Technology Transfer Policies and the U.S. National Laboratories
2. The secondment or movement of people between wsearch institutes and manufacturing organirations should receive a high priority in efforts to
improve technology transfer, to develop embryonic in-house R&D fa- cilities within manufacturing organizations, and to inform the research agenda of research institutes. Technology transfer between external re- search performers and the firm is one of the most enduring problems in the organization of contract and other types of independent research or- ganizations t o serve industry. Solutions t o these problems should receive a high priority in any efforts t o reorganize Russian independent research institutes. A portion of the staff of selected research institutes might be transferred t o employment in manufacturing organizations, with their salaries supported through some declining matching funding from pub- lic sources. These individuals could form the core of in-house R&D laboratories that would be closely linked with a "parentn independent research institute.I1 An alternative or additional policy would rotate employees from client manufacturing organizations t o the research in-
"Care must be taken t o ensure that any such personnel transfers involve high-quality employees of research institutes, rather than serving as a convenient means of eliminating less productive staff. This problem has plagued many U.S. research consortia (see Mowery and Roeenberg, 1989).
David C. Mowey 123 stitute on a regular basis for lengthy stays (6-18 months), and transfer research institute employees to a group of "clientn manufacturing firms.
3. The mission of transferring technology from independent research in- stitutes to industrial firms requires recognition as an activity endowed with significant resources and close links to the research activities of the independent research institutes. This point follows closely on the preceding argument. Technology transfer between an independent re- search laboratory and a manufacturing firm or other client is a resource- intensive, knowledge-intensive enterprise, requiring sustained interaction between client and research institute, and well-established links within the research institute between individuals or organizations in charge of research and those in charge of transferring research results. An im- portant failure in the recent U.S. federal government experiments with improving the transfer of technology from the "national laboratoriesn is the failure to allocate resources to this specific task and to recognize it as an explicit part of laboratory missions (one error follows from the other).
4. Strengthening the role of the Russian Federation's independent research institutes as performers of contract research requires that well-defined laws and regulations for commercial contracts and intellectual property be developed. The development of both contract and in-house industrial R&D in the U.S. relied for their development on a well-defined system of intellectual property rights and contract law.
5. Wherever possible, Russian independent research institutes should be linked with university programs for the training of scientists and engi- neers. An important institutional strength of U.S. universities, and a fac- tor that makes them attractive sources of external research for U.S. and foreign industrial firms, is their production of trained scientific and engi- neering personnel along with research. If Russian independent research institutes can expand their role in graduate education, an important channel for technology transfer and interaction between manufacturing industry and independent research institutes could be established.
6. Selectivity and ezperimentation should be important components of any new policies for Russia's independent research institutes. If the recent experience of the U.S. national laboratories is any guide (and there are striking parallels between these U.S. institutes and many Russian re- search organizations), no single policy is likely to be realistic or effective for all research institutes. The diversity in mission, talent, and orga-
124 Implications for R&D Organization nizational structure is too great for any inflexible general policy t o be effective.
7. The demand of independent research institutes for high-technology cap- ital goods is a potentially important source of domestic R&D and tech- nology for new firms in emerging industries. As the discussion of the Los Alamos National Laboratory pointed out and as other accounts have noted, an extremely important source of federal government support for high-technology industries during the postwar period has been procure- ment. Both the military services and the extensive network of national laboratories influenced the growth of new domestic industries through their substantial purchases from entrepreneurial new firms.
8. Independent research institutes are potentially important sources of new firms, as well as new technologies, and steps should be taken to encour- age the "spinofl" of new firms from these organizations. A number of the U.S. national laboratories appear t o have served as important "incu- bators" for new, high-technology firms, typically involving the departure of a few employees t o found a firm. Such "spinoff" companies may be an important channel for the commercialization of the technological as- sets of independent research institutes. Steps t o encourage their forma- tion include the development of better capital markets and intellectual property systems, as well as flexible provisions for leaves of absence or sabbaticals from employment in research institutes.
David C. M o w e y 125
References
Carty, J.J., "The Relation of Pure Science to Industrial Research," Science, 1916, 511-517.
Chandler, A.D., Jr., T h e Visible H a n d , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Chandler, A.D., Jr., Scale a n d Scope, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Clark, K.B., and T. Fujimoto, P r o d u c t D e v e l o p m e n t P e r f o r m a n c e , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1991.
Cohen, W.M., and D. Levinthal, "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, 1989.
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Technology T r a n s f e r Obstacles in F e d e r a l Laboratories: K e y Agen- of Psychology and Center for Communications and Signal Processing, North Carolina State University, 1986. ment, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1979.
National Science Foundation, F e d e r a l F u n d s f o r R&D: Fiscal Years 1989, 1990, a n d 1 9 9 1 Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1991a.
National Science Foundation, Selected D a t a on R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t in I n d u s t r y : 1 9 8 9 National Science Foundation, 1991 b.
Nelson, R.R., "Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States," in Dosi, et al., (eds.), Technical C h a n g e a n d Economic Theory, London:
Frances Pinter, 1988.
126 Implications for R&D Organization Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, M a k i n g T h i n g s B e t t e r : C o m - p e t i n g in M a n u f a c t u r i n g , Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990.
Penrose, E., The T h e o r y o f the G r o w t h o f t h e F i r m , London: Blackwell, 1959.
Stigler, G.J., "Industrial Organization and Economic Progress," in L.D. White, (ed.), The S t a t e o f the Social Sciences, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Swann, J.P., A c a d e m i c Scientists and t h e P h a r m a c e u t i c a l I n d u s t r y , Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Teece, D.J., "Technological Change and the Nature of the Firm," in G. Dosi, C.
Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete, (eds.), Technical C h a n g e a n d E c o n o m i c T h e o r y , London: Pinter, 1988.
Thackray, A., "University-Industry Connections and Research: An Historical Per- spective," in National Science Board, University-Industry R e s e a r c h Rela- tionships: S e l e c t e d Studies, Washington, D.C.: National Science Founda- tion, 1982.
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General, Report on the Au- dit of the DoD Domestic Technology Transfer Program, Washington, D.C.:
Department of Defense, 1989.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Diffusing Innovations: I m p l e m e n t i n g the Technology T r a n s f e r A c t o f 1986, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.