The Technology Delivery breakout report was presented by the Honorable Ben Wu1, Deputy Under Secretary for Technology at the U.S. Department
of Commerce
The technology delivery group met yesterday, a wide variety of people representing the three entities that perform research and development in our country: universities, industry, and federal government laboratories.
For us to realize the promise of technology in heightening quality of life and increasing independent living options for people with disabilities, we need to take the technology created in our laboratories and move it to the marketplace for commercialization.
When we are able to commercialize, put those innovations, processes, and inventions out into the marketplace, we can pass on the benefits to people with disabilities. We can also improve our nation's economy and strengthen our international competitiveness.
The technology delivery group looked at how we can effectively move technology from the laboratory to the marketplace. How can we make the process more efficient, with a goal of promoting assistive technology commercialization?
Commercialization would encourage a robust United States assistive technology industry. In doing so, we could then speed up new technologies. We could cultivate a great focus on research and development. A healthy assistive technology industry would also reap economic benefits through growth in exports.
One indisputable fact is that private industry and universities must concentrate on commercialization, because clearly the federal government has a poor track record in this area. We are also not equipped to handle the entrepreneurial aspects necessary to take an innovation from the laboratory to the marketplace.
The federal government, especially in our nation's federal laboratories, has very specific missions required for our nation's security and well-being, and these do not include the ability to commercialize.
If we are to have a successful technology transfer structure and advocate commercialization, we need to be able to put it into the hands of industry. This should be done with the right incentives. We have statutory incentives in place already with the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 and Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980. Both pieces of legislation recognize that private industry is the proper entity to perform commercialization. Back in 1980, just 25 years ago, when those bills were enacted into law, the notion was actually quite revolutionary.
It used to be that if the federal government paid for technology and funded the research, the federal government owned it. Therefore, the federal government should determine how it gets utilized. In 1980, Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) and Senator Bob Dole (R-Kansas) of the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed through legislation recognizing that not only could industry do a better job, but that industry should be given an opportunity to acquire the spinoffs.
Often, those innovations and those new inventions were not necessarily part of the mission of the particular federal laboratory. For example, at NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), you see new research and new innovations that have applications for people with disabilities. If industries take that technology and transfers it to the marketplace, they can best utilize the spinoff potentials.
It is critical we create the right incentives to get industry interested, willing, and able to put in the resources, energy, and funding necessary to get these technologies out into the world.
Difficulties in technology delivery
- Research is duplicative.
- Myriad laboratories and research institutions focus on individual objectives. Sometimes, their objectives overlap. How do we streamline duplication to create the greater good we seek through technology transfer?
- Interdisciplinary teams between the government, universities, and industry are hard to coordinate.
-
But not impossible. The Naval Research Lab has teamed with two private companies to actually make technology work in a marketplace situation, and that’s extraordinarily difficult. As we move into new fields of technology, such as marrying nanotechnology with information technology and biotechnology, without interdisciplinary teams we won’t reap the benefits of innovation. With assistive technology in the realm of spinal cord injury, interdisciplinary teams are going to be the downstream solution. However, our research institutions don’t often work in an interdisciplinary environment, which is a major problem.
- Lack of understanding.
-
The Department of Commerce, in conjunction with the Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), undertook a study about five years ago to understand the assistive technology (AT) industry. Today’s industry has changed and grown dynamically. It was more cottage industry-oriented five years ago, although that aspect still exists somewhat. If you're going to take technology to the marketplace, the people who are going to risk their capital and risk their skills need a current understanding of the AT market, as well as where the industry will be five or 10 years from now.
- Lack of communication.
-
We often don’t know what’s available in the federal labs. We need to spread that information out into the university community. A solution to an assistive technology problem may come from a Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory focusing on a totally different aspect of applying the technology. An example of this is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which emerged from a Navy weapons system program 30 years ago. They certainly weren’t looking for medical applications when developing that technology in the early 1970s.
- The aging population does not see themselves as disabled.
-
One of the things that came out in yesterday's presentation is aging people do not think of themselves as disabled. However, assistive technology can be applied to a population that doesn’t want to accept that terminology. Perhaps we need multiple vocabularies to broaden the market base, distinguishing between people who have accepted the fact they are physically or mentally disabled, and those who have not.
