SSTI Digest

Universities play a central role in supporting regional technology-based economic development and only one small federal grant program focuses each funding cycle toward new models for improving university-centered collaborative innovation strategies. The Partnership for Innovations (PFI) Program within the National Science Foundation (NSF) opened a new round of competition last week, offering funding of up to $600,000 for 10-15 successful proposals.

Created in 2000, the PFI program "seeks to stimulate and capitalize on innovation by catalyzing partnerships among colleges and universities, the private sector, and federal, state and local governments." While each PFI grant must be awarded to a lead university, the role of collaborations and partnerships extending outside the recipient institution is an important component of the program.

On Friday, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released Science & Engineering Indicators 2006, an update for the nation's most significant, quantitative and neutral assessment of the health of the U.S. and international science and engineering communities. And, according to America's Pressing Challenge ­ Building a Stronger Foundation, a companion report to Indicators released by the National Science Board, the prognosis for the U.S. should cause concern.

Calling for "drastic changes" for America's K-12 science and mathematics classrooms, the National Science Board asserts, "Our Nation risks raising generations of students and citizens who do not know how to think critically and make informed decisions based on technical and scientific information."

National R&D spending increased by $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2003, according to a recent National Science Foundation (NSF) InfoBrief. The increase followed an $8.1 billion decrease in FY 2002 expenditures over the FY 2001 level, the data show.

The NSF report, Increase in US Industrial R&D Expenditures Reported for 2003 Makes Up for Earlier Declines, breaks down R&D expenditures into three technology areas: biotechnology, materials synthesis and processing, and software development. According to the report, national tech-based R&D expenditures for FY03 totaled $14.2 billion for biotechnology, $15.9 billion for materials synthesis and processing, and $27.1 billion for software development.

Amit Yoran replaces Gilman Louie as In-Q-Tel's new CEO.

Virginia Gov.-elect Tim Kaine named Aneesh Chopra as his administration's secretary of technology.

To develop and promote higher education research facilities and faculty in Virginia, Gov. Mark Warner proposed $218.8 million in his fiscal year 2006-08 biennial budget proposal for investment in university R&D. In response, state institutions of higher education have pledged to match the governor's proposal with a $299 million commitment.

The funding allows for the hiring of top researchers in the fields of biomedical science, biomaterials engineering, nanotechnology, and modeling and simulation, whose presence will attract more grant-funded research to the Commonwealth, according to the governor's office. In addition to having economic benefits, the initiative also invests in the search for cures for cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, the governor said.

One of the most critical federal partners involved either directly or indirectly in determining the success of most state tech-based economic development strategies seeks input from the science and engineering (S&E) community in the development of its next five-year plan.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is one of the federal government's most important resources for encouraging scientific inquiry, technological advancement, innovation and discovery, providing approximately 20 percent of all federal support for basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. The independent agency also has been responsible for the design and development of programs integral to most state and local tech-based economic development efforts, programs such as EPSCoR, SBIR/STTR, Partnerships for Innovation, and the Engineering Research Centers, to note a few.

Kathie Olsen, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, is the new deputy director of the National Science Foundation.

The average budgets for local and regional economic development organizations fell nearly 3 percent between 2004 and 2005, according to the second annual survey by ACCRA. The vast majority of the 750 respondents are involved in economic/community development research and traditional economic development activities, including facility and site development marketing, infrastructure development and planning, and community marketing.

University R&D is considered a fundamental element of innovation and technological competitiveness. If R&D spending equates to more R&D, then the 10 percent increase between 2002 and 2003 as reported by the nation's academic community to the National Science Foundation (NSF) would be a rosy sign for America's future.

Aggregate academic R&D expenditures in 2003 totalled $40.077 billion, up from $36.37 billion in 2002. The burden of funding for academic research continues its shift toward government and away from the nation's industrial community.

Increasing and modernizing university research capacity is a priority for many states. Contrary to programmatic or operational appropriations being required annually, funding for such construction projects can be phased over decades as part of a state's larger capital budget/bond programs. Recent research from the National Science Foundation (NSF) documents the results of the increased importance placed in university research building programs.

During fiscal years 2001-03, research-performing colleges and universities increased their research space by 11 percent, a substantially higher rate than any previous two-year period since 1988, a new NSF InfoBrief states.

As most practitioners know, measuring progress for tech-based economic development efforts can be difficult given the long lead time necessary for most research investments to yield results. Consequently, many programs rely on interim measures to evaluate a policy or program's impact. Still others use input measures such as amount of money distributed through a particular program, the number of grants made, the number of companies involved, or the amount of money leveraged by the state's investment. Unfortunately, none of those measures provide much insight on a program's true impact.

A new assessment of the National Science Foundation's efforts to attract underrepresented population groups into science, technology and math (STEM) fields provides an example of the difficulty programs have assessing interim progress.