UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS: GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS: GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES Report of a Symposium Committee on Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Policy and Global Affairs Charles W. Wessner, Editor ThE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, DC www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by: Contract/Grant No. SB1341-03-C-0032 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Commerce; Contract/Grant No. OFED- 381989 between the National Academy of Sciences and Sandia National Laboratories; Contract/Grant No. OFED-858931 between the National Academy of Sciences and Sandia National Laboratories; Contract/Grant No. SRS-0827103 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation; and Contract/Grant No. NAVY-N00014- 05-G-0288, DO #2, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Office of Naval Re- search. This material is based upon work also supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Sciences Office, DARPA Order No. K885/00, Program Title: Materials Research and Development Studies, Issued by DARPA/CMD under Contract #MDA972-01-D-0001. Additional funding was provided by Intel Corporation, International Business Machines, M Square, the Association of University Research Parks, the Palo Alto Research Center, and Google. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-13789-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-13789-6 Limited copies are available from Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., W547, Washington, DC 20001; 202- 334-2200. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examina - tion of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na - tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee on Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century* Alan Wm. Wolff, Chair Partner Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP and STEP Board Kenneth S. Flamm, Vice Chair Mary L. Good, Vice Chair Dean Rusk Chair in International Donaghey University Professor Affairs Dean, Donaghey College of Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Engineering and Information Affairs Technology University of Texas at Austin University of Arkansas at Little Rock and STEP Board and STEP Board Alice H. Amsden Carl J. Dahlman Professor of Political Economy Henry R. Luce Associate Professor Massachusetts Institute of Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Technology Service Georgetown University Gail H. Cassell Bronwyn Hall Vice President, Scientific Affairs and Professor of Economics Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar University of California at Berkeley for Infectious Diseases Mark B. Myers Eli Lilly and Company Senior Vice President, retired Xerox *As of December 2008. 

OCR for page R1
Project Staff* Charles W. Wessner Sujai J. Shivakumar Study Director Senior Program Officer Alan Anderson Adam H. Gertz Consultant Program Associate David E. Dierksheide Jeffrey C. McCullough Program Officer Program Associate (through August 2008) *As of December 2008. i

OCR for page R1
For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the STEP Board is to integrate understanding of scientific, technological, and economic elements in the for- mulation of national policies to promote the economic well-being of the United States. A distinctive characteristic of STEP’s approach is its frequent interactions with public- and private-sector decision makers. STEP bridges the disciplines of business management, engineering, economics, and the social sciences to bring diverse expertise to bear on pressing public policy questions. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below: Lawrence H. Summers, Chair Edward E. Penhoet, Vice-Chair Charles W. Eliot Professor Director Kennedy School of Government Alta Partners Harvard University Ralph E. Gomory Lewis W. Coleman Research Professor President & CFO Stern School of Business DreamWorks Animation New York University and Kenneth S. Flamm President Emeritus Dean Rusk Chair in International Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Affairs Mary L. Good Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Donaghey University Professor University of Texas at Austin Dean, Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Alan M. Garber Technology Henry J. Kaiser, Jr. Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professor of Medicine Amory Houghton, Jr. Director, Center for Health Policy Director, Center for Primary Care Former Member of Congress and Outcomes Research David T. Morgenthaler Stanford University Founding Partner Morgenthaler Ventures continued on following page *As of December 2008. ii

OCR for page R1
Joseph P. Newhouse Jack W. Schuler John D. MacArthur Professor of Partner Health Policy and Management Crabtree Partners Harvard Medical School Alan Wm. Wolff Arati Prabhakar Partner General Partner Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP U.S. Venture Partners William J. Raduchel Chairman Opera Software ASA STEP Staff* Stephen A. Merrill Charles W. Wessner Executive Director Program Director David E. Dierksheide Jeffrey McCullough Program Officer Program Associate (through August 2008) Adam H. Gertz Daniel Mullins Program Associate Program Associate Guruprasad Madhavan Sujai J. Shivakumar Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Fellow Senior Program Officer *As of December 2008. iii