- A paradigm shift in research and development (R&D).
-
Twenty years ago, 65 percent of R&D was performed by the federal government. Now, private industry and universities have overtaken the federal government. We must recognize this as we try to stimulate the innovation climate, because government labs are not necessarily where a lot of the next generation of assistive technology devices and products will be created.
Strategies for successful technology transfer
- Evaluate feasibility of technology.
-
If we are to successfully transfer the technology, we need to determine whether or not it will fit into the marketplace.
- Study intellectual property.
-
One member of our group, Alfred Mann [president, Alfred E. Mann Foundation] had a member of his staff look at the patent portfolio of a certain technology. He started out taking a good, hard look at about 2,100 patents, whittled it down to 500, until he found about 50 patents that could move into a broader market. He also looked at whether or not the Mann Foundation would have to license some of those patents from the patent-holders, or whether the patents were blocked. You can’t ignore those factors; otherwise you might build this fantastic prototype that never goes anywhere. And that’s a frustrating situation.
- Evaluate realistic business opportunities.
-
When examining the challenges of an assistive technology, we must figure out if they can be managed or overcome, or if we need to team up with another agency or entity in order to find a successful solution.
- Formulate a plausible business plan.
- We must know the size of the market and how it should be targeted. If we
don’t, we won’t be able to raise the capital or survive with the existing capital
long enough to bring the product to market. In this scenario, the consumer
is the loser. Furthermore, if a product does not sustain itself in the marketplace,
it disappears.
- Prepare a global economic plan.
-
If technology transfers are going to work in today’s world, we have to think globally. If we don’t, the new technology will not transfer successfully, or it won’t survive long enough to make an impact.
- Involve end users in the design process.
-
This is a key issue. Consumer product companies always start with the end user. There is no point in having technology that the end user cannot utilize or effectively embrace. Otherwise, we wind up with a nice idea we put on a shelf in a museum.
- Look to wide distribution.
-
We need to think creatively. The traditional distributors of technology to the marketplace today may not be around tomorrow. The best example of this is Toys R Us, which will be out of business next year. Why? Because Wal-Mart sells more toys than Toys R Us. It’s a changing dynamic in the market segment. As we move technology to the marketplace, we’ve got to adjust the way in which we deliver technology to the marketplace, whether we like it or not, because retail market delivery does not stand still for anybody.
Solutions for successful technology transfer
- Create a government incubator.
- The government traditionally has a big role in basic and applied research, the building blocks of science and technology. Industry tends to be on heavier on the development side, which is why you see few large research labs in the private sector. Places like Bell Labs are virtually things of the past.
Something is missing, an entity that could act as the middleman and coordinate the tech transfer process and the transition to the private sector. Who underwrites the costs and the skill set required to build a prototype? Who solves the manufacturing problems in order to make the prototype cost-effective and replicable in a manufacturing operation? We thought about a government incubator that would follow the Fannie Mae model. Would it be possible to create a public/private partnership that would provide a middleman solution?
- Formulate a government simulation of the Alfred Mann Foundation model.
-
The government cannot do much more other than to encourage the notion of commercialization. If philanthropists and other prominent figure were willing to dedicate a portion of their foundation or create a foundation, it would be very helpful in not just raising awareness about assistive technology needs, but also in stimulating innovation and bridging the critical market capitalization gap.
- Centralize information.
- With more than 700 federal laboratories, several hundred major research universities, and dozens of individual research departments in the country, it is extraordinarily difficult to find out who is working in what areas. We need to find ways to centrally access research information on new technologies. Additionally, we must streamline the information collection process for emerging technologies so that industry is aware of the technology transfer potential out there.
- Hold the "lettuce."
- Are you familiar with the term “lettuce conferences”? They are conferences in which people make recommendations and end up saying “Let us do this. Let us do that.” We don’t want everything to be said and nothing to be done. With a conference as important as this White House Forum, we need to utilize and implement some of the suggestions.
- Develop a pilot project.
- Perhaps we can develop in conjunction with Congress a pilot project that will employ the government incubator/Fannie Mae model in a public/private partnership.
- Commission two studies.
