In the May 7, 2008 Issue:

Copyright State Science & Technology Institute 2008. 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.

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 also may be completed at http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digform_unsubscribe.htm.

 NSF Finds State Agencies Spent $1.1B for R&D in FY 2006
In its first state R&D survey since 1998, the National Science Foundation (NSF) finds 252 different state agencies across the country directly supported R&D and R&D facilities totaling $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2006. The survey, released this morning, was conducted for NSF by the U.S. Census Bureau.

California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania were the only states to exceed $40 million each in spending. Combined, the six states accounted for 49 percent of the total. Individually, their totals were:

Federal sources account for 25 percent of the total. State and nonfederal sources provided $767 million.

The NSF Issue Brief that highlights the survey findings advises against making comparisons with previous state agency surveys because of differences "in the survey populations, definition of covered R&D activities, and collection methods." The $1.1 billion figure, much lower than many may expect, does not include direct state appropriations to universities for research and facilities. An NSF survey of FY 2006 academic R&D expenditures reported academic institutions citing state sources of funds totaling $3.01 billion, while the new state agency survey only found $504 million being from state agencies.

The new survey also apparently does not include funds spent for inducement of private R&D facilities, such as the case of Florida's biotech strategy (see related article in this Digest) or EPSCoR matching contributions controlled by a state agency. An example is Maine, where state research spending at academic institutions is reported as zero.

Only nine agencies classified as economic development and 13 labeled science and technology provided responses to the survey, also potentially leading to an underreporting of the total. Not all TBED-related state investments are eligible for inclusion, however. According to the NSF Issue Brief "any entities determined to be nonprofit or private, as defined by Census Bureau government classification, were also excluded from the respondent universe. Several industry-specific state commissions, which are generally chartered by state legislatures, but administered independently, were considered state agencies and included in the survey."

NSF and the Census Bureau plan to begin the next survey for FY 2007 data in the very near future.

The Issue Brief is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08309/
Data tables will be available in the near future at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/staterd/

return to the top of the page

Congress Passes Bill to Create Network of DOE Advanced Energy Tech Transfer Centers
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 2739, a component of which directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide grants and seek partnerships for the creation of a nationwide network of advanced energy technology transfer centers. These partnerships can include entities such as state agencies and local governments, utilities, colleges and universities, national laboratories, and other nonprofits providing energy technology expertise. The bill is now awaiting the president's signature.

Designed to cover a wide array of energy-efficient technologies, grants for the centers could be used to:

The bill also outlines the duration of the grants, which initially would be for a five-year period. All awardees would be evaluated in their third year, and if positive evaluations are received, the grant can be extended. Successive rounds of evaluation could be used to extend grants for no more than an 11-year period. The grants could not be used to construct buildings where the tech transfer center would be operated.
 
S.B. 2739 also is known as the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, as it clustered 62 separate bills for programs and activities with the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and DOE. Section 601 of the bill outlines the provisions above.
 
Details of S.B. 2739 can be found at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02739:

return to the top of the page

Florida Budget Crisis Affects TBED Initiatives; $450M Biotech Fund Running on Empty
Beginning in 2003 with its $510 million investment to lure the Scripps Research Institute (see the Oct. 31, 2003, issue of the Digest), the state of Florida has drawn national attention over the past few years for its aggressive pursuit of major life science research institutions. This year, however, it looks like that strategy will have to be put on a temporary hiatus.
 
After extended debate about broadening the sectors that benefit from the Innovation Incentive Fund (IIF) – the source of money used to bankroll the post-Scripps package of incentives available to these institutions – the Florida legislature has decided not to replenish the fund altogether. Though funding may resume in future years, the fund is currently depleted and state leaders are considering reprioritizing their economic development initiatives in light of changing economic conditions.
 
The IIF was established in 2006 to lure larger R&D projects and to take advantage of opportunities to improve the state's innovation economy. Since that time, the fund has mostly been used to attract branches of some of the world's most recognizable life science institutions including the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, SRI International, the Max Plank Society, the Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies, and the Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. The fund also provided $80 million for the Miami Institute of Human Genomics.
 
Part of the rationale for the investments targeted to a single sector was to develop a life science cluster in the state. While the original facilities of many of the induced research institutions reside in close proximity to each other in Southern California, Florida’s cluster is taking on a more dispersed shape. Click here to view a map of Florida's six life science investments through the IIF and the Scripps deal.
 
