT
Mr. J. Wyckoff, DOC-NBS
Mr. W. Blados, DOD-Air Force
Mr. C. Lanham, DOD-Army
Mr. C. Meyer, DOD-Corps of Engineers
Dr. D. Woods, DOD-Navy
Dr. A. Clasin, DOE
Ms. C. Sink, DOE
Mr. P. Preuss, EPA;
Dr. P. Chen, HHS-NIH
Mr. D. MacDonald, DOI-Fish & Wildlife
Dr. E. Smith, DOI-USGS
Dr. D. Ralston, DOI-Bureau of Mines
Mr. L Ault, NASA
Dr. W. Butcher, NSF
Mr. J. Hohl, DOT
Mr. N. Montanarelli, SDIO

FLC-Dr. E Stark, Ms. M. McNaman and Mr. L Rivers FLC SUPPORT CONTRACTORS:

DelaBarre & Assoc. Inc.
1945 N. Fine, Suite 109
Fresno, CA 93727
FLC Administrator

Mr. D.M. DelaBarre
FLC Clearinghouse Mgr.

Mr. A. Sjoholm

Chairman:
Ms. M. Dacanay - MS 204-2

NASA-Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA 93523-5000
Members:
Mr. G. Ervin

DOE-ETEC, Canoga Park, CA
Mr. D. Jared

DOE-ORNL, Oak Ridge, IN
Mr. C. Lanham

DOD-Army HDL, Adelphi, MD
Ms. M. McNamara

DOD-NUSC, New London, CT
Dr. R Ramey

Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Subcommittee on Awards:

Chairman: Ms. M. McNamara
MEMBER SERVICES COMMITTEE:
Chairman;
Ms. T. McKinley

Oak Ridge Assoc. Universitics
P.O. Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
Members:
LTCR Adams

DOD-Army RIB&SS, Alexandria, VA
Ms. D. Bracken

DOC-CUFT, Springfield, VA
Mr. R. Dedic

NASA/UK TAP, Lexington, KY
Mr. W. Marcuse

DOE-BNL, Upton, NY
Mr. M. Mastracci

EPA Eng. Labs, Washington, DC
Mr. HD. Moran

DOE-SERI, Golden, CO
Mr. J. Wyckoff

DOC-NBS, Gaithersburg, MD

Technology Transfer Initiatives
1825 K Street, Suite 218
Washington, DC 20006
FLC Washington, DC Representative

Mr. L. Rivers

THE FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT OF 1986: THE FIRST TWO YEARS

[blocks in formation]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of 1986 (P.L. 99-502)
was designed to provide a bridge between the superb research
facilities of government-owned, government-operated (GOGO)
laboratories and the research needs of the private sector. At
the time it was pending in Congress, United States citizens were
investing more than $50 billion annually in R&D. Many in
Congress and the Executive branch believed that this investment,
however vital for federal programs, was not returning to the
taxpayers sufficient dividends in terms of new products, new
processes, new jobs, and enhanced international competitiveness.
Reflecting the principle that those who best understand a
technology and its economic potential are the ones who created
it, the FTTA authorized agency heads to delegate to their GOGO
directors the authority to enter into cooperative research and
development agreements (CRADAs) with private firms and other
appropriate parties, to agree in advance on rights the parties
could expect in any inventions made by a federal scientist under
the CRADA, to reward the inventor with at least 15% of any
royalties received by the agency from the invention, and to
review and clarify the missions of their laboratories.
In doing so, the FTTA required a change in prevailing agency
practice and management prerogatives by transferring power from
headquarters to the field. Some were concerned that the Act
could interfere with agency management responsibilities, that it
could divert attention from mission-related research, and that
commercial considerations could discourage the free exchange of
scientific information.
Under these circumstances the Department of Commerce, which plays
a general oversight and coordinating role, was concerned that
the Act would be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner.
Instead, the Department found the following:

Most agencies with substantial GOGO activity are relying on
the FTTA and have completed the necessary internal admin-
istrative arrangements for implementing it. Although the
delegations vary in scope, most have attempted to delegate
authority to the smallest unit that can be realistically
called a laboratory. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration is the one major research agency whose
organic statutes, rather than the FTTA, guide their
technology transfer policy. The Department of Commerce
will continue to monitor the various agency arrangements
to ensure that the principle of decentralization is
preserved.

[ocr errors]

As of the close of FY 1988, agencies had negotiated more
than 100 CRADAs and the pace has accelerated in the
current fiscal year. Several agencies believe that even
though some of this research may have occurred under other
authorities, the FTTA nevertheless provides a much more
useful tool for structuring the collaborative arrangements.
The FTTA has spurred agencies to think creatively in
developing technology transfer initiatives. Examples
include USDA's Peoria Biotechnology Consortium and the
Army's Construction Productivity Advancement Research
(CPAR) Program.
The incentives to federal scientists appear to be working
beyond expectations. Agencies have been generous in using
their royalty-sharing authority, in some cases allowing
inventors to retain as much as 35% of the royalty income.
The number of reported inventions increased by more than
40 percent in some agencies between FY 1987 and FY 1988.
Although CRADAS are too new to have generated royalties, the
pattern of payments to inventors under the Bayh-Dole Act
(P.L. 96-517, as amended), including the Department of
Energy's government-owned, contractor-operated facilities,

suggests that substantial royalties may be generated. Nevertheless, there are still obstacles to be overcome:

Barriers to commercialization of Federally developed software ko
are still a problem. Software often has substantial
commercial value which may not be realized because most U.S.
firms will not make the investment necessary to bring it to
the marketplace without adequate proprietary protection.
Agencies repeatedly report that private sector collaborators
worry that proprietary data will be made available to their
competitors through FOIA. Such concerns may have deterred
some firms from seeking to enter into CRADAS.

[ocr errors]

The private sector does not always use federal facilities
when they might. In order to facilitate identification of
relevant areas of cooperation, agencies must continuously
examine and define their laboratories' missions, as
required by the FTTA, especially in those cases where the
program justification is not clear. Foreign entities, on
the other hand, are adept at identifying valuable research

projects at federal facilities.
In general, agencies heads and laboratory personnel have greeted
the Act with enthusiasm. U.S. firms are becoming increasingly
aware of its relevance to their needs. The FTTA may well be
creating the framework for a new era of scientific cooperation
between the public and private sectors.

THE FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT: THE FIRST TWO YEARS

1. Introduction and Overview:

Ву

Enactment of the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of 1986 (P.L. 99-502) was largely a response to the increasingly tough international economic competition facing the United States. all accounts, this competition will intensify as more countries, anxious to promote their economic development, enter the high technology competition. This is a healthy competition. The United States, however, will be unable to meet this challenge if

it takes its technological leadership for granted.

Rema ining competitive in fields such as superconductivity, biotechnology, new materials, pharmaceuticals, and other research-intensive areas could depend in large measure on our ability to link more closely our unsurpassed public research institutions with the needs of the private sector. U.S. industry's cooperation with universities and federal laboratories will become even more critical in determining whether we will be able to remain on the cutting edge of technology.

The Federal Government funds a substantial share of the R&D

performed in this country - some 47%, according to the 1989 Economic Report of the President. Thus, a substantial share of the world's new scientific knowledge is paid for by the u.s. taxpayer. If this public investment is not translated into new

« PreviousContinue »