Commercialization of University Research Request for Information, 14476-14478 [2010-6606]
Download as PDF
14476
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Notices
Comments are due no later than March
29, 2010. The public portions of these
filings can be accessed via the
Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov).
The Commission appoints Paul L.
Harrington to serve as Public
Representative in the captioned
proceedings.
III. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
Nos. CP2010–27, CP2010–28 and
CP2010–29 for consideration of matters
raised by the Postal Service’s Notice.
2. Comments by interested persons in
these proceedings are due no later than
March 29, 2010.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L.
Harrington is appointed to serve as the
officer of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public in these
proceedings.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–6643 Filed 3–24–E8; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Commercialization of University
Research Request for Information
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: In September 2009, President
Obama released his national innovation
strategy, which is designed to promote
sustainable growth and the creation of
quality jobs. Two key parts of this
strategy are to increase support for both
the fundamental research at our nation’s
universities and the effective
commercialization of promising
technologies.
The Federal government supports
university-based research for a variety of
reasons. Expanding the frontiers of
human knowledge is a worthy objective
in its own right. Basic research that is
not motivated by any particular
application can have a transformative
impact. As President Obama noted in
his National Academy speech, ‘‘It was
basic research in the photoelectric field
that would one day lead to solar panels.
It was basic research in physics that
would eventually produce the CAT
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
scan. The calculations of today’s GPS
satellites are based on the equations that
Einstein put to paper more than a
century ago.’’
Yet it is often transferring viable
research discoveries to the marketplace
that can pose the greatest challenge to
innovators and entrepreneurs. As a
result, the Administration is interested
in working with all stakeholders
(including universities, companies,
Federal research labs, entrepreneurs,
investors, and non-profits) to identify
ways in which we can increase the
economic impact of Federal investment
in university R&D and the innovations
being fostered in Federal and private
proof of concept centers (POCCs). This
RFI is designed to collect input from the
public on ideas for promoting the
commercialization of Federally funded
research. The first section of the RFI
seeks public comments on how best to
encourage commercialization of
university research. The second section
of the RFI seeks public comments on
whether POCCs can be a means of
stimulating the commercialization of
early-stage technologies by bridging the
‘‘valley of death.’’
Background: Federally-funded
research has contributed to economic
growth, job creation and improvements
in our quality of life. In the information
and communications sector, for
example, university-based research has
played a key role in the development of
technologies such as the Internet,
electronic design automation, mass
storage, speech recognition, parallel
computing, computer graphics, and
workstations. In the life sciences,
university research has led to new tools
to diagnose, prevent and treat diseases.
With respect to POCCs, innovative
technologies developed at POCCs arise
primarily from not-for profit research
institutions such as hospitals and
foundations as well as from Federal
laboratories and the private sector. The
Federal Government funds much of this
early-stage research and also provides
funding and incentives to
entrepreneurial businesses to bring new
technologies to the marketplace. For
example, the NSF Engineering Research
Centers Program provides core funds to
move fundamental research through
proof-of-concept testing and additional
incentive funds to speed the translation
of research further into the realm of
project development in partnership with
start-ups and other small businesses.
State and local governments also
provide resources to promote new
business development. Despite these
resources, too many technologies fail to
cross the ‘‘valley of death’’ of product
development between the research
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
laboratory and commercialization by the
private sector.
The Administration has already taken
a number of steps to promote and
encourage the commercialization of
federally funded research:
• The President’s FY11 budget
proposes to double the National Science
Foundation’s Partnership for Innovation
program. This will allow the NSF to
provide grants that will increase the
engagement of faculty and students
across all disciplines in the innovation
and entrepreneurship process; increase
the impact of the most promising
university innovations through
commercialization, industry alliances,
and start-up formation, and develop a
regional community that supports the
‘‘innovation ecosystem’’ around
universities.
• On February 24, 2010, led by
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the
Administration organized a forum to
explore issues related to
commercialization of university
research.
• Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the
National Institutes of Health, has
indicated that translational medicine is
one of his top five priorities. For
example, NIH is making it easier for
academic researchers to move from
fundamental research to the creation of
assays that can be used to screen
hundreds of thousands of candidates for
drug development.
• Seven agencies are providing
almost $130 million to support an
Energy Regional Innovation Cluster in
energy efficient building systems
design. In addition to funding research,
this will provide support for business
development, public infrastructure,
education, and workforce development.
The National Economic Council and
the Office of Science and Technology
Policy will use the input from this RFI
to shape the Administration’s future
policy on the commercialization of
federally funded research.
RFI Guidelines: Responses to this RFI
should be submitted by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on April 26, 2010.
Responses to this RFI must be delivered
electronically as an attachment to an email sent to NEC_General@who.eop.gov
with the subject line
‘‘Commercialization of University
Research.’’ Responses to this notice are
not offers and cannot be accepted by the
Government to form a binding contract
or issue a grant. Information obtained as
a result of this RFI may be used by the
government for program planning on a
non-attribution basis. Do not include
any information that might be
considered proprietary or confidential.
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
questions about the content of this RFI
should be sent to
NEC_General@who.eop.gov with the
subject line ‘‘RFI Questions.’’
RFI Response Instructions: The White
House Office of Science and Technology
Policy and the National Economic
Council are interested in responses that
address one or more of the following
topics:
Part I: With Respect to University
Research, Promising Practices and
Successful Models
What are some promising practices
and successful models for fostering
commercialization and diffusion of
university research? What is the
evidence that these approaches are
successful? How could these promising
practices be more widely adopted?
Examples include, but are not limited
to:
• Business plan competitions
• Coursework, training programs, and
experiential learning that give faculty
and students the skills they need to
become entrepreneurs
• Programs that encourage
multidisciplinary collaboration between
faculty and students in different
disciplines, such as science,
engineering, business, and medicine
• Technology transfer and sponsored
project offices that can negotiate
agreements with companies in a timely
fashion, and that have a mandate to
maximize the impact of their
university’s research as opposed to
maximizing licensing income
• ‘‘Templates’’ for agreements on
issues such as intellectual property,
sponsored research, material transfer
agreements, and visiting industry
fellows that can reduce the time and
cost required to commercialize
university research and form universityindustry partnerships
• Models for promoting open
innovation and an intellectual property
‘‘commons’’
• University-industry collaborations
that increase investment in precompetitive research and development
that is beyond the time horizon of any
single firm
• University participation in regional
economic development initiatives and
efforts to strengthen ‘‘clusters’’
• Supportive university policies such
as ‘‘industrial leave’’ that allows faculty
members to work for a new or existing
company to commercialize their
research
Bootstrapping Innovation Ecosystems
Some universities participate in
regional innovation ‘‘ecosystems’’ with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
dense concentrations of venture and
angel investors, experienced
entrepreneurs and managers, and a mix
of large and small firms. These
universities also have faculty who have
been involved in commercialization of
research and entrepreneurship, and can
serve as mentors and role models to
faculty or students. How can
universities and their external partners
expand their ability to commercialize
research in the absence of these
favorable conditions?
Metrics for Success
What are appropriate metrics for
evaluating the success or failure of
initiatives to promote
commercialization of university
research?
Changes in Public Policy and Funding
What changes in public policy and
research funding should the Obama
Administration consider that would
promote commercialization of
university research? How could existing
programs be modified or augmented to
encourage commercialization of
university research?
Part II: With Respect to POCCs
Underlying Conditions and
Infrastructure
• What underlying conditions are
necessary to enhance the success of a
POCC?
Æ How can regions with less
significant angel and VC investment
cultures support POCCs and start-up
business activity? Can current POCC
successes transfer to other regions and
universities?
Æ How important is active
participation by strong local business
community in a POCC? Describe how
you integrate them into the POCC
ecosystem?
• How can Federal agencies, research
institutions, Federal researchers, and
the private sector work together to foster
more successful POCCs that accelerate
commercialization into the
marketplace?
