1 / 15

Turning the Page: Re-imaging the National Labs for the 21 st Century Innovation Economy

November 13 , 2013. Turning the Page: Re-imaging the National Labs for the 21 st Century Innovation Economy. 2013 FLC Mid-Atlantic Regional Meeting Matthew Stepp, Senior Policy Analyst Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

dawson
Download Presentation

Turning the Page: Re-imaging the National Labs for the 21 st Century Innovation Economy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. November 13, 2013 Turning the Page:Re-imaging the National Labs for the 21st Century Innovation Economy 2013 FLC Mid-Atlantic Regional Meeting Matthew Stepp, Senior Policy Analyst Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

  2. …is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank at the cutting edge of designing innovation policies and exploring how innovation will create new opportunities to boost economic growth and improve quality of life. ITIF focuses on: • Innovation “verticals”: energy, life sciences, telecom, manufacturing, and Internet and IT transformation • Innovation “horizontals”: trade, tax, talent, and tech policy • “Innovation economics” as an alternative to mainstream economics Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

  3. A brief overview of the Turning the Page report and some of it’s recommendations • A brief overview of the legislative discussions surrounding these recommendations What I’m Bringing to the Table

  4. Turning the Page Report Framework • Non-partisan report authored by analysts at ITIF, Heritage, and CAP • Scope: High-level reforms to DOE Lab management and operation to spur more innovation from publically-funded research • Aim: Spark a conversation on creating better outcomes • Report not a panacea though

  5. A 15 Month Process • Project started with a roundtable on technology transfer policy reform • Due diligence: Toured Labs; meetings with DOE, Lab management/researchers, industry, and academia • Months of good old-fashioned debate

  6. High-Level Areas of Agreement • Federally-funded research: • Can play a positive role in U.S. economic future • Should not replace or crowd-out private sector or university research • Should be driven by science and national needs • Washington should oversee the Labs, not micromanage • Minimize barriers to moving research to market • Taxpayer resources should be used efficiently • Market forces can help bring efficiency to Lab system • The current system needs substantial reform

  7. Areas of Agreement on National Labs • Premier hubs of mission-driven research • Centers of unique, multidisciplinary research • GOCO mgmt • model best of both • worlds • Potential bridge to • market place

  8. High-Level Areas of Disagreement • Funding levels of public-supported R&D • i.e. Sequestration R&D cuts • Priorities of public-funded R&D • i.e. clean energy vs. fossil fuels • Specific role of government in supporting R&D • i.e. applied research vs. basic research

  9. Three Broad Issues in Need of Reform • Troubled relationship between DOE and the Labs • Research and strategy stovepiping • Weak link between the Labs and market • Report Goal: • To instill a more flexible management system that not moves towards unraveling these issuesandchanges DOE/Lab policy discussion • Don’t want to tinker around the edges

  10. Micromanaging Lab Governance • Issue: Duplicative layers of DOE bureaucratic rules and regulations • Proposal: Taskforce on DOE-Lab mgmt reform • Short-term: Expanded PEMP process • Long-term: Transition to a contractor accountability model • Near-term Policy Hook: Make permanent Laboratory Operations Board

  11. Weak Links between Labs and Market • Issue: Weak incentives for Labs to work with industry • Proposal: Allow Labs to charge flexible pricing/ reduce barriers to Lab partnership • Near-term Policy Hook: • Tie SBIR funding w/ User Facilities? • CRADA fund? • Long-term goal of flexible pricing

  12. Weak Links between Labs and Market • Issue: Inconsistent Lab-Industry agreements • Proposal: Strengthen ACT agreements to allow for collaboration with those that receive federal funding • Near-term Policy Hook: Remove ‘pilot’ title from ACT and expand to include federally-funded partners • Flourish over time?

  13. Weak Links between Labs and Market • Issue: Lab evaluation metrics don’t strongly encourage technology transfer • Proposal: Add a “Technology Impact” category to PEMP process • Policy Hook: Potential for this if… • Weight of new category not broadly dictated • Make category important to Lab contractor re-compete/renewals

  14. Response to Report • Congress very open to reforms that don’t have $$ attached to them • COMPETES reforms • Stand-alone bills on DOE-Lab reform • Make permanent Under Sec. of S+E? • Beware of growing movement to reduce federal research enterprise • Budget cuts, IG report, NDAA task force • Basic vs. Applied research ideology

  15. Thank you! Matthew Stepp mstepp@itif.org Follow ITIF: Twitter: @MatthewStepp Facebook: facebook.com/innovationpolicy Blog: www.innovationfiles.org Website: www.itif.org

More Related