Presentation of Discussion from the

“Regulatory and Technology Transfer Issues” Panel

of the White House Technology Forum on Aging

October 4 & 5

Presented by Howard Bremer, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

Panel Co-Chairs:

Howard Bremer (WARF) & Caroline Wagner (RAND)

I. Grand Challenges.

1. By 2010, older people will have independent living as long as possible.

Measurement: Decline in the number of beds in nursing center and assisted living center.

2. The quality of life for older persons and their families is maintained or enhanced.

There are a number of metrics to measure the well-being of the older person, but quality of life metrics for the family may need to be developed.

3. Within 5 years, 50 percent of older people will have access to the Internet in a way that provides them information, services, and therapy (including rehabilitative therapy). This includes changing the technology interface so that it is more friendly to senior users.

Measurement: number of people accessing the Internet; and 2) the increased user-friendly nature of the technology.

4. Many more seniors will live a safe and healthy lifestyle through education and behavioral changes.

Measurement: morbidity and mortality measures that exist today.

5. Older people will have the same mobility within their town that other people do. This will include intelligent transport, public transportation that is senior-friendly, as well as making use of assistance to the mobility of the individual with specific technologies.

Measurement: Number of seniors taking more active part in their community.

6. High-end life support research being sponsored by groups like NASA and NOAA to help people live on Mars or under the sea will take into account how this technology can be used to help the elderly -- the "Mission to Planet Home"!

II. Mechanisms for Achieving Goals.

Mechanisms that are working well and those that need changing were considered in the context of technology transfer and regulatory policies of the federal government. Our group found:

1. The Bayh-Dole Act and current technology transfer programs (including the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Research program (STTR) program work fairly well to transfer government technology into the hands of innovators. However, we noted some issues here that should be considered:

• Some agencies should keep better records of technology transferred to provide a feedback loop to agencies who fund the basic research behind the activity.

2. Technology and invention seem to work well in providing the products that could help the elderly. INVENTION IS NOT THE PROBLEM! The bottleneck comes in the transfer of the technology into the commercial sector.

• A review of regulations and financial incentives for commercialization should be undertaken.

3. Technologies that can help the elderly are certainly overlooked by the marketplace. There are technologies that would serve a niche market, but they would serve it well!

• Government may want to consider having an "orphan technology act" similar to the "orphan drug act."

4. There are many different models of technology transfer, many work well, but they do not all work well in every situation. Different models of technology transfer work may work for different types of technology or markets.

• Develop a "matrix" of technology transfer practices and technology challenges to see when you would use different approaches. Perhaps a study of "best practices" similar to what goes on in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) would help people to find more effective ways to transfer government technology.

5. Funding of medical care and services may be setting up barriers or providing perverse incentives to the commercialization and use of technology. For example, assistive technology that is not medically necessary may not be covered by medicare, medicaid, or insurance programs.

• The question of technology incentives and the role of funding mechanisms in hindering the introduction of new technologies needs careful review.

III. Specific Observations

Technology transfer -- the act of passing on a property right, usually in the form of a patent, but also in publications, through extension services, continuing education, distribution of materials--is often where research organizations make money. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, universities can retain the rights to innovations developed with federal funding, and many of these innovations are turned into products. This has worked fairly well for more 18 years. Nevertheless, universities often do not know how to transfer knowledge to the commercial sector, and they sometimes have a skewed notion of what their intellectual property is worth. Universities don't have much discretionary money to file for patents, and so they must choose carefully when to file and when to let an opportunity go. Is there a role for government in helping to solve this problem? We were not sure, but it is worth considering in more detail.

Agreements to transfer technology can become a bottleneck in and of themselves. They can sometimes be quite detailed and complicated. Moreover, there are a number of models to consider. The Veterans Administration has it "IIA" process that spells out what each party expects to get out of a partnership and how the technology will be used after it is developed. This has helped both parties and may be a model for others. The National Cancer Institute has another model where a company, the Institute, and a university board all sign on to help develop a clinical trial. It helps spread the risk and give academic credibility to the activity.

Market size is sometimes a barrier to the commercialization of technology. Parallel or similar industries may have lessons to teach those developing assistive technologies how to make their product work in a niche or small market. Groups that did not think about partnering before should think about it -- perhaps this is where groups such as the AARP can bring non-traditional partner companies together to seek new opportunities. A public-private partnership to link different groups across industry, government, and academe might prove to be very helpful.

The federal labs may be an important resource, but they are limited by their missions. They have little in discretionary funds to provide support to companies seeking help. This may be a place where a directive from the government might help. Technology in the federal labs is so complicated that it would be really expensive overall to figure out how to use it. Government technology could be more helpful, but there is no central clearinghouse of information about it. Can this be changed?

Standards for new technology can be a big help to introducing your product into the marketplace. Products like new sound systems or lighting being developed for the marketplace might be able to take into account the needs of seniors if some standards were taken into account. Cross-industry technology transfer and upstream and downstream exchange is key and should be examined more closely. This is a place where the government's role as "convenor" might help to encourage standards that would help the elderly.

Regulations, building codes, and standards often conflict quite violently between the federal, state, and local level. These conflicts often act as bottlenecks or down-right barriers to the introduction of new technology. Agency missions can also act as a barrier at times when it makes it difficult to get things done that must cross agencies or that requires interagency cooperation.

Government research is certainly helpful. However, even within government, there are policies which impedes success. Building feedback loops and information exchanges within the government itself can also be helpful.

Developing new regulations that target the elderly does not appear to be the answer to these bottlenecks and challenges. If we can find a way to build incentives into the system so that, as researchers conduct or apply research, technology for successful aging can become part of their goal, this may have an overall greater chance of success than trying to impose change from the top down.