vironmental and Scientific Affairs. He was accompanied by Peter De Vos, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology Affairs. Representatives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation were also invited to provide technical support and advice. Committee Publication Number 100--.

3.5(s)-Field Hearing on University/Industry Alliances (St. Louis, Missouri)

Background

Federal and state governments have encouraged cooperation between industry and universities in recent years. These connections are viewed as a way to improve the ability of American firms to compete in the international market and, by state and local governments, as a way to create an entrepreneurial climate for attracting high technology companies to the proximity of research universities. Universities are a major source of the new knowledge which may lead to important commercial products and services. Universities are also the source of scientific and technical talent, and the availability of skilled labor is the most influential factor in the regional location of advanced technology firms, according to a study by the Joint Economics Committee of Congress ("Location of High Technology Firms and Regional Development," Robert Premus, June 82).

Many industries have historically supported research in universities to help supply their basic research needs and to help identify and recruit new talent. The linkage between industry and universities waned in the years following World War II when federal support for university research became dominant, but industrial support has become more important in recent years as federal funding has leveled off. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), industrial expenditures in universities grew from $235 million in 1980 to $670 million in 1987. NSF estimates that industrial support will grow from the current 8 percent to 10-12 percent of university research budgets by the early 1990's.

Cooperation between industry and universities has taken a number of forms, including industrial sponsorship of research by individual professors or by university research centers, exchanges of researchers, university assistance to high tech and old-line manufacturing firms, and the establishment of industrial parks to help new businesses. Along with the anticipated benefits of these interactions in creating more innovative commercial products is the concern that corporate sponsorship of reserach could distort the university's mission and endanger free inquiry and open dissemination of basic research results by scientists in academe.

Summary of Hearing

The field hearing held February 8, 1988, explored issues surrounding university/industry interactions by focusing on specific examples of such linkages in Missouri. The witnesses addressed the role of the state government in fostering university/industry cooperation, the factors both spurring increased interactions and also posing barriers to effective cooperation, criteria for evaluating the

economic impact and effectiveness of university/industry partnerships, the level of participation by small companies in such interactions, and the implications of involvement by foreign companies in university research.

The witnesses included representatives from five universities, three large corporations, one small business, state and local governments, and the Federal Government. In general, the witnesses revealed no serious problems impeding the formation of university/ industry alliances. The university representatives reported no problems with undue interference by industrial partners in formulating research objectives and no serious restrictions on open publication of research results.

There were differences in expectations of the industrial partners based on the nature of the industries involved. The biotechnology companies anticipated fairly rapid commercialization of new discoveries while an aerospace company expected the outcome to be only general expansion of the technology base in targeted areas of interest.

Committee Publication Number 100-90.

3.5(t)-Field Hearing on Economic Development Through
Technology Transfer, Denver, Colorado

Background

Concerns over trade and the competitiveness of U.S. industry have refocused attention on the potential of the federal laboratory system. There is a growing awareness in the private sector of the resources available in these laboratories and an increased willingness to work with the Federal Government. In recognition of the potential benefits to be derived from expanded utilization of the resources of the Federal Government, Congress passed the StevensonWydler Act (P.L. 96-480) and the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502). These two laws were designed, among other things, to encourage and foster the transfer of technology and technical expertise from the federal laboratories to the private sector where commercialization of products takes place.

P.L. 96-480 was passed in 1980. The Federal Technology Transfer Act was enacted in 1986 to strengthen the earlier legislation and to provide additional incentives to facilitate the transfer of technology from Federal laboratories to the private sector for use in new commercial products and processes. One of the provisions of P.L. 99– 502 allows government-owned, government operated laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development agreements with other federal agencies; units of State or local government; and/or private sector, and to provide such entities with title to inventions resulting from this agreement. The law also creates a legislative mandate for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer and provides incentives for federal employees to expedite the transfer and development of technologies and techniques initially generated within their laboratories.

Focus of the Hearing

Since the enactment of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, agencies had sufficient time to begin to implement the legis

lation and a Congressional review of that implementation was warranted. The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer was in the second full year of operation under a new structure. Various mechanisms for encouraging laboratory employees to transfer technology and to reward them for accomplishments had time to take effect.

Thus, the Denver field hearing on February 5, 1988 was organized to explore the impact of technology transfer policy on economic development and to exploure actual technology transfer case studies. The lead-off witness was the Honorable Roy Romer, the Governor of Colorado, who explained the extensive steps Colorado has taken during his tenure to spur economic development by encouraging businesses to take advantage of the high quality resources available at local universities and government laboratories. The first panel included the Dean of Engineering of the University of Colorado, the regional coordinator of the Federal laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, and a leading Denver venture capitalist. These witnesses discussed the role of technology transfer from the nearby federal laboratories in state economic development plans and programs; cooperation efforts between the University of Colorado and Colorado federal laboratories; and progress to date of the Federal Laboratory Consortium in implementing new responsibilities under the Federal Technology Transfer Act.

Three additional panels focused on technology transfer programs of Colorado-based operations of the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Appearing along with the senior officials from these two agencies were the scientists, technology transfer officers, and companies who have been actively involved in the transfer of specific ideas from the laboratory to businesses wishing to commercialize them. They discussed achievements in implementing the Federal Technology Transfer Act and problems that remained.

