policy report on service r&d and innovation and r&d drivers and obstacles to innovation in the energy industry macroeconomic models for r&d and innovation policies
DrKateBesant,United States,Researcher
Published Date:07-07-2017
Your Website URL(Optional)
Comment
INTRODUCTION
We need to build a future in which our factories and workers are busy manufacturing
the high-tech products that will define the century… Doing that starts with continuing
investment in the basic science and engineering research and technology development
from which new products, new businesses, and even new industries are formed.
President Barack Obama, February 2012
Our Nation’s economic growth depends on our capacity to educate, innovate, and build. Long-term national
investments in basic and applied research and development (R&D) play an important role in the flow of
market-based innovations through a complex system that leverages the combined talents of scientists and
engineers, entrepreneurs, business managers and industrialists. These funds have led to everything from
small entrepreneurial initiatives to growth in high technology industries with the concomitant employment
of millions of workers. The large impact on employment results from innovation impacts not only in high
tech enterprises, but also other industries that benefit from increased capabilities and productivity. Mutually
reinforcing and complementary investments in R&D by both private and public sectors work in concert to
support the development, production, and commercialization of new products and processes.
Between 2008 and 2009, business R&D investment in the U.S. declined from 259 to 247 billion (Figure
1). That decline, coupled with increased hiring of R&D workers outside the U.S. by U.S.-based multinational
1
corporations (Figure 2), represent unfavorable indicators for business sector participation in U.S R&D. Since
business investment fosters innovation in high growth, high salaried, high technology industries, these shifts in
business R&D participation could have profound implications for the vitality of the U.S. national “innovation
2
ecosystem.”
Figure 1: U.S. Total R&D Expenditures, by Source of Funding, 1990 – 2009
Source: Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012.
Investment in R&D is not the only factor that affects the rate of and capacity for innovation. Public policies,
including monetary policy, tax policy, standards, procurement, regulatory policy, the availability of a skilled
technical workforce, and market access are also important in establishing an environment that fosters innovation.
Given this critical time in our Nation’s economic trajectory, careful consideration of our portfolio of innovation
policies—including R&D investment practices and public policy—is needed to foster national prosperity and
to increase national access to the global economy.
1 PBFigure 2: R&D Employment of U.S.-based Multinational Corporations (MNCs), by Location, Selected Years
Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.
In this policy companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 we discuss the innovation ecosystem and
the role of R&D in fostering innovation; explore the complementary roles of the private and public sectors; and
offer key findings for stakeholders to consider. This ecosystem is nurtured by not only R&D but also includes
education and the ability to build/implement technology. Although the connection is strong among R&D
investment, innovation, economic growth and job creation, it is also complex.
HOW R&D FOSTERS INNOVATION
America leads the world because of our system of private enterprise and a system that
encourages innovation. And it’s important that we keep it that way. See, I think the
proper role for government is … to create an environment in which the entrepreneurial
spirit flourishes…the Government can be a vital part of providing the research that
will allow for America to stay on the leading edge of technology…I think we ought to
encourage private sector companies to do the same, invest in research.
President George W. Bush, April 2004
Innovation has long been recognized as an important driver of economic growth. Empirical research and
surveys of business activities show that innovation leads to new and improved products and services, higher
productivity, and lower prices. As a result, economies that have consistently high levels of innovation also tend
to have high levels of growth (Atkinson and McKay 2007).
Total national investment in R&D includes investments by the Federal Government, states, colleges and
universities, and the business and non-profit sectors. In 2009, the U.S. proportion of R&D to gross domestic
product (GDP) was about 2.9%. This ratio has ranged from 1.4% in 1953 to a high of nearly 2.9% in 1964 and
3
has fluctuated in the range of 2.1% to 2.8% in the subsequent years. The business sector’s predominant role in
funding R&D began in the early 1980s, when its support began to exceed 50% of all U.S. R&D funding. The
business sector share of R&D steadily increased over the next 20 years, reaching a high of 69% in 2000. Since
2000, however, this decades-long trend of increasing private sector R&D was interrupted as the relative share of
private investment declined following the 2001-2002 recession, and again after the 2008-2009 recession. The
2009 business R&D share of the U.S. total was 62%.
2 PBThe Many InTerdependencIes of a n TIonal a ITIon avnno s ysTeM
Adapted from: OECD. Managing National Innovation Systems, 1999.