OCR for page R1
Contents PREFACE xiii SUMMARY 1 I. INTRODUCTION 5 II. PROCEEDINGS Welcome 41 Charles Wessner, National Research Council Keynote Address I 44 Jeff Bingaman, United States Senate Keynote Address II 47 C. D. Mote, Jr., Uniersity of Maryland Panel I: Leading Asian Models of S&T Parks 53 Moderator: Lawrence Schuette, Office of Naal Research China: Navigating at the Frontier of Life Sciences Silk Road 54 Zhu Shen, BioForesight ix

OCR for page R1
x CONTENTS The Singapore Science and Technology Park 57 Yena Lim, Singapore Agency for Science, Technology and Research Indian Science and Technology Parks 61 M. S. Ananth, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras Discussant 66 Phillip H. Phan, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Panel II: North American and European S&T Parks 70 Moderator: Peter Engardio, BusinessWeek The English Experience 70 Jane Daies, Manchester Science Park, United Kingdom Monterrey: International City of Knowledge Program 74 Jaime Parada, Research and Innoation Technology Park (PIIT) Science and Technology Park Developments in Hungary 77 Ilona Vass, Hungarian National Office for Research and Technology Initiatives in France 81 Daid Holden, Minatec Keynote Address III 86 James Barker, Clemson Uniersity Panel III: U.S. Parks: The Laboratory Model 92 Moderator: Kathryn Clay, U.S. Senate Energy Committee U.S. and Global Best Practices: Sandia Science and Technology Park 93 Richard Stulen, Sandia National Laboratories NASA Research Park 96 Simon (Pete) Worden, NASA Ames Research Center The National Cancer Institute and NCI-Frederick 98 John Niederhuber, National Cancer Institute

OCR for page R1
xi CONTENTS Panel IV: U.S. Parks: University-Based Models 103 Moderator: Christina Gabriel, The Heinz Endowments Research Triangle Park: Past Success and The Global Challenge 103 Rick L. Weddle, Research Triangle Park Purdue Research Park 109 Victor Lechtenberg, Purdue Uniersity Panel V: The Evaluation Challenge & Policy Synergies 113 Moderator: James Turner, U.S. House Science Committee The Role of SBIR and State Awards 114 Robert McMahan, State of North Carolina The Evaluation Challenge 117 Albert N. Link, Uniersity of North Carolina at Greensboro Discussant 120 William Kittredge, U.S. Department of Commerce Closing Remarks 123 Mary Good, Uniersity of Arkansas at Little Rock and Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy III. RESEARCH PAPER Research, Science, and Technology Parks: An Overview of the Academic Literature 127 Albert N. Link, Uniersity of North Carolina at Greensboro IV. APPENDIXES A Biographies of Speakers 143 B Participants List 161 C Bibliography 168

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Recognizing that a capacity to innovate and commercialize new high- technology products is increasingly a part of the international competition for economic leadership, governments around the world are taking active steps to strengthen their national innovation systems. These steps underscore the belief that the rising costs and risks associated with new potentially high-payoff technologies, and the growing global dispersal of technical expertise, require national R&D programs to support new and existing high-technology firms within their borders. They also reflect the belief that shared facilities, coupled with geographical proximity, can facilitate the transition of ideas from universi - ties and laboratories to private markets. What is the impact of these initiatives for the competitive position of the United States? In a recent report, the National Academies warned that “this nation must prepare with great urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security,” adding that “the United States must compete by optimizing its knowledge-based resources, particularly in science and technology, and by sustaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized industries and the well-paying jobs they bring.”1 Understanding the change in nature of these new institutions is a first step in understanding that the nature and terms of economic competition are shifting. 2 1 National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine, Rising Aboe the Gathering Strom: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. 2 Kent Hughes has argued in this regard that the challenges of the 21st century require new strate - gies that take account of new technologies, new global competitors, as well as new national priorities concerning national security and the environment. See Kent Hughes, Building the Next American xiii