That support, however, was costly. From Scripps through the final deal of the IIF, the state has invested nearly $1 billion. The fund was initially seeded with $200 million in 2006 and renewed with $250 million in 2007. Though Enterprise Florida proposed another $250 million investment this year, the state's overall revenue shortfalls prevented even a $25 million proposal from passing.
 
Scripps and the six IFF organizations have promised to create a total of 1,693 direct jobs. The state is counting on much more than that being created by ancillary and other indirect jobs, as well as additional life science businesses wanting to locate in the area given the concentration of bioscience research centers.
 
While the state's Quick Action Closing Fund will receive another $45 million for the year – and bioscience deals are eligible for those funds along with any other potential relocation – it appears Florida will have to slow the pace of its long-term biotech strategy.

return to the top of the page

Follow-up Study Evaluates Maine’s Technology Cluster Development
A recent study prepared for the Maine Technology Institute and the Office of Innovation within Maine’s Department of Economic and Community Development examines and ranks 16 identified technology clusters in Maine - defining eight as sustainable clusters, five as potential clusters, and three as emerging clusters. These labels are based upon an extended view of clusters, namely that successful clusters depend on knowledge generation and knowledge spillovers and not just specification within certain industries. Along with measures of entrepreneurship and product production and distribution, Maine’s Technology Sectors and Clusters: Status and Strategy examines 7,300 records of patents, grants and publications in the state to determine potential research strengths and opportunities within the state’s clusters.

This report follows up and expands on a previous cluster analysis by the Maine Science and Technology Foundation (see the June 28, 2002 issue of the Digest), which identified seven broad technology sectors in the state. The 16 clusters analyzed in this report are comparatively narrower in scope, yet align with the seven technology sectors. For example, the cluster of “bioinformatics” lies at the intersection of the biotechnology and information technology sectors.
 
Examining knowledge attainment as a component of future potential cluster growth, the report finds the proportion of Maine’s workforce in STEM occupations is 30 percent to 40 percent below the national average, even as the state awarded 7.5 percent additional higher education degrees in the STEM fields in the decade after 1996.

The eight clusters identified as demonstrating sustained levels of innovation over time can be found within the sectors of forest products and agriculture, composites and advanced materials, environment and energy, and marine technology and aquaculture. Maine’s less-developed clusters are identified with the precision manufacturing, information technology, and biotechnology sectors.
 
But how to improve economic development within certain clusters? The report’s recommendations include, among others:

Maine’s Technology Sectors and Clusters: Status and Strategy can be found at: http://www.mainetechnology.org/content/277/Cluster_Enhancement_Awards/
 
return to the top of the page

Cities’ Roles in Knowledge Economy Focus of Prestigious Canadian Award
The Conference Board of Canada earlier this week named David Wolfe, professor of political science and co-director of the Program on Globalization and Regional Innovation Systems (PROGRIS) at the University of Toronto Mississauga's Centre for International Studies, as its fifth Scholar in Residence. Begun in 2005, the board’s prestigious scholar-in-residence program so far has focused on broader national issues such as regulatory reform and an emerging new federalism. Dr. Wolfe’s appointment recognizes the national importance of TBED-related research and policies for Canada’s continued growth and competitiveness.

Through his individual and collaborative publications and PROGRIS projects such as the Innovation Systems Research Network (ISRN) and the Ontario Network for Regional Innovation Systems (ONRIS), Dr. Wolfe has made considerable contributions to international academicians’ and practitioners’ understanding of the evolving and varied roles of regions, cities and clusters in innovation and creativity. Dr. Wolfe also has presented at SSTI’s annual conference on numerous occasions, each time ranking among the highest rating sessions by conference participants.
 
For the one-year residency, which begins this September, the board’s press release states Dr. Wolfe will continue to explore the economic dynamics of innovation, the social dynamics of innovation, and the mechanisms of political governance for cities in a knowledge-based economy. He will also examine innovative transformations of older city-regions.
 
In addition to undertaking research, Dr. Wolfe will collaborate with staff at the Conference Board throughout the year and present a lecture of his research findings in May 2009. The program will culminate with the publication of a book in the fall of 2009 ­ the third in the CIBC Scholar-in-Residence series.
 