• How can we leverage NSF’s and
industry’s investment in Engineering
Research Centers and Industry/
University Cooperative Research
Centers to speed the development and
commercialization of new technology
that has already reached the proof-ofconcept stage?
• In addition to Federal resources,
what existing state, regional or local
government funded resources or
programs supplement the POCCs in
bridging the ‘‘valley of death’’?
Æ Describe any alternative sources
of private funding/financing that might
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14477
be available such as not for profit
entities or charitable foundations.
Successful Practices
• What are examples of successful
practices?
• What are the key ingredients
responsible for this success?
• Is there any evidence that indicates
POCCs are an effective mechanism to
foster local or regional economic
development and job creation (e.g.
research related to the needs of
particular clusters, participating in
regional networks, making shared
facilities available to local firms,
addressing the need for skilled labor in
particular sectors)?
• What lessons can be learned from
other successful models such as
technology-based economic
development organizations that support
POCCs?
• Describe educational programs
associated with POCCs that better
prepare students to work in
entrepreneurial environments?
• To what extent do interdisciplinary
services (legal, accounting, business
plan training) contribute to POCCs
successes?
• At POCCs, what lessons have been
learned regarding: Leadership and team
composition, project selection, optimum
scale of effort, importance of brick-andmortar facilities, geographic scope of
participation, and multi-agency
involvement?
Success Metrics
• How do you define the success of
a POCC?
Æ What are the relevant inputs,
outputs, outcomes, and impacts for
success metrics?
Æ What is the time period needed
to measure success as applied to
different types of technologies?
• Would the appropriate success
metrics for a POCC affiliated with a
university be different than one
affiliated with a Federal research lab?
Other Questions
• For those institutions with POCCs,
how would you describe what you do
and how you do it?
• How can research and development
assets supported by the Federal
Government be leveraged to support
POCCs, such as a multi-agency, multidisciplinary database of supported
research?
• How could such assistance also
bolster State and local government
programs?
• What other administrative policies/
practices should the Administration
consider modifying, adopting or
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
14478
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Notices
implementing to enhance the success
prospects of POCCs, including
streamlining reporting requirements?
James Kohlenberger,
Chief of Staff, Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Diana Farrell,
Deputy Assistant to the President for
Economic Policy, National Economic Council.
[FR Doc. 2010–6606 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–61692; File No. SR–OCC–
2010–03]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The
Options Clearing Corporation; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to ETFS Palladium Shares and
ETFS Platinum Shares
Correction
In notice document 2010–5914
beginning on page 13169 in the issue of
Thursday, March 18, 2010 make the
following correction:
On page 13169, in the first column,
the docket number is corrected to read
as it appears above.
Dated: March 23, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. C1–2010–5914 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
[FR Doc. 2010–6711 Filed 3–23–10; 11:15 am]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Sunshine Act Meetings
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
the provisions of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that
the Securities and Exchange
Commission will hold an open meeting
on March 30, 2010 at 2 p.m., in the
Auditorium, Room L–002, and a closed
meeting on March 30, 2010 at 3 p.m.
The subject matter of the March 30,
2010 open meeting will be:
The Commission will hear oral
argument in an appeal by vFinance
Investments, Inc., a registered brokerdealer (the ‘‘Firm’’), and Richard
Campanella, the Firm’s former chief
compliance officer (together with the
Firm, ‘‘Respondents’’) from the decision
of an administrative law judge. The law
judge found that the Firm willfully
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 17a–
4(b)(4) and 17a–4(j) thereunder, by
failing to preserve and promptly
produce electronic communications,
and that Campanella willfully aided and
abetted and caused these violations. The
law judge ordered Respondents to cease
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
and desist, censured Campanella, and
fined the Firm $100,000 and
Campanella $30,000.
The subject matter of the March 30,
2010 closed meeting will be:
Post argument discussion.
