Commercialization of energy related technology to industry: The case of the US national energy laboratories

International Journal of Global Energy Issues

Volumn 9, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 16-23

  Frey, Donald ^a   Geisler, Eliezer ^b  

^a Northwestern University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WHITEWATER   (United States)

Author keywords

Commercialization of national laboratories; Public funding of research; Technology transfer; US Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; FINANCE; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION;

RESEARCH LABORATORIES;

EID: 0030672403     PISSN: 09547118     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. See, for example, US Congress (1980), Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, P.L. 967-480, (October 21),
2. and US Congress (1989), National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989, P.L. 101-185, (November 29).
3. Source: Technology Transfer Business (1995), Summer, pp. 38-40.
4. Calvin, R. (1995), ' Forming a world-class future for the national laboratories,' Issues in Science and Technology, (Fall), pp. 67-72.
5. Some examples of cooperation with industry are: (1) Lawrence Livermore in cooperation with Caterpillar Tractors and other companies to develop superplastic steel; (2) Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Cray Research and 16 other industrial companies such as Alcoa, AT&T, Amoco, GM, and Hughes launched a joint venture to develop software for massive parallel processing; (3) Sandia National Laboratory and Intel Corp. jointly develop microsensors; and (4) Thin-film lithium battery developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is licensed to Teledyne Electronics to power medical devices.
6. Dash, B. (1994), ' Federal technology transfer,' Chemical & Engineering News, (September 26), p. 2.
7. See, for example: A. Trivelpiece (1994), ' Industry needs and the national labs,' Issues in Science and Technology, (Spring), p. 5, also: S. Hecker (1994), ' Retargeting the Weapons Laboratories,' Issues in Science and Technology, (Spring), pp. 44-51.
8. See, for example: A. Trivelpiece (1994), ' Industry needs and the national labs,' Issues in Science and Technology, (Spring), p. 5, also: S. Hecker (1994), ' Retargeting the Weapons Laboratories,' Issues in Science and Technology, (Spring), pp. 44-51.
9. Dearing, J. (1993), ' Rethinking technology transfer,' International Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Industry-University-Government Cooperation, Vol. 8, Nos. 6/7/8, p. 479.
10. Dearing (1993), ibid., p. 480.
11. Geisler, E. and Clements, C. (1995), Commercialization of Technology from Federal Laboratories: The Effects of Barriers, Incentives and the Role of Internal Entrepreneurship, Final Report to the National Science Foundation, University of Wisconsin (August).
12. The Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980 and its refinement in 1986 mandated all laboratories with a budget over $20 million to allocate 0.5% of their budget to technology transfer activities and to establish an Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA). Our study surveyed the directors of these offices in the nine DOE laboratories.
13. See, for example, A. Rubenstein, C. Douds et al. (1977), ' Management perceptions of government incentives to technological innovations in England, France, West Germany and Japan,' Research Policy, 6(4), pp. 324-357; and, J. Soderstrom and B. Winchell (1986), ' Patent policy changes stimulating commercial applications of Federal R&D,' Research Management, 89(2), pp. 35-38. Also: J. Winbrake (1992), ' A study of technology transfer mechanisms for federally funded R&D,' Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(4), pp. 54-61.
14. See, for example, A. Rubenstein, C. Douds et al. (1977), ' Management perceptions of government incentives to technological innovations in England, France, West Germany and Japan,' Research Policy, 6(4), pp. 324-357; and, J. Soderstrom and B. Winchell (1986), ' Patent policy changes stimulating commercial applications of Federal R&D,' Research Management, 89(2), pp. 35-38. Also: J. Winbrake (1992), ' A study of technology transfer mechanisms for federally funded R&D,' Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(4), pp. 54-61.
15. See, for example, A. Rubenstein, C. Douds et al. (1977), ' Management perceptions of government incentives to technological innovations in England, France, West Germany and Japan,' Research Policy, 6(4), pp. 324-357; and, J. Soderstrom and B. Winchell (1986), ' Patent policy changes stimulating commercial applications of Federal R&D,' Research Management, 89(2), pp. 35-38. Also: J. Winbrake (1992), ' A study of technology transfer mechanisms for federally funded R&D,' Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(4), pp. 54-61.
16. See Note 9 above. The twelve companies whose responses are reported in this article are a subsample of the sample of 51 companies studied by Geisler and Clements in 1995. As described in the beginning of this article, the twelve companies were selected because they listed one or more DOE laboratories as their cooperative partners.
17. Other studies have arrived at similar findings. See, for example, Radosevich, R., and S. Kassicieh (1993), ' Strategic Challenges and Proposed Responses to Competitiveness Through Public-Sector Technology,' California Management Review, (Summer), 35(1), pp. 33-50; Also: Bozeman, B., M. Papadakis and K. Coker (1995), Industry Perspectives on Commercial Interactions with Federal R&D Laboratories, Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Georgia Tech (February).
18. Other studies have arrived at similar findings. See, for example, Radosevich, R., and S. Kassicieh (1993), ' Strategic Challenges and Proposed Responses to Competitiveness Through Public-Sector Technology,' California Management Review, (Summer), 35(1), pp. 33-50; Also: Bozeman, B., M. Papadakis and K. Coker (1995), Industry Perspectives on Commercial Interactions with Federal R&D Laboratories, Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Georgia Tech (February).
19. For example, Ross, S. (1995), ' DOE's Energy Technology Program Yields Commercial Inventions,' Technology Transfer Week, 2(12), p. 8.
20. See, J. Hauschildt (1992), ' External Acquisition of Knowledge for Innovations - A Research Agenda,' R&D Management, 22 (2), pp. 105-110.
21. See Note 3 above and the Galvin task force report on the DOE laboratories.
22. See, for example; US DOE (1987), Cooperative R&D Ventures: An Opportunity for Leveraged Research in Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C., DOE/FE-0079.