- We need a comprehensive study of the assistive technologies industry to help push the next generation of products to those who need them. An “age wave” study is also essential, so we can fully appreciate the abilities or the need for assistive technologies to a growing elderly population.
- Develop incentives and accountability protocol.
- Federal agencies should also be held more accountable for assistive technologies. At the Department of Commerce, we have statutory responsibility for federal oversight over our federal technology transfer enterprise. We’ve been working with the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to make sure that we have accountability in the system that rests not just with the laboratory managers, but also with the secretaries and the people who are in the higher echelons of each department. We must also create incentives for federal laboratory research teams for successful technology transfer.
- Create more synergies.
- The three entities that perform research and development in this country—government, universities, and industry—must work together more efficiently and effectively.
- Eliminate barriers.
- In order to tap into key foreign markets, we need to eliminate trade barriers for international export. The Unites States assistive technology industry must be able to export their products in a fair and free trade relationship.
- Devise small business strategies.
- Small businesses comprise the heart of the assistive technologies industry. Can the government create a different structure to assist small businesses other than the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) or the Small Business Technology Transfer Research program (STTR)? Perhaps the government can provide matching funds or seed capital.
- Initiate tort reform.
- Legal and regulatory reform will allow new technologies to move most effectively to the marketplace. In particular, regulatory reforms in the area of reimbursement are urgently needed.
| Technology Delivery Breakout Group Members | ||
|---|---|---|
| Mike Ambrogi, General Manager DEKA Research and Development Corporation |
David A. Appler,* D.C Representative Federal Laboratory Consortium |
Sally Atwater, Executive Director President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities |
| Dick Baker, Chicago Operation Office Department of Energy |
Russ Bodoff, Executive Director Center for Aging Services Technologies (CAST) |
Conrad Clyman, Director, Program Integration and Planning Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center |
| Eric Dishman, PhD, Director, Proactive Health Lab Intel |
Dr. Robert Greenberg, CEO Second Sight Medical Products |
Mark Humayun, MD, PhD, Associate Director of Research Doheny Eye Institute |
| Charlotte Irby, Senior Technical Writer/Editor JRRD |
Brenda Leath, President National Consortium for African American Children |
William Ledoux, PhD, Health Research Scientist VA Center for Limb Loss Prevention and Prosthetic Engineering |
| Alfred E. Mann, Chairman Alfred Mann Foundation and Alfred Mann Institute |
Dr. Duncan Moore, Professor of Optical Engineering and Professor of Biomedical Engineering University of Rochester |
Jeffrey J. Moore, PhD, Technology Transfer Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) |
| LtC Paul F. Pasquina, MD, Chief of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Walter Reed Army Medical Center |
Dean Scribner, Research Physicist, Optical Sciences Division U.S. Naval Research Laboratory |
Janet Valluzzi, Service Fellow, Division of Statistical Research and Methods Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS |
| Ben Wu, † Deputy Under Secretary for Technology Department of Commerce |
Yitzhak Zilberman PhD, President and CEO Bioness, Inc. |
|
*Session cochair
†Session Chair
1Ben Wu was sworn in as Deputy Under Secretary for Technology at the U.S. Department of Commerce on November 6, 2001. In this capacity, he supervises policy development, direction, and management at the Technology Administration (TA), a bureau of more than 4,000 employees that includes the Office of Technology Policy (OTP), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). He also participates in activities with the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), a Cabinet-level council established by the President to coordinate science, space, and technology policy within the Federal research and development enterprise, and is the Executive Secretary for the NSTC Committee on Technology. Prior to joining Commerce, Ben held senior staff positions in the U.S. Congress where he led on issues affecting United States technology and competitiveness policy. He worked in Congress from 1988, having served as Counsel to Congresswoman Constance A. Morella of Maryland and on the Science Committee, first serving on the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee staff in 1993 and then on the Technology Subcommittee from 1995 until his current appointment. Ben has extensive experience focusing on information technology, biomedical technology, and technology transfer policy. He was the primary congressional staff on legislation affecting federal intellectual property and federal technology transfer. Wu received a Bachelor of Arts from New York University in 1985 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh in 1988.
Return to report
| Main Page | > | Breakout Reports | > | Technology Delivery Report |