More information about Dr. Wolfe, PROGRIS, ISRN and ONRIS is available at: http://www.utoronto.ca/progris/about_us/Wolfe/Wolfe_Bio.html The free ONRIS newsletter and the papers and publications released as part of ISRN’s projects should be of value to Digest readers interested in understanding regional innovation system theory and policy/practice.

return to the top of the page

Recent Research
Profiling U.S. Tech & Engineering Entrepreneurs
The under-30 crowd may be the early adopters of many of the new gadgets in our lives - and the young techies who quickly became billionaires producing those toys may grab all the headlines - but a new study reveals most U.S.-born technology and engineering company founders are actually middle-aged, well educated and hold degrees from a wide assortment of universities.
 
In fact, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and researchers at Duke and Harvard universities discovered twice as many U.S.-born tech entrepreneurs start ventures in their 50s as do those in their early 20s. Further, while highly ranked schools are overrepresented among start-ups in the survey, 92 percent of U.S.-born founders graduate from non-Ivy League universities, according to the study, Education and Tech Entrepreneurship. The study analyzed U.S. engineering and tech companies founded from 1995-2005, representing the most current decade of data.
 
How does this affect state and local policies to encourage tech entrepreneurship?
 
“Probably the most compelling fact in the study is that advanced education is critical to the success of tech startups," said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
 
U.S.-born engineering and tech company founders are overwhelmingly well educated. While there are significant differences in the types of degrees these entrepreneurs obtain and the time they take to start a company after they graduate, the study reveals a direct correlation between a founder’s education and company performance.
 
The study found start-ups established by founders with high school degrees as their terminal degree level achieved 61 percent less in average revenues and had 57 percent fewer employees than the averages for all start-ups in the sample. In contrast, founders with advanced Ivy League degrees had higher average sales and employment than the average – 17.5 percent and 31 percent higher, respectively.
 
Adding emphasis on retaining science, technology and engineering graduates in-state once they complete their degrees also seems to be a policy recommendation emerging from the report. Nearly half (45 percent) of the tech start-ups were established in the same state where U.S.-born tech founders received their education. Of the U.S.-born tech founders receiving degrees from California, 69 percent later created a start-up in the state. For Michigan, it was 58 percent; Texas, 53 percent; and Ohio, 52 percent. In contrast, Maryland retained only 15 percent; Indiana, 18 percent; and New York, 21 percent.
 
But the report suggests once grads are settled in, states will have to wait more than a decade for results: The average and median age of U.S.-born founders was 39 when they started their companies. Only about 1 percent of U.S.-born founders of tech companies were teenagers.
 
Education and Tech Entrepreneurship is available at: http://www.kauffman.org/pdf/Education_Tech_Ent_050108.pdf
 
return to the top of the page

SSTI Job Corner
More information on these opportunities and others is available at http://www.ssti.org/posting.htm.

JumpStart, a nonprofit venture development organization in Cleveland, recently announced two positions openings:

The Michigan State University (MSU) Product Center, housed within MSU's Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, is seeking an associate director for its Bioeconomy Program. This position is responsible for managing a university-based program assisting bioeconomy ventures to grow aggressively; developing and maintaining a network with a broad range of bioeconomy and service-provider contacts; and overseeing network effectiveness in helping bioeconomy ventures, among other duties. A master's degree in scientific or business field related to the emerging bioeconomy, or equivalent experience, is required.

return to the top of the page

People & TBED Organizations

Lori Broyles was appointed coordinator of the Women's Business Center in Oklahoma City.

University of Arizona Economic Development recently made three staff changes:

The Angel Capital Association and Angel Capital Education Foundation have named Stephanie Hanbury-Brown – founder of Golden Seeds LLC, an innovative network of primarily women angel investors who identify and invest in women-led ventures – as the recipient of the 2008 Hans Severiens Award. The award recognizes one person each year for outstanding accomplishments in the advancement of angel investing.

Mike Kluse is now the permanent director of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) after having served as PNNL's interim director for 16 months.

Michael Lovell will be dean of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's College of Engineering and Applied Science, effective Aug. 1. Lovell, currently the associate dean for research and a professor of industrial and bioengineering at the University of Pittsburgh, replaces interim dean Ronald Perez.

Tom Rogers announced he will step down as CEO of Technology 2020 to become director of industrial and economic development partnerships at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, effective June 2.

return to the top of the page

State Science & Technology Institute
5015 Pine Creek Drive
Westerville, OH  43081
(614) 901-1690

© 2008 State Science and Technology Institute. All rights reserved.