- Bipartisan Majority of Senators Sign On to Save MEP
- STC Identifies Leading Universities in Economic Development Efforts
- Connecticut's BioScience Cluster Gains Momentum, Report Shows
- Small Firms in New York Face Big Challenges, Survey Reveals
- Useful Stats: 2000 Value Added Manufacturing by State
Copyright State Science & Technology Institute 2003. Information in this issue of the SSTI Weekly Digest was prepared under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. Redistribution to all others interested in tech-based economic development is strongly encouraged — please cite the State Science & Technology Institute whenever portions are reproduced or redirected. Any opinions expressed in the Digest do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Subscription to the SSTI Weekly Digest is free. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue and would like to receive your own copy each week directly, please subscribe at: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digform.htm Requests to unsubscribe should be sent to sstiwd@ssti.org.
Bipartisan Majority of Senators Sign On to Save MEP
A bipartisan coalition of more than 50 U.S. Senators support continued funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, according to the Northeast-Midwest Institute and the Modernization Forum. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Me) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), co-chairs of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, spearheaded a letter to Senate appropriators requesting $110 million in FY 2003 funding for the program.
The Administration's FY 2003 budget request reduced funding for MEP to $12.9 million, a cut of 88 percent. MEP is a national network of centers with 400 offices in all 50 states and Puerto Rico that provide technical assistance and business support services to small and medium-sized manufacturers.
The Senators sent their joint letter to Senators Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), respectively, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary.
STC Identifies Leading Universities in Economic Development Efforts
Georgia Tech topped the nation in its efforts to help state and local agencies with economic development, according to a study released by the Southern Growth Policies Board's Southern Technology Council (STC).
Conducted by Louis Tornatzky and Paul Waugaman, senior fellows at STC, Innovation U.: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy offers comprehensive case descriptions of how national research universities operate in the following areas:
- Inclusion of economic development in mission, vision and goals statements;
- Pursuit of industry research partnerships;
- Technology transfer;
- Industrial extension and technical assistance;
- Entrepreneurial development;
- Industry education and training partnerships;
- Career services and placement;
- Formal partnerships with economic development organizations;
- Industry/university advisory boards and councils; and
- Faculty culture and rewards for participation in economic development activities.
As a first step in the project, STC polled 40 practitioners, researchers and experts on economic development and university-industry technology transfer to identify which schools were seen as maintaining exemplary programs. The experts were given a list of 164 research universities (based on research and development expenditures) and asked to nominate the outstanding examples.
The survey results identified 12 universities that the polled experts consider the best in the nation in contributing to state and local economic development, with Georgia Tech topping the list by a comfortable margin of nominations. The remaining institutions are: Carnegie-Mellon University, N.C. State University, Ohio State University, Penn State University, Purdue University, Stanford University, Texas A&M University, University of California-San Diego, University of Utah, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Virginia Tech.
With respect to the role of state governments and federal agencies, the authors make nine recommendations:
- Influence the selection of leaders. University governance need not be overthrown, but technology-related interests stemming from the private and public sectors should be given considerable attention.
- Support research funding with partnering incentives. States should offer funding programs with awards large enough to attract star researchers, ensure "a longitudinal, preferably nonpartisan, commitment" to such funding, require partnering, and draw an increased involvement of smaller, tech-based companies through creative funding mechanisms.
- Support research parks and incubators. The authors address the challenges posed by incubators, including initial capital investment for building and facilities; and staffing management and core staff.
- Increase formal partnerships with universities. The authors cite examples of universities' formal, operational program partnerships with state government in which joint efforts resembled government work.
- Pay attention to economic geography. Universities' investment in tech transfer and licensing may have little or no impact on a regional economy when state-based companies are not involved. Efforts to place students in these companies and to gear tech transfer activities toward local start-ups are two successful strategies the authors encourage.
- Show the flag. "(Officials) should get more informed on the potential of universities to contribute to state economic development...then start using whatever 'bully pulpit' they can command to spread that message among their constituents and political allies."
- Increased support for university-industry research partnerships from federal agencies. Numerous issues among benefits, costs, investments and public policy payoff should be revisited by these agencies, the authors posit.
- Protect Bayh-Dole. "Universities and faculty need to be enabled and rewarded for protecting and commercializing their intellectual property."
- Champion a new breed of university.
The authors also suggest that major national foundations should reconceptualize giving strategies and convene a national dialogue that would allow a focused exchange of experiences among leaders of U.S. research institutions.
Innovation U.: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy was supported by a National Science Foundation grant and is part of a larger program of benchmarking research on university-industry-community interaction. The study is available at: http://www.southern.org/pubs/stc/stcpubs.shtml
Connecticut's BioScience Cluster Gains Momentum, Report Shows
Connecticut-based bioscience research and development (R&D) investment in 2001 totaled $3.6 billion, an 18 percent increase over 2000, according to the Seventh Annual Economic Report of Connecticut United for Research Excellence (CURE), Connecticut's bioscience Cluster.
2001 Gains and Future Opportunities, released last week at Yale University, highlights several economic indicators that demonstrate the growth of the bioscience industry in Connecticut, including:
- Connecticut's bioscience cluster total R&D investments increased 139 percent to $3.6 billion between 1995 and 2001. The most significant growth, 437 percent to $277 million, was noted in the biotechnology sector.