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE U.S. policymakers need to be aware of the wide variety of innovation and com- petitiveness policies that many nations have adopted. These policies are designed to build research capacities and to acquire knowledge, and then to transition that knowledge directly to companies and support their development. Some nations have developed well-financed and integrated national programs that are designed to enhance their economic growth, technical competency, and competitive position. Other national programs, while more modest in scale, pro - vide essentially market-based incentives to encourage the transition of new tech - nologies to the market. Yet, even these can have a significant impact on the terms of competition. While institutions and the scale of funding vary across the globe, a comparative perspective can help us understand what policies are succeeding and why, what we may learn from the experience of others, what existing U.S. programs might be enhanced, and what new initiatives might be launched. What is clear is that the terms of competition are shifting. Other nations are devoting very substantial resources to attract, develop, and nurture the industries of today and tomorrow. U.S. policy needs to be formulated with this understanding. PROJECT OVERVIEW Recognizing the importance of targeted government promotional policies relative to innovation, the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) is studying selected foreign innovation programs and comparing them with major U.S. programs. This analysis of Comparative Innovation Policy, car- ried out under the direction of an ad hoc Committee, includes a review of the goals, concept, structure, operation, funding levels, and evaluation of foreign programs designed to advance the innovation capacity of national economies and enhance their international competitiveness. THE CONTEXT OF THIS REPORT Since 1991 the STEP Board has undertaken a program of activities to im - prove policymakers’ understanding of the interconnections among science, tech - nology, and economic policy and their importance to the American economy and its international competitive position. The Board’s interest in comparative innovation policies derives directly from its mandate. This mandate has previously been reflected in STEP’s widely cited vol - ume, U.S. Industry in 2000, which assesses the determinants of competitive performance in a wide range of manufacturing and service industries, including Century: The Past and Future of American Economic Competitieness, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2005, Chapter 14.

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE Box A Innovation and Competitiveness Innovation can be defined as the transformation of an idea into a marketable product or service, a new or improved manufacturing or distribution process, or even a new method of providing a social service. This transformation involves an adaptive network of institutions that encompass a variety of informal and formal rules, norms, and procedures—a national innovation ecosystem—that shape how individuals and corporate entities create knowledge and collaborate to bring new products and services to market. If competitiveness is defined as the ability to gain market share by adding value better than others in the globalized economic environment, then the ability of entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and scientists and engineers and others to collaborate successfully within a given innovation ecosystem gains significance. Recognizing this, policymakers around the world are supporting a variety of initia- tives to improve cooperation within their national innovation ecosystems as a way of improving their national competitiveness. Science and technology parks are widely perceived as an effective mechanism to promote such partnerships those relating to information technology.3 The Board also undertook a major study, chaired by Gordon Moore of Intel, on how government-industry partner- ships can support the growth and commercialization of productivity enhancing technologies.4 Reflecting a growing recognition of the importance of the surge in productivity since 1995, the Board also launched a multifaceted assessment, exploring the sources of growth, measurement challenges, and the policy frame - work required to sustain the New Economy.5 The current study on Comparative Innovation Policy builds on STEP’s ex- perience to develop an international comparative analysis focused on U.S. and foreign innovation programs. To open this analysis, the Committee held a symposium on April 15, 2005, which drew together leading academics, policy analysts, and senior policymakers 3 National Research Council, U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitie Performance, David C. Mowery, ed., Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. 4This summary of a multivolume study provides the Moore Committee’s analysis of best practices among key U.S. public-private partnerships. See National Research Council, Goernment-Industry Partnerships for the Deelopment of New Technologies: Summary Report, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. For a list of U.S. partnership programs, see Christopher Coburn and Dan Berglund, Partnerships: A Compendium of State and Federal Coopera- tie Programs, Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, 1995. 5 National Research Council, Enhancing Productiity Growth in the Information Age: Measuring and Sustaining the New Economy, Dale W. Jorgenson and Charles W. Wessner, eds., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE from around the globe to describe their national innovation programs and policies, outline their objectives, and highlight their achievements.6 Follow up symposia in Taipei and Tokyo in January 2006 focused on the evolution of the Taiwanese and Japanese innovation systems over the past decade. The Committee also convened a major conference in Washington in June 2006 that identified current trends in the Indian innovation system and highlighted the new U.S.-India innovation part - nership.7 This was soon followed by a symposium on “Synergies in Regional and National Innovation Policies in the Global Economy” held in Flanders, Belgium. This event reviewed European Union, national and regional innovation policies in Flanders, a region of Belgium, with a major university and research center with a strong commercialization record. Flanders is also home to IMEC, one of the leading microelectronics research facilities in the world and the flagship of Flemish technology policy. A Joint Effort This report captures the presentations and discussions of a March 2008 con - ference on best practices among science and technology research parks around the world. The conference was organized jointly with the Association of Univer- sity Research Parks (AURP). By drawing on the AURP’s expertise and contacts, the conference brought together leading figures from government, universities, and science and technology parks, both from the United States and around the world. The goal of the conference was to increase policymakers’ understanding of the role of research parks as sources of innovation and regional growth, while also reviewing their contributions to government missions and to the commer- cialization of university research. Parks Are a Diverse Phenomenon An important characteristic of research parks is their diversity. Accordingly, the conference examined a broad range of research parks, including both univer- sity- and laboratory-based parks as well as the large-scale industrial models often undertaken in Asia and Europe. While recognizing the diversity of objectives and the differences in scope and scale of activity, the conference sought to identify common challenges faced by research parks both in the United States and abroad, including evaluation and the need for appropriate metrics. Of course, no one-day conference can capture all aspects of this complex 6 For a summary of this conference, see National Research Council, Innoation Policies for the 21st Century, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. 7 For a summary of this conference, see National Research Council, India’s Changing Innoation System: Achieements, Challenges, and Opportunities for Cooperation, Charles W. Wessner and Sujai J. Shivakumar, eds., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