Commissioners, Counsel to the
Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries
will attend the closed meeting. Certain
staff members who have an interest in
the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the
Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or
more of the exemptions set forth in 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10)
and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii)
and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Aguilar, as duty
officer, voted to consider the item listed
for the closed meeting in a closed
session.
At times, changes in Commission
priorities require alterations in the
scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202)
551–5400.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6930]
Executive Order 11423, as Amended;
Notice of Receipt of Application To
Amend the Presidential Permit for the
Nogales-Mariposa International Border
Crossing on the U.S.-Mexico Border
Department of State.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of State
hereby gives notice that, on March 12,
2010, it received from the General
Services Administration (GSA) an
application to amend the Presidential
permit that the Department issued in
2005 to the Arizona Department of
Transportation for the Nogales-Mariposa
port of entry (Mariposa) at Nogales,
Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.
GSA intends to remodel and expand the
existing border crossing. GSA’s
application to the Department is in
keeping with the determination that
GSA is generally the appropriate
permittee for at-grade (i.e., those not
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
located along the Rio Grande), federally
owned border crossings along the U.S.Mexico border. The Department and
GSA agree that an amendment of the
existing Presidential permit is required
in this case because GSA’s project
would widen the piercing of the border
and would formally establish Mariposa
as a border crossing for pedestrians.
According to the application,
approximately 45% of the produce
consumed in the United States during
winter months crosses at Mariposa. In
2008, $12.85 billion of merchandise
entered through the crossing, an
increase of $8.25 billion over the total
for 1995. The inadequacies of the
existing facility cause long delays for
commercial traffic during peak times.
When it opened about 35 years ago,
Mariposa was designed to accommodate
450 commercial vehicles per day.
Currently, the port processes
approximately 1,000 commercial
vehicles per day. This figure is expected
to increase to 1,730 per day by 2030.
Furthermore, Mariposa was not
designed to accommodate pedestrians
and buses; lack of pedestrian facilities
results in pedestrians crossing an active
roadway to enter the U.S. facility.
Inspection areas are too small to meet
production standards, vehicle
circulation routes are insufficient to
efficiently move traffic, and critical
security and operational facilities are
poor and lacking. GSA’s $199 million
project is funded by the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009
and is a priority project for both GSA
and the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) of the Department of
Homeland Security because of the
crossing’s importance to trade and its
inability to facilitate current traffic
flows safely and efficiently.
The Department’s jurisdiction over
this application is based upon Executive
Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, as
amended. As provided in E.O. 11423,
the Department is circulating this
application to relevant federal and state
agencies for review and comment.
Under E.O. 11423, the Department has
the responsibility to determine, taking
into account input from these agencies
and other stakeholders, whether
amending the Presidential permit for
this border crossing would be in the
U.S. national interest.
DATES: Interested members of the public
are invited to submit written comments
regarding this application on or before
April 29, 2010 to Stewart Tuttle, U.S.Mexico Border Affairs Coordinator via
e-mail at WHA–BorderAffairs@state.gov
or by mail at Office of Mexican Affairs—
Room 3909, Department of State, 2201
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 57 (Thursday, March 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14476-14478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6606]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Commercialization of University Research Request for Information
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In September 2009, President Obama released his national
innovation strategy, which is designed to promote sustainable growth
and the creation of quality jobs. Two key parts of this strategy are to
increase support for both the fundamental research at our nation's
universities and the effective commercialization of promising
technologies.
The Federal government supports university-based research for a
variety of reasons. Expanding the frontiers of human knowledge is a
worthy objective in its own right. Basic research that is not motivated
by any particular application can have a transformative impact. As
President Obama noted in his National Academy speech, ``It was basic
research in the photoelectric field that would one day lead to solar
panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce
the CAT scan. The calculations of today's GPS satellites are based on
the equations that Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.''