- Companies reporting from the biotechnology sector raised nearly $557 million in private and public capital last year despite a difficult financial environment nationally.
- Connecticut-based pharmaceutical R&D companies now account for more than 12 percent of all R&D dollars spent by the nation's pharmaceutical companies.
- Total cluster employment in 2001 increased 3 percent to nearly 16,500 persons, creating an additional 471 jobs over the previous year. The average R&D annual salary for bioscience employees held steady at approximately $63,000.
- Occupied laboratory space within the cluster grew during 2001 by nearly 400,000 square feet (8 percent) to a total of 5.6 million square feet. The biotechnology sector noted the largest increase at 18 percent, adding nearly 90,000 square feet for a 2001 total occupied lab space of 589,000 square feet.
- Clinical studies investments increased 22 percent during 2001 to nearly $512 million from $418 million in 2000. The most significant growth (55 percent to more than $41 million from $26.7 million) occurred in the biotechnology sector.
For the first time, data were collected regarding clinical milestones in the biotechnology sector. Reporting companies noted work on 25 Phase I, II and III clinical trials, a 57 percent increase from 2000. Seven new investigational new drug applications were filed in 2001 as compared to two in the previous year.
Biotechnology companies exchanged unused R&D tax credits to the State of Connecticut for 65 percent of their face value during the years 2000 and 2001, for a total reimbursement of $10.5 million and $6.3 million, respectively. The exchange represents a source of capital available to biotechnology companies in Connecticut.
Copies of 2001 Gains and Future Opportunities may be requested from CURE by contacting Marcia Valente at (860) 529-3120. A detailed press release, which includes several useful tables, is available at the website.
Small Firms in New York Face Big Challenges, Survey Reveals
Small businesses bearing a critical role to the regional economies of upstate New York must overcome several barriers to growth if they are to enjoy future success, suggests a report by the Buffalo Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Conducted in partnership with the Center for Governmental Research, a non-profit organization based in Rochester, N.Y., Small Business: Big Challenge — A Survey of Small Firms in Upstate New York identifies the chief barriers to growth of more than 4,000 small businesses in western and central New York State. The survey also spells out the ways new technologies have impacted the region's small firms, more than one-third of which were reported to have expanded in the last three years.
Of the barriers cited in the survey, the cost of health care was determined to be the biggest concern. Sixty-three percent of respondents said health insurance premiums were significant, a finding not uncommon to small firms nationwide. At 49 percent, workers' compensation costs accounted for the second largest concern, and other barriers, including energy costs, taxes and finding qualified employees, rounded out the top concerns named by the region's small businesses.
Additional survey findings are:
- Fifty-four percent of respondents said they recently had made a significant investment in technology.
- Manufacturing firms were the most likely to have invested in technology, with 65 percent of the surveyed companies in this sector indicating they had done so.
- Of those companies having made recent investments in technology, 2 percent reported a likely loss of jobs compared to a third which said the result would be an increase in employment.
- Almost half of the responding firms said they were on the Internet, and 73 percent of all firms indicated using the Internet had made a positive impact. Manufacturing firms were the most likely to be on the Internet.
- Nearly three-fourths of respondents said they were primarily using the Internet for research.
When asked to name the one thing that would most improve their company's ability to grow, 24 percent of respondents reported more demand for their product or service. One-fifth expressed a desire for better access to capital, the second most frequently mentioned need. About half of the firms that have sought angel or venture capital had difficulty doing so, the survey showed. About 75 percent of survey respondents said a comprehensive guide to available resources and a small business assistance center also would be helpful.
Small Business: Big Challenge is available at http://www.ny.frb.org/commdev/pubs.html
Useful Stats: 2000 Value Added Manufacturing by State
In SSTI's second look at the 2000 Annual Survey of Manufactures, Geographic Area Statistics in as many weeks, SSTI highlights more of the report's key findings, including data on such fields as the value added by manufacturers, value of shipments, and average value added per employee.
The total value added by U.S. manufacturers increased by 9.69 percent between 1997 and 2000, according to the Census Bureau report. Idaho experienced the largest such increase (122.89 percent). Of the eight states that saw a decrease of value added by their manufacturers, New Mexico topped the list (24.56 percent). However, the District of Columbia experienced the largest decrease in the U.S. (42.74 percent).
D.C. also saw the largest drop in value of shipments between 1997 and 2000 (34.25 percent) and in the average value added per employee during the same period (44.14). Seven states saw a decrease in their value of shipments, and nine states experienced a decrease in the average value added per employee. In terms of an increase for each of the two categories — nationally, 9.99 percent for the former and 10.51 percent for the latter — Idaho held an edge over all states.SSTI has prepared a table showing the state rankings for the percent change between 1997-2000 on the above fields at: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/Tables/032902t.htm
2000 Annual Survey of Manufactures, Geographic Area Statistics is available at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/m00as-3.pdf.
State Science & Technology Institute
5015 Pine Creek Drive
Westerville, OH 43081
Phone: (614) 901-1690
Fax: (614) 901-1696
Email: ssti@ssti.org© 2003 State Science and Technology Institute. All rights reserved.