SSTI Digest

“I recognize the importance of attracting venture capital and new investments to Maine,” Gov. John E. Baldacci said. The governor later added, “However, as it is currently written the bill carries enormous risk. This bill would guarantee a rate of return for venture capital investors while Maine would shoulder all the risk. The potential liability for the State is too great for me to sign this bill.”
 
By not signing the bill, Gov. Baldacci pocket vetoed LD 2320, entitled "An Act To Stimulate Capital Investment for Innovative Businesses in Maine.” The act would have created a Maine Fund of Funds program within the state’s Small Enterprise Growth Board to increase availability of venture capital.
 

The General Assembly approved the fiscal year 2009 budget last week, providing $21 million for the Life Sciences Research Trust Fund. Established in 2003, the fund was created to support life science research, commercialization, and technology transfer using a portion of the state’s tobacco settlement funds. The FY09 appropriation will be administered by the Life Sciences Research Board, which is responsible for awarding grants and contracts for research.
 
Last year, the General Assembly approved a one-time appropriation of $13.4 million for the fund dedicated to research focusing on animal and health nutrition, renewable energy and plant sciences (see the May 21, 2007 issue of the Digest).
 

Early-stage Colorado bioscience companies and researchers in clean and alternative energy working to commercialize new technologies are among the victors of Colorado’s legislative session that ended last week.
 
To encourage bioscience research and speed technology commercialization, Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law HB 1001, establishing the Colorado Bioscience Research Grant Program. The grant program will provide $26.5 million over five years to research institutions and private companies, beginning with $5.5 million this year. Unveiled by the governor last fall, the program is the first portion of the administration’s business development package to be approved by legislators (see the Oct. 3, 2007 issue of the Digest).
 

Unprecedented investment in alternative energy technologies and growing awareness about the need for clean and renewable energy production have driven many states to initiate strategies to promote alternative forms of power generation, such as solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and wind power. Most current government strategies, however, fall short of what will be needed to build a truly reliable, affordable and clean energy portfolio in the U.S., according to a new study from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The key to creating portfolios that accomplish all of these goals will be diversity. No one source of power will be able to support the nation's need for electricity, but a diverse portfolio of many power sources may be able to provide a flexible and sufficient power supply.
 

Rallying the myriad local organizations, chambers of commerce and political jurisdictions of any large metropolitan area toward a shared economic development agenda is challenging. To twist a phrase from supply-side economics, the “trickle around” theory of benefits – when any major economic development project occurs in one community will have spillover benefits for the entire region – is a tough sell to communities and school systems trying to keep their budgets in the black.
 
True success most likely requires radical transformation of several institutions, consolidated tax and revenue sharing systems, and fundamental shifts in one's sense of belonging to a particular place.
 
That last element, shifting the sense of belonging to a larger region, is a regular challenge for watershed management systems, which, among their other responsibilities, try to get the residents of a particular area to realize the watershed ignores the arbitrarily drawn political jurisdictions we create. We all live upstream and/or downstream from somewhere else and are affected by the activities occurring in those other places.

Last week, the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) held its annual national meeting in Portland, Ore. The gathering brought together laboratory technology transfer specialists, industry representatives and state and regional TBED organizations, among others, to discuss pertinent issues such as changes in federal legislation affecting intellectual property and SBIR reauthorization, STEM education initiatives, funding opportunities, and best practices for encouraging the successful commercialization of research. The conference also served as an entry point for those new to collaborating with the nation’s system of federal laboratories, presenting their tools and programs that can be used to enhance commercialization partnerships. 
 

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.

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.

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.
 

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.

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.

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?