Yet it is often transferring viable research discoveries to the
marketplace that can pose the greatest challenge to innovators and
entrepreneurs. As a result, the Administration is interested in working
with all stakeholders (including universities, companies, Federal
research labs, entrepreneurs, investors, and non-profits) to identify
ways in which we can increase the economic impact of Federal investment
in university R&D and the innovations being fostered in Federal and
private proof of concept centers (POCCs). This RFI is designed to
collect input from the public on ideas for promoting the
commercialization of Federally funded research. The first section of
the RFI seeks public comments on how best to encourage
commercialization of university research. The second section of the RFI
seeks public comments on whether POCCs can be a means of stimulating
the commercialization of early-stage technologies by bridging the
``valley of death.''
Background: Federally-funded research has contributed to economic
growth, job creation and improvements in our quality of life. In the
information and communications sector, for example, university-based
research has played a key role in the development of technologies such
as the Internet, electronic design automation, mass storage, speech
recognition, parallel computing, computer graphics, and workstations.
In the life sciences, university research has led to new tools to
diagnose, prevent and treat diseases.
With respect to POCCs, innovative technologies developed at POCCs
arise primarily from not-for profit research institutions such as
hospitals and foundations as well as from Federal laboratories and the
private sector. The Federal Government funds much of this early-stage
research and also provides funding and incentives to entrepreneurial
businesses to bring new technologies to the marketplace. For example,
the NSF Engineering Research Centers Program provides core funds to
move fundamental research through proof-of-concept testing and
additional incentive funds to speed the translation of research further
into the realm of project development in partnership with start-ups and
other small businesses. State and local governments also provide
resources to promote new business development. Despite these resources,
too many technologies fail to cross the ``valley of death'' of product
development between the research laboratory and commercialization by
the private sector.
The Administration has already taken a number of steps to promote
and encourage the commercialization of federally funded research:
The President's FY11 budget proposes to double the
National Science Foundation's Partnership for Innovation program. This
will allow the NSF to provide grants that will increase the engagement
of faculty and students across all disciplines in the innovation and
entrepreneurship process; increase the impact of the most promising
university innovations through commercialization, industry alliances,
and start-up formation, and develop a regional community that supports
the ``innovation ecosystem'' around universities.
On February 24, 2010, led by Commerce Secretary Gary
Locke, the Administration organized a forum to explore issues related
to commercialization of university research.
Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes
of Health, has indicated that translational medicine is one of his top
five priorities. For example, NIH is making it easier for academic
researchers to move from fundamental research to the creation of assays
that can be used to screen hundreds of thousands of candidates for drug
development.
Seven agencies are providing almost $130 million to
support an Energy Regional Innovation Cluster in energy efficient
building systems design. In addition to funding research, this will
provide support for business development, public infrastructure,
education, and workforce development.
The National Economic Council and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy will use the input from this RFI to shape the
Administration's future policy on the commercialization of federally
funded research.
RFI Guidelines: Responses to this RFI should be submitted by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on April 26, 2010. Responses to this RFI must be
delivered electronically as an attachment to an e-mail sent to NEC_General@who.eop.gov with the subject line ``Commercialization of
University Research.'' Responses to this notice are not offers and
cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or
issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used
by the government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Do
not include any information that might be considered proprietary or
confidential.
[[Page 14477]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any questions about the content of
this RFI should be sent to NEC_General@who.eop.gov with the subject
line ``RFI Questions.''