National investment in basic and applied research and development importantly contributes to the flow of
market-based innovations in ways that can be characterized as an “innovation ecosystem.”
Innovation is defined as the introduction of new or significantly improved products (goods or services),
processes, organizational methods, and marketing methods in internal business practices or in the open
marketplace (OECD/Eurostat 2005). R&D and other intangible investments such as investments in software,
higher education, and worker training are key inputs driving innovation. The term “ecosystem” emphasizes
complexity of the innovation process – one that is highly dynamic, has many interdependencies, and is always
evolving.
Business sector investment focuses largely on development, directing almost 80% of its R&D resources toward
development, compared to only 13.9% toward applied research and an estimated 5% towards basic research in
4
2009. Development funding generally supports incremental rather than transformative innovation.
Transformative innovation is more likely when basic research leads to quantum steps in expanding knowledge or
through synergies when progress in multiple areas of science or technology complement each other to provide
new composite capabilities. Here the Federal Government plays a critical role, accounting for 53% of all
U.S. basic research funding, compared to 22% for the business sector. These investments in basic research
create the building blocks for innovation by creating a transformative knowledge base upon which the private
sector can draw. The Federal Government also spurs innovation by making direct and indirect investments
throughout the innovation ecosystem and enacting policies that foster pre-competitive collaboration between
5
the various stakeholders, including businesses, universities, and other public and private entities, such as the
3 PBSmall Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, and the recently established National Science Foundation
(NSF) Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program. These collaborations are critical not only to increased innovation
but also to national economic growth and job creation.
In our increasingly interconnected and globally competitive world economy, unleashing
innovation is an essential component of a comprehensive economic strategy. As global
competition erodes the return to traditional practices, the key to developing more jobs and
more prosperity will be to create and deploy new products and processes.
Executive Office of the President, A Strategy for American Innovation, 2009.
6
Investment in R&D is not synonymous with innovation. Many firms introduce new products without R&D.
However, it is possible to demonstrate the relationship between the amount of investment in R&D and product
and process innovation for a broad cross-section of industries. Figure 3 compares an index of industry innovation
7 8
rates with industry R&D intensities for several key industries between 2003 and 2007. The index is created
by adding the number of product and process innovations for each industry in a National Science Foundation
9
(NSF) database and plotting this index against the R&D intensity for each industry. A positive correlation is
evident, underscoring the importance of R&D intensity as a major policy variable. The vertical dashed red
line indicates the minimum ratio of R&D to sales that typically qualifies an industry as R&D intensive. Ten
of the seventeen industries fall below this minimum. Over time, these industries may become increasingly less
competitive and provide fewer jobs and lower rates of pay (Tassey 2011).
Figure 3: Rate of Innovation vs. R&D Intensity
Percent of Companies in an Industry Reporting Product/Process Innovation
Adapted from: Gregory Tassey. Beyond the Business Cycle: The Need for a Technology-Based Growth Strategy, 2011.
The relationship between R&D and innovation is highly complex. Figure 4 illustrates a simplified linear
model of the interplay of R&D investment strategies using a series of iterative steps linked by learning and
feedback – steps that flow both “downstream” from research to design and development, and “upstream” from
the development and design to research. As shown, innovation does not necessarily require progression through
all steps in a successive, linear fashion, but rather there are multiple “entry points” to this process. Overlap and
redundancy increase the chances that an innovative idea will be funded to bring the idea from the invention
stage to release as a new product or process in the marketplace.
4 PBFigure 4: “Upstream” and “Downstream” Steps Linking Research to Design and Product Development
Adapted from: Branscomb, L.M. and P.E. Auerswald. Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for
Early-Stage Technology Development, 2002.
PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN THE INNOVATION
PROCESS
Businesses, operating in a competitive global market system, have numerous advantages in the creation and
implementation of useful new ideas. With the rise of a technology-based approach to the production of
new goods and services, the organization of high-tech business in the U.S and globally has changed. Today,
innovation within the U.S. involves a complex network of firms – large and small – often working collaboratively
and sustained in part by Federal, state, and local government efforts to encourage innovation and economic
development.
The results of the recent Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) sponsored by NSF suggest that
companies that perform or fund R&D have a far higher incidence of innovation than companies without R&D
10
activity. However, only a small number of U.S. businesses perform R&D (47,000 or about 3%). Businesses
vary across industry and size in “R&D intensity”– that is, the ratio of domestic R&D performed and paid for
by the company to domestic net sales. In 2008, the ratio across all businesses within the scope of BRDIS was
11
3.0% overall, 3.5% for manufacturers, and 2.2% for companies in nonmanufacturing industries.
U.s. B UsIness r&d and ITIon avnno s Uryve
To better understand and measure how R&D is conducted in today’s innovation- and
global-based economy (NRC 2005), NSF and the U.S. Census Bureau launched a new
Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS). BRDIS expands on R&D data collected
by its predecessor, the Survey of Industrial Research and Development, to cover (among
other areas) global R&D funding or expenses by U.S.-located businesses, and introduces
preliminary innovation and intellectual property questions.
5 PBBusiness views about investing and performing basic research involve considerations about the appropriability
of successful S&T results, commercialization risks, and uncertain longer-term investment returns. As noted
above, businesses allocated the overwhelming majority of their R&D funding to applied research (13.9%) and
12
development (79.4%) in 2009. However, involvement in basic research can help boost human capital generally,
attract and retain expert talent, absorb external knowledge, and strengthen innovation capacity. Businesses that
invest most heavily in basic research are those whose new products are most directly dependent upon ongoing
13
scientific and technological advances, such as pharmaceuticals and the scientific R&D service sectors. Leading
companies in highly competitive industries typically see R&D as essential for retaining and sustaining their
14
leadership. The need for R&D may not be seen as critical to companies in less competitive industries.
There are, of course, many reasons why a firm might underinvest in R&D. For example, there may be a concern
over a lengthy interval between R&D investment and the appearance of a commercial product in the market;
the outcomes of a firm’s previous R&D investments might not have proven to be technically sufficient; or the
capital requirements for R&D investment are excessive (Link and Scott 2011). As central research budgets
are reduced, many firms use their researchers to assimilate generic technologies from external sources, that is,
they create inward spillovers from other company, government, or university sources, as opposed to conducting
breakthrough research (Tassey 2005). Even in highly competitive industries, some companies may focus their
efforts on reducing costs or targeting niche markets while taking advantage of the innovations that emerge from
the R&D of others.
The r ole of p rIav Te e q UITy and r ela Ted f UndIng
Private equity (PE) refers to the holding of stock in private companies that are not quoted on a stock exchange
(PrivCo 2011). PE investment generally refers to a leveraged buyout or other substantial investment typically
exceeding 10 million made by private equity firms (Lerner, Sorenson and Stromberg 2008; Pitchbook 2011).
PE growth is defined as “minority equity investments in later-stage to mature companies made by private equity
funds” and does not include venture capital funding (Pitchbook 2011). PE investment is likely to occur after
a business has already demonstrated success in the market, and primarily allows the firm to raise capital for
expansion (PrivCo 2011). As Figure 5 indicates, PE growth was about 21% of total PE investment in 2000,
but dropped to 4% in 2005, probably due to the “dot-com” bust.
Angel and venture capital are special types of equity finance, typically for young, high-risk and often high-
technology firms.
Figure 5: Private Equity Investment in Select S&T Industries, 2000 - 2010
Source: Data from PitchBook, Seattle WA; tabulations by IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute, December
2011. Note: Industries include: Software; Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology; Semiconductors & Networking; and
Computer Hardware.
6 PBAngel Investment
Angel investors, or business angels, are wealthy individuals with experience in creating new companies
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1996; Branscomb and Auerswald 2002;
PrivCo 2011). Angel investment is viewed as the most likely revenue source for early-stage start-ups (PrivCo
2011), and the majority of angel groups prefer to invest in high-tech industries such as medical devices, software,
15
and biotechnology. In the entire U.S. economy, between 24% to 28% of early stage technology development
is funded by angel investors (Branscomb and Auerswald 2002).
Most important, however, may be the relationship between angel investment and the growth of innovative
companies. A recent study showed that firms that received angel funding are somewhat more likely to survive
for at least 4 years, and that angel funding is positively related to the likelihood of subsequent external investment
(Kerr, Lerner and Schoar 2010). Because angels like to be heavily involved in the company, the majority of
angels have been found to be within 50 – 100 miles of their investment (OECD 1996).
