PCAST Releases Tech Transfer Report
- PDF / 76,645 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 9 Downloads / 208 Views
SCIENCE POLICY Incorporating WASHINGTON NEWS and policy news from around the world.
PCAST Releases Tech Transfer Report A report on the U.S. federal structure for encouraging technology transfer was approved by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in May. The report reaffirms the effecE. Floyd Kvamme tiveness of existing legislation meant to foster technology transfer, but calls for some minor improvements to the surrounding processes. It is a companion to an earlier PCAST report released in February, “Assessing U.S. R&D Investment,” which was produced by the PCAST Subcommittee on Federal Investment in Science and Technology and Its National Benefits, chaired by G. Wayne Clough, president of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The subcommittee was charged with exploring issues surrounding the historical patterns of federal investment in science and technology (S&T). It examined trends and patterns of federal support of research and development (R&D) over the past 25 years, comparing U.S. investment in both the federal and private sectors with that of other countries that compete with the United States in the global marketplace. Based on its findings, the subcommittee provided several key recommendations. It particularly noted that the doubling of the National Institutes of Health’s budget is now complete and recommended targeting the physical sciences, including metallurgy and materials, and certain engineering fields (electrical, mechanical, chemical) for future funding increases. Input from the PCAST report played a vital role in the ultimate approval of H.R. 4464, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act (commonly known as the NSF doubling bill), and PCAST co-chair E. Floyd Kvamme noted that the president’s fiscal year 2004 budget request acted on a number of PCAST recommendations. Notably absent in the final version of the report is the use of the word “doubling” with regard to NSF, which Kvamme said was deliberate. Instead, the emphasis is on bringing the physical sciences and engineering “collectively to parity with the life sciences” with a series of funding increases over the next four fiscal years. “Just because a doubling has been done once [with NIH] doesn’t mean it has to be done every time,” said Kvamme. “You’d constantly be out of balance with that approach. So we didn’t MRS BULLETIN/JULY 2003
use that terminology, although we did call for a ‘rebalancing’ between the life sciences, the physical sciences, and some areas of engineering.” To address S&T work force concerns, the panel recommended the establishment of a fellowship program to attract U.S. students to graduate studies in the physical sciences and engineering. The report also suggested that the administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy create a classification system to help assess patterns of federal R&D investment in light of its ability to meet national needs, to closely monitor research investments of other nations and keep abreast of important S&T developments to keep the United
Data Loading...