Certain small changes were added to the 1989 National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization (P.L. 100-519) to correct some of the problems raised in the hearing. In addition, the Subcommittee, in conjunction with the Senate Commerce Committee, circulated a questionnaire to agencies and major federal laboratories on technology transfer problems to obtain further background and suggestions for enhancing technology transfer. Committee Publication Numbers 100-83 and 100-110.

Background

3.5(u)-Field Hearing on Photonics

Photonics is a new technology in which light or photons, rather than electrons are used to acquire, transmit and process information. Research in photonics holds out the potential of revolutionizing several industrial fields, most notably telecommunications, computing and aerospace. Interest in the field is growing, both in the U.S. and abroad, especially in Japan. The Air Force's comprehensive research study, Project Forecast II, listed photonics as a top priority. Similarly, the Aerospace Industries Association cited photonics in its report "Key Technologies for the 1990's".

Photonics research goes on under a variety of titles in a number of corporations and federal agencies. The Air Force, Army, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technolo gy) are among the entities active in the field.

The Subcommittee had never examined this research area, which is an ideal topic for the government-university-industry partnerships envisioned in the Technology Transfer Act of 1986.

It viewed Rome, New York as an appropriate location for the hearing (May 2, 1988) because the Air Force's primary photonics lab, Rome Air Development Center, is located there. In addition, leading corporations and universities active in the field are nearby. Focus of the Hearing

The four federal agencies represented at the hearing-the Air Force, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) currently spend about $80 million on photonics research and expect that total to continue to increase. The Air Force has made photonics one of its technology priorities. The agencies believe the quality of U.S. research is high, but more must be done to keep the nation's commercial lead. Joint governmentuniversity-industry projects may be one way to accomplish that.

Industry witnesses agreed that the largest U.S. research problem regarding photonics is translating research into commercially successful devices. They recommended that government continue with its research programs and perhaps fund more applied research through research or purchase contracts. The witnesses acknowledged the difficulties in developing civilian spin-offs from military contracts.

University witnesses also expressed a need for continued government funding, especially for equipment and facilities. They also discussed the need for American nationals to go on to graduate study in the field. Committee Publication Number 100-135.

3.6-SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

3.6(a)-Hearings on the Space Shuttle Program

The Subcommittee held three days of hearings, April 23, 29, 30, 1987, on the Space Shuttle program. The first of these hearings was part of the Subcommittee's authorization process which focused on NASA's decision to pursue the competitive development of an Advanced Solid Rocket Motor. NASA has proposed this program in response to the requirement in H.R. 5495, the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization, 1987", that the agency submit to Congress a comprehensive acquisition strategy and plan to continue procurement of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors.

The remaining two days of hearings focused on NASA's recovery from the Challenger accident. To receive testimony from the independent review panels and committees that have been monitoring NASA's recovery efforts. Principal witnesses were Gen. Alton D. Slay, Chairman, Committee on Shuttle Criticality Review and Hazard Analysis Audit, National Research Council; Mr. Joseph F.

Sutter, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Chairman, Panel for the Technical Evaluation of the Redesign of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster, National Research Council; Mr. Edward E. David, Jr., Chairman, Panel on Post-Challenger Assessment of the Space Shuttle Flight Rates and Ultilization; National Research Council; and Maj. Gen. Jasper Welch, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council Task Force on Issues of a Mixed Fleet.

The first hearing revealed that there is general agreement that NASA should pursue the development of an Advanced Solid Rocket Motor, but that there is disagreement regarding the likely impact on motor cost and safety if NASA were to create and maintain a second source of supply for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors.

The second set of hearings indicated that the panels of outside experts that have been assigned responsibility for overseeing NASA's efforts to recover from the Space Shuttle disaster generally believe that the agency is making good progress. On the other hand, there were several areas of continuing concern. These included: NASA's projections regarding likely future Shuttle launch rates; the slow pace at which NASA was acquiring expendable launch vehicles; and the lack of alternative designs for hardware fixes that were under development. Committee Publication Numbers 100-35, Volume II and 100-23.

3.6(b)-Review of NASA's Range Goals

On July 22, 1987, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the results of a study recently completed by Dr. Sally K. Ride, Acting Assistant Administrator of NASA's Office of Exploration. Dr. Ride's study was intended to identify major science and exploration options that should be undertaken over the next twenty years. The hearing addressed the technical, social, political, and budgetary factors bearing on the initiatives identified in the study. Dr. Ride's report will provide a continuous source of guidance to the Subcommittee's efforts to encourage a longer-range perspective in planning the Nation's space program. The Subcommittee expects hearings to continue on the subject. Committee Publication Number 100-27, Volume I.

3.6(c)-Space Station Oversight Hearing

The Subcommittee held a hearing on July 28, 1987, to review the cost, schedule, and performance of NASA's Space Station Program. During the authorization hearings held earlier in the year, NASA announced that the cost of the Space Station which was originally estimated at $8 billion in 1984 had risen substantially. A panel of the National Research Council presented an interim report which verified these higher cost estimates and also pointed out a number of factors that could lead to further cost increases.

The following witnesses testified before the Subcommittee: Mr. Andrew J. Stofan, Associate Administrator for Office of Space Station, NASA, and Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Senior Lecturer, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.