Venture Capital Investment
Venture capital is defined as equity or equity-linked investments in young, privately held companies. The
investor is a financial intermediary who typically takes an active role in advising the firm (Kortum and Lerner
2000). Venture capital investment occurs at a later stage than angel investment, and venture capitalists seek
to gain returns on their investment in the form of an initial public offering (i.e., sale of stock) or company
sale (PrivCo 2011). Figure 6 shows the amount of venture capital invested in S&T industries, as well as the
ratio of first round venture capital investment to total investment. A higher ratio generally implies that, as a
whole, firms are making riskier investments. Investment in these S&T industries decreased during 1988-1991,
2000-2003, and 2007-2009, consistent with periods of U.S. recession. First round investment peaked in 1995
accounting for almost half of venture capital investment and began to fall throughout the early 2000’s recession
to levels comparable with those in the 1980’s.
v enTUre c IT ap al InvesTMenT and The e Mergence of s IlIcon v yalle
Entrepreneurial ecosystems cannot be jump-started solely by the availability of researchers, capital, or modern
infrastructure. Through the 1960s and 1970s, policymakers typically recognized large corporations as the
dominant model for organization, deemphasizing the role of small firms and entrepreneurs – cementing
an east coast/west coast cultural dichotomy in manufacturing and other technology start-ups. From the
1960s, however, Silicon Valley cultivated its own organic environment in which young engineers (including
U.S. educated foreign nationals) shared life experiences and an outside industry perspective deviated from
what scholars had previously attributed to an “east-coast” model focused on mass-production and vertically
integrated corporations. Finding its roots in the economic volatility through the 1970s and 1980s, the
Silicon Valley upstarts proved to be more successful adapting to evolving markets and technological advances.
Th e supporting infrastructure of the region sprang from initial venture capital (VC) investments in the first
wave of successful entrepreneurs who in turn invested in start-ups of friends and colleagues. The fluidity of
employees between firms facilitated the recycling of both VC/angel capital investments and their accumulated
investor experiences, which shifted industry development toward an open, collaborative environment.
Coupled with a deepening division of labor, intense regional competition and the ability to learn quickly
from start-up failure, Silicon Valley created a new technological business paradigm driven by start-ups and
their corresponding networks.
Saxenian 2006, Vallas 2011, and Keller 2011.
7 PBFigure 6: Venture Capital Investment in Select S&T Industries, 2000 - 2010
Source: NVCA 2011 Yearbook; tabulations by IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute, December 2011. Industries
include: Software; Biotechnology; Semiconductors; Networking and Equipment; and Computers and Peripherals.
PUBLIC SECTOR AND THE INNOVATION PROCESS
By leveraging resources across the Federal Government and building on regional strengths,
we’ll improve business opportunities, enhance our Nation’s global economic competitiveness
and create sustainable, 21st century jobs.
Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, 2010
Although pathways of innovation cannot be predicted, government policies have evolved that support diffusion
of knowledge and deployment of new technologies as well as research and discovery. These strategies include
direct and indirect investments in basic and applied R&D and human capital development, and enacting policies
that foster innovation by facilitating government/academic/non-profit and industry collaborations, promoting
technology transfer, and creating favorable tax, regulatory, and visa policies (Alic, Mowery and Rubin, 2003).
f ederal s UpporT for ITIon avnno
R&D Investments
The U.S. Government supports the Nation’s R&D system through various policy tools. The most direct is
Federal funding of R&D. Federal support for U.S. R&D spans a range of broad objectives. In 2009, defense
was the largest of the R&D budget functions, accounting for 55% of the total. Defense-related funding
emphasizes advanced technology and major weapon systems development (Figure 7), while funding by non-
defense agencies largely supports basic and applied research.
8 PBThough in 2009 the private sector funded 62% and performed 71% of all U.S. R&D, the Federal Government
remains by far the prime source of funding for basic research. In 2009, the Federal Government accounted for
about 53% of all funding for U.S. basic research, 42% of applied research, and 21% of development support.
Federal funds to the academic sector provided 31.6 billion (nearly 58%) of the 54.9 billion spent on academic
R&D in 2009. Federal funds accounted for 7.1 billion, about 40%, of the 17.5 billion spent on R&D by
16
other nonprofit organizations.
Figure 7: Federal Obligations for R&D by Agency and Character of Work, FY 2009
Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.
Academic R&D supported by Federal investments is linked to innovation. For example, the number of
citations to peer-reviewed literature on the cover pages of issued U.S. patents point to the impact of academic
17
R&D on U.S. innovation. Values for this indicator increased sharply in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s
(Narin, Hamilton and Olivastro 1997), due in part to developments in U.S. patent policy, industry growth
18
and maturation, and legal interpretations, as well as increased patenting activity by academic institutions.
Citations to articles authored in the industry, nonprofit, and government sectors have lost share of patent cover
page citations, largely due to an increase in articles from academia, which grew from 58% to 64% of the total
19
citations to U.S. articles between 1998 and 2010. Of the five broad fields of science and engineering (S&E)
that accounted for virtually all patent citations to U.S. academic articles, increased shares of academic citations
were notable in engineering (from 46% to 63%) and physics (from 43% to 66%).
Strategies for Innovation
The success of Federal innovation policies in the post-World War II period is largely due to support for multiple
alternatives and potentially diverging pathways. This is especially evident in computing and electronics, where
R&D funding flowed through multiple and often-competing agencies, enabling entrepreneurs in academia and
industry to pursue a broad range of competing technologies.
Policies other than direct R&D investment also impacted innovation in commercial aircraft and electronics.
Both the regulation of commercial air transport and the deregulation of telecommunications encouraged private-
sector investments in new technology. Likewise, military procurement fostered innovation in electronics and
aerospace. Individual firms with complementary expertise, (e.g., Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology
Consortium (SEMATECH)), may not have banded together without a permissive antitrust policy, while strict
antitrust enforcement under quite different circumstances encouraged technology-based startup firms to enter
other sectors (Alic, Mowery, and Rubin 2003; Block 2011).
9 PBg vernMenT o -IndUsTry c TIon eraoop
Th e Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology Consortium (SEMATECH) is a well-known and robust
example of an American government-industry cooperation model. This research collaboration was partially
funded by the Government to help U.S. semiconductor firms develop improved manufacturing process
technology in order to better compete internationally.
As the consortium grew, the research agenda changed from a “horizontal” to a “vertical” collaboration between
member companies and shifted its research agenda to strengthening the semiconductor manufacturing
equipment industry.
SEMATECH differed from other contemporary international consortia in Japan and Europe in both scope
and composition. In Europe, ESPRIT and Alvey, for example, were both decentralized in terms of their
research agendas and their organizational infrastructure. Other consortia models have varied in terms of the
number of participants and the nature of relationships among stakeholders.
Over time, SEMATECH evolved to satisfy members’ competitive concerns. This change enabled flexibility,
which resulted in positive outcomes for member firms and improved technological outputs. SEMATECH
is often touted as a successful model of government support for early-stage technological development.
However, SEMATECH has been criticized for falling short of its larger goals by focusing too narrowly on
near-term results. Nevertheless, SEMATECH does illustrate a unique model of mission-specific government
programs and offers important lessons in effective consortium management and research flexibility.
Dertouzos et al. 1989; Grindley et al. 1994; Block 2011; and Negoita 2011.
Technology Transfer Strategies
Federal technology transfer refers to the various processes through which inventions and other intellectual assets
arising from Federal laboratory R&D are conveyed to outside parties for further development and commercial
applications. In the late 1970s, concerns emerged over the availability of federally funded academic research
for the benefit of the national economy. Since the 1980s, several U.S. policies encouraged cross-sector R&D
collaboration and technology transfer, including policies reflected in the Bayh-Dole and the Stevenson-Wydler
20
Acts of 1980. These include formal mechanisms for transferring knowledge arising from federally funded and
performed R&D, the transition of early-stage technologies into the marketplace, and promoting R&D and
21
Six agencies continue to account for most of the annual
innovation by small or minority-owned businesses.
total of Federal technology transfer activities: Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services
(HHS), Department of Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department
of Agriculture (USDA), and Department of Commerce (DOC). Most agencies engage in all of the transfer
activity types to some degree, but there are differences in the emphases. Some agencies are more intensive in
promoting patenting and licensing activities, including HHS, DOE, and NASA; some place greater emphasis
22
on transfer through collaborative R&D relationships, such as USDA and DOC.
R&D/R&E Tax Credits
Governments may stimulate business R&D through tax incentives – allowances, exemptions, deductions, or tax
23
credits – each of which can be designed with differing criteria for eligibility, allowable expenses, and baselines.
In the U.S., Federal tax incentives for qualified business R&D expenditures include a deduction under Internal
Revenue Code section 174 (C.F.R. Title 26) and a research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit under section
24
41. The R&E tax credit provides an incentive to firms to undertake new research that involves technical risks
(not business risk) by giving them a credit for expenses related to those new activities against the taxes they owe.
Figure 8 displays the historical values of the credit (left scale) as well as actual R&D expenditures of firms (right
scale). The figure illustrates that after a peak in 2000 at 7.1 billion, or 8.0 billion in 2005 dollars, the amount
10 PBof R&E tax credits claimed declined during the early to mid-2000s. R&E tax credit claims fell to an estimated
5.5 billion in 2003 (5.8 billion in constant 2005 dollars) and remained at that level in 2004. By 2007 claims
had recovered to the 2000 level, at 8.3 billion (7.8 billion in 2005 dollars) and remained at about that level
for 2008.
Figure 8: Historical Values of Industry R&D
Spending and Tax Claims, 1998 - 2008
10 250.0
9
8 200.0
7
6 150.0
5
4 100.0
3
2 50.0
1
0 0.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Nonmanufacturing
Manufacturing
Years
Industry R&D Expenditures
Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, Appendix Tables, Chapter 4.
s Ta Te s Uppor T for Iavnno TIon
State governments are eager to promote commercial activities, both to increase employment and to grow their
25
state economies. Historically, the primary modes of investment have been public financing, tax relief, and
other forms of subsidies to attract new plants and keep existing ones from moving out of state. Successful,
world‐class companies are located in virtually every state in the U.S.: 39 states are home to at least one Fortune
500 company (U.S. Department of Commerce 2012).
26
Clusters of Innovation
One strategy that drives state and regional economic development is the formation of innovation clusters (Porter
2001). State-based and regional innovation clusters are geographic concentrations of firms and industries that
do business with each other and have common needs for talent, technology, and infrastructure. Such clusters
draw on the expertise of local universities and related institutions, which serve as centers of innovation and
drivers of regional growth, as illustrated in Figure 9. Innovation clusters build on the unique strengths of
27
a region rather than trying to copy other regions. Examples include the life-sciences clusters found in the
Raleigh-Durham and in the Pittsburgh/Akron/Cleveland regions, and the information technology/aerospace
cluster found in Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia region.
11 PB
Billions (Constant 2005 Dollars)
Billions (Constant 2005 Dollars)Figure 9: Conceptualization of an Innovation Cluster
Source: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Federal-State R&D Cooperation: Improving the
Likelihood of Success, 2004. Note: Circles in green represent organizations participating in an innovation cluster.
R&D Expenditures
Total state R&D expenditures are small in relation to national government expenditures. For example, total
“other government” (of which state government is a subset) expenditures for “university and college” R&D
performers were 3.7 billion in 2009, compared to Federal expenditures of 31.6 billion for such academic
28
R&D performers in the same year. In FY 2009, the Federal Government provided 58% of the 54.4 billion
29
of academic spending on R&D. Federal obligations for research funding declined 2.3% from 2004 levels,
despite a short-term increase through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and are projected to
30
decline 2.5% from 2009 to 2010. States are thus increasingly motivated to experiment with a variety of plans
for nurturing science-based innovations, with the expectation of leveraging these Federal funds (Branscomb
and Auerswald 2002). The presence of a State Science Advisor State Office of Science and Technology, State
Academy of Science, or State Science and Technology Council often fosters the development of initiatives
involving science and technology for local and regional economic development (National Academies, 2008).
As the Table below indicates, R&D is concentrated in only a few states. In 2008, the 10 states with the largest
R&D expenditure levels accounted for about 62% of U.S. state-based R&D expenditures: California, New
Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. California
alone accounted for 22% of the U.S. total, exceeding each of the next three highest states by about a factor of
31
four.
f UndIng and h Igher e U d ca TIon
American research universities have been a model of innovation throughout the world, addressing complex
economic, social, scientific, and technological problems (Cole 2010). Universities contribute to the quality
of the economic infrastructure in a state or region by developing knowledge-linking activities that enhance
the commercialization of new technologies, support organizational and community change, and assure the
production of competent workers and professionals (Walshok 1997). Between 2002 and 