RFI Response Instructions: The White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the National Economic Council are interested in
responses that address one or more of the following topics:
Part I: With Respect to University Research, Promising Practices and
Successful Models
What are some promising practices and successful models for
fostering commercialization and diffusion of university research? What
is the evidence that these approaches are successful? How could these
promising practices be more widely adopted? Examples include, but are
not limited to:
Business plan competitions
Coursework, training programs, and experiential learning
that give faculty and students the skills they need to become
entrepreneurs
Programs that encourage multidisciplinary collaboration
between faculty and students in different disciplines, such as science,
engineering, business, and medicine
Technology transfer and sponsored project offices that can
negotiate agreements with companies in a timely fashion, and that have
a mandate to maximize the impact of their university's research as
opposed to maximizing licensing income
``Templates'' for agreements on issues such as
intellectual property, sponsored research, material transfer
agreements, and visiting industry fellows that can reduce the time and
cost required to commercialize university research and form university-
industry partnerships
Models for promoting open innovation and an intellectual
property ``commons''
University-industry collaborations that increase
investment in pre-competitive research and development that is beyond
the time horizon of any single firm
University participation in regional economic development
initiatives and efforts to strengthen ``clusters''
Supportive university policies such as ``industrial
leave'' that allows faculty members to work for a new or existing
company to commercialize their research
Bootstrapping Innovation Ecosystems
Some universities participate in regional innovation ``ecosystems''
with dense concentrations of venture and angel investors, experienced
entrepreneurs and managers, and a mix of large and small firms. These
universities also have faculty who have been involved in
commercialization of research and entrepreneurship, and can serve as
mentors and role models to faculty or students. How can universities
and their external partners expand their ability to commercialize
research in the absence of these favorable conditions?
Metrics for Success
What are appropriate metrics for evaluating the success or failure
of initiatives to promote commercialization of university research?
Changes in Public Policy and Funding
What changes in public policy and research funding should the Obama
Administration consider that would promote commercialization of
university research? How could existing programs be modified or
augmented to encourage commercialization of university research?
Part II: With Respect to POCCs
Underlying Conditions and Infrastructure
What underlying conditions are necessary to enhance the
success of a POCC?
[cir] How can regions with less significant angel and VC
investment cultures support POCCs and start-up business activity? Can
current POCC successes transfer to other regions and universities?
[cir] How important is active participation by strong local
business community in a POCC? Describe how you integrate them into the
POCC ecosystem?
How can Federal agencies, research institutions, Federal
researchers, and the private sector work together to foster more
successful POCCs that accelerate commercialization into the
marketplace?
How can we leverage NSF's and industry's investment in
Engineering Research Centers and Industry/University Cooperative
Research Centers to speed the development and commercialization of new
technology that has already reached the proof-of-concept stage?
In addition to Federal resources, what existing state,
regional or local government funded resources or programs supplement
the POCCs in bridging the ``valley of death''?
[cir] Describe any alternative sources of private funding/
financing that might be available such as not for profit entities or
charitable foundations.
Successful Practices
What are examples of successful practices?
What are the key ingredients responsible for this success?
Is there any evidence that indicates POCCs are an
effective mechanism to foster local or regional economic development
and job creation (e.g. research related to the needs of particular
clusters, participating in regional networks, making shared facilities
available to local firms, addressing the need for skilled labor in
particular sectors)?
What lessons can be learned from other successful models
such as technology-based economic development organizations that
support POCCs?
Describe educational programs associated with POCCs that
better prepare students to work in entrepreneurial environments?
To what extent do interdisciplinary services (legal,
accounting, business plan training) contribute to POCCs successes?
At POCCs, what lessons have been learned regarding:
Leadership and team composition, project selection, optimum scale of
effort, importance of brick-and-mortar facilities, geographic scope of
participation, and multi-agency involvement?
Success Metrics
How do you define the success of a POCC?
[cir] What are the relevant inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts
for success metrics?
[cir] What is the time period needed to measure success as applied
to different types of technologies?
Would the appropriate success metrics for a POCC
affiliated with a university be different than one affiliated with a
Federal research lab?
Other Questions
For those institutions with POCCs, how would you describe
what you do and how you do it?
How can research and development assets supported by the
Federal Government be leveraged to support POCCs, such as a multi-
agency, multi-disciplinary database of supported research?
How could such assistance also bolster State and local
government programs?
What other administrative policies/practices should the
Administration consider modifying, adopting or
[[Page 14478]]
implementing to enhance the success prospects of POCCs, including
streamlining reporting requirements?
James Kohlenberger,
Chief of Staff, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Diana Farrell,
Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, National
Economic Council.
[FR Doc. 2010-6606 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P