OCR for page R1
xii PREFACE phenomenon, and the conference did not focus, for obvious reasons, on failed parks. While there may be strategies and programs that do not work effectively, even within successful parks, this conference was focused on the practices of successful parks around the world. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy wishes to ac- knowledge the support of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Founda - tion, the Office of Naval Research, and Sandia National Laboratories. Both for the preparation of this conference and this volume, we are most appreciative of the support offered by the Association of University Research Parks and the University of Maryland. This conference benefitted from the active collaboration and support of both academics and practitioners. We are most grateful to Professor Albert Link of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for his inspiration and encouragement for the organization of this conference as well as his commitment to understand - ing the role S&T parks play in national innovation systems. We would also like to recognize the key contributions of Eileen Walker, Executive Director of the As- sociation of University Research Parks, and Jackie Kerby Moore, the Executive Director of the Sandia Science and Technology Park, to the selection of outstand- ing speakers able to capture the diversity of parks around the world. Similarly, we would also like to recognize Professor Phillip Phan of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for his valuable suggestions of well-qualified speakers. Special thanks are also due to Robert Geolas of Clemson University and Brian Darmody of the University of Maryland for their contributions as well as to Michael Bowman, President of the Association of University Research Parks, for his support and leadership. This cooperative effort contributed a great deal to the scope and diver- sity of the representatives and to the quality of the conference deliberations. With regard to the preparation of this report, we are indebted to Alan Anderson for his preparation of this meeting summary and to Sujai Shivakumar for his preparation of the draft introduction to this volume. Several members of the STEP staff also deserve recognition for their contributions to the prepara - tion of this report, including Jeffrey McCullough and David Dierksheide for their role in preparing on an accelerated basis both the conference and report for publication. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REVIEW This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- proved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose

OCR for page R1
xiii PREFACE of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Brian Darmody, University of Maryland; William Kittredge, U.S. Department of Commerce; Michael Luger, University of Manchester; Lora Lee Martin, California Council on Science and Technology; and Chachanat Thebtaranonth, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the author and the institution. Alan Wm. Wolff Charles W. Wessner