Federal technology transfer definitely qualifies as "fugitive" or "gray area" information with no comprehensive information resources providing access. Available federal research and technology transfer information resources are described in detail in the introductory sections of the Directory. The quality and amount of information available concerning federal inventions, licenses and CRADAs varies greatly because federal agencies/labs are often the only source for this information. No such problems exist for patents which can be readily retrieved and fully disclose inventions.
Some agencies/labs, as a matter of policy or simply because they lack reliable information themselves, only disclose the title and other minimal descriptive information for their patent applications, licenses and CRADAs (and some provide even less or no information). For example, agencies other than PHS/NIH do not generally provide as full a reporting of licensing activities, and USDA and some other agencies/labs generally do not disclose invention licenses. There is no discernible pattern for new federal invention (patent application) disclosures, with some agencies/labs disclosing some inventions as soon as weeks after their filing, while others and many of these same agencies/labs often may not disclose inventions even after equivalent foreign patent applications have been published (usually 18 months after filing or even the granting of the patent).
Poor information quality, availability and dissemination by federal agencies and laboratories is a major factor limiting federal technology transfer. Mr. R.G. Adler, former director of the Office of Technology Transfer, PHS/NIH, states in the August 1994 issue of the Journal of NIH Research, "A major barrier to entry to licensing and R&D collaborations is a dearth of public information about opportunities and the activities of competitors."7 Industry information specialists, researchers and managers cannot be expected to be aware of federal technology transfer opportunities without adequate information; and cannot begin to assess their value without basic competitive intelligence about federal technology transfer activities.
Few agencies/labs have the resources or systems in place to develop the technical or substantive information that industry needs to make decisions about further pursuing invention licensing or collaborative research opportunities. Most federal technology transfer offices are understaffed/overworked; lack even basic systems for tracking and reporting inventions, licenses and CRADAs; and information organization and dissemination have a low priority compared to the pressing needs to obtain patent protection for new inventions and complete license and CRADA negotiations.
Many agencies/labs are currently developing technology transfer management information systems and more rigorous outreach programs. These are beginning to improve the release of more substantive and useful information. However, these improvements will require years and do not include many federal agencies/labs. Given the lack of mandates and the low priority accorded to these efforts, the cultural and bureaucratic changes required, and the lack of coordination within and among agencies, federal agencies/labs are likely to remain poor sources for technical information about their technology transfer opportunities and activities. Some general weaknesses in the infrastructure of information resources supporting U.S. biotechnology efforts were discussed in an earlier paper.8
The current national-level infrastructure of information resources supporting federal technology transfer is deficient in many respects. Most major federal technology transfer information and dissemination efforts involve referral networks and information about facilities, capabilities, accomplishments and broad technologies with little about specific licensing and CRADA opportunities. Much of the available information is more suited for public relations than for communicating useful technical information to industry scientists, managers and information specialists. This is particularly true for the U.S. biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries--among the most information-intensive and savvy worldwide (and among the few U.S. industries still significantly contributing to the nation's R&D and economy). Most resources and outreach efforts are directed to industry in general, or are directed to assisting military and related industrial technology firms. There are no significant outreach efforts or information resources directed to the U.S. biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
One might expect the PHS/NIH to be the leader among federal labs in its information dissemination and outreach, much as it is in basic biomedical research and technology transfer. With its mandates to transfer technology to improve pubic health, one might expect there to be an information center, public document room or an invention registry database maintained by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) or some other basic technology transfer information resource(s) in place. However, this is not the case. PHS/NIH is the only major research-conducting agency that does not have a formal system for disclosure of inventions available for licensing, usually involving an agency's technical information center or library (e.g., NLM for PHS/NIH, USDA NAL, DOE OSTI, DOD DTIC, NASA CASI), and, similarly, PHS/NIH is the only major agency that does not maintain a public record, database or collection of its inventions. Insufficient resources and staff are available in general, and public information organization and disclosure responsibilities and outreach to industry are not accorded high priority. PHS/NIH efforts have even been cut back in recent years--their electronic bulletin board system has been disbanded, annual technology transfer conferences are no longer held, their latest catalog of inventions is several years old, and there are no industry-oriented information resources in development and no apparent plans to develop these.
In many federal agencies and labs, technology transfer is still viewed by many as a "contact sport" based on extensive networking and one-on-one meetings, rather than an information-driven or dependent activity. Information is primarily viewed as a means to get industry, particularly top executives (often not involved with research and development) aware of or interested in an agency/lab. This top-down, personal networking, marketing-intensive approach may be required and may work to get military-industrial and manufacturing firms involved in federal technology transfer; and personal contact is certainly required to negotiate technology transfers. However, a bottom-up, expert user-oriented, information-intensive approach concentrating on providing information about specific technologies (particularly, licensing and CRADA opportunities) to targeted industries seems more appropriate, particularly for the U.S. biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries and the biomedical research communities. What is needed is a series of clearinghouses covering all federal technology transfer opportunities and activities in specific industry areas or disciplines. The Biotechnology Information Institute has recently proposed such a Federal Bio-Technology Transfer Information Center (contact us for further information)
Lately, federal agencies and laboratories have become preoccupied with "metrics," or trying to measure the outcomes, success and efficacy of their technology transfer efforts. Considerable time and resources are being expended, perhaps wasted, trying to quantify and report technology transfers and industry-lab interactions. These efforts are primarily directed towards meeting internal bureaucratic needs and do little or nothing to promote or support technology transfer to industry. What is needed is access to (information about) the federal technologies, not numbers about laboratory interactions/transactions and self-congratulatory reports. Regretably, it may require a Congressional or executive mandate to get federal agencies/labs to develop information resources to support technology transfer. At least one bill in Congress has called for a centralized database of all federal technologies to be developed and maintained by the Department of Commerce. Again, this is designed to meet internal bureaucratic needs--such as centralized database would likely be too general to be of much use to U.S. high technology industries.
Return to the Biotechnology Information Institute Home Page