APPENDIX V APPENDIX V consider potential technical applications, identify potential commercial applications, and make information available to stimulate technology transfer. EPA EPA's ORTA is in its Office of Research and Development, which has 14 laboratories that range in size from less than 50 persons to one laboratory with over 200 persons. Because of the relatively small size of EPA's laboratories, the Office of Research and Development combined them under one person at headquarters. This person is a member of the FLC and acts as the office's spokesman. To provide communication with the laboratories, a Technology Transfer Advisory Group was formed, comprising representatives of each laboratory and headquarters office. According to EPA officials, the laboratory with over 200 persons, the Health Effects Research Laboratory, has a technology transfer coordinator with two staff. The coordinator reports to the laboratory director on technology transfer and other matters and, with the staff, expends more than a full-time-equivalent position on ORTA-type functions. INTERIOR Bureau of Mines The Bureau of Mines' Office of Technology Transfer serves as the Bureau's ORTA. This office has a chief with a staff of seven, plus a technology transfer representative at each of the Bureau's nine research centers. Additionally, the Bureau has a specialemphasis Technology Transfer Office in Alaska, composed of three persons who report to the headquarters office. The Alaska office APPENDIX V APPENDIX V deals with specific minerals-related technology transfer within cold climates. U.S. Geological Survey USGS has an ORTA at its National Center in Reston, Virginia. In addition to conducting research at the National Center, the ORTA is responsible for regional centers located in Denver, Colorado, and Menlo Park, California, and for research and data gathering conducted at other USGS field offices located throughout the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific. According to a USGS official, the regional centers are not laboratories but are responsible for the field offices in their respective regions. The regions do not have designated ORTAS, but according to the USGS official, they each expend far more than one full-time-equivalent position on technology transfer activities, such as conducting technical forums and seminars for industry and state and local government representatives. The Western region, located in Menlo Park, has a representative, reporting to the USGS Director, who performs many of the ORTA-type functions for the region. This representative is responsible for about 20 field offices, many of which have only one or two persons. NASA Because it conducts technology transfer activities as a coordinated program, NASA considers its entire system, headed by the Director, Technology Utilization Division, as its ORTA. The Director is located at headquarters and reports to the Assistant Administrator for Commercial Programs. Each NASA laboratory has a Technology Utilization Office, which is responsible for technology transfer activities at that laboratory. The organizational location of the Technology Utilization Offices varies among the APPENDIX V APPENDIX V laboratories at the discretion of the laboratory directors. The Technology Utilization Office at the NASA laboratory we visited, NASA Lewis Research Center, reports to the laboratory's Director, Office of Interagency and Industry Programs. This office conducts all of the activities typically performed by an ORTA, such as responding to inquiries from the private sector, other federal facilities, and state and local governments; promoting technology transfer to small businesses; and representing the laboratory on the FLC. NIH With the passage of the 1986 act, the ORTA and patent functions previously in NIH's Office of Medical Applications of Research were transferred to a new Office of Invention Development, which has four full-time positions. Additionally, each institute has a liaison who acts as a focal point for patenting and licensing activities. The Office of Invention Development provides staff support for the Patent Policy Board, attends FLC meetings, and conducts the NIH-industry forums that bring together NIH scientists and company or other outside representatives. The first forum was held in October 1988, with about 250 federal government scientists and 250 industry representatives attending. According to an NIH official, the initial forum was a success and forums will be held at least annually. APPENDIX VI AGENCIES' AND LABORATORIES' VIEWS ON BARRIERS TO THE ACT'S IMPLEMENTATION APPENDIX VI The barriers to the Federal Technology Transfer Act's implementation most frequently mentioned by the agencies and laboratories we contacted were: (1) federal computer software cannot be copyrighted, (2) companies need greater protection for proprietary information, (3) private industry finds required government procedures burdensome and time-consuming, and (4) conflicts of interest exist with agency missions and for government employees.1 COPYRIGHT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE For While recent changes in the law allow federal laboratories to patent and exclusively license inventions, federal computer software cannot be copyrighted (17 U.S.C. 105). Without copyright protection, federal computer software is publicly available. Therefore, individual software companies have little incentive to develop the software further for commercial applications. example, a software company may need to (1) debug and simplify the software to ensure that it works properly, (2) enhance it for different commercial applications, and (3) develop manuals and provide assistance to users. Some agency officials said that federal computer software should be treated as federal inventions, which can be patented and licensed. 1The first three of these barriers are discussed in our report, Technology Transfer: Constraints Perceived by Federal Laboratory and Agency Officials (GAO/RCED-88-116BR, Mar. 4, 1988). Our report also discussed concerns about technology transfer constraints faced by the Department of Energy's contractor-operated laboratories. We do not address these concerns here because contractor-operated laboratories are not covered under the CRDA provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act. APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI of the 25 laboratories in our study, 11 laboratories from 8 agencies responded that the absence of copyrights for federal computer software hindered their efforts to enter into CRDAS. PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Because federal laboratories generally cannot conduct proprietary research, industry is less inclined to collaborate with them. The results of unclassified and nonsensitive R&D at federal laboratories normally are published in the scientific literature and/or result in a patent application. Even if the results are not published, interested parties can, with certain exceptions, generally get information about federally funded research through a request under the Freedom of Information Act. That act requires federal agencies to make records promptly available to any person upon a request that reasonably describes such records and is made in accordance with published rules. Officials from several laboratories and agencies advised us that the limited authority to conduct proprietary research was a constraint to technology transfer. of the 25 laboratories in our study, 7 laboratories from 6 agencies responded that the status or clarity of rules and regulations protecting the confidentiality of data or processes developed through cooperative R&D had hurt their ability to enter into CRDAs; 8 laboratories from 7 agencies responded that public access to data via the Freedom of Information Act had hurt them. BURDENSOME AND TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURES Federal laboratories, in their efforts to be fair in providing companies opportunities to collaborate on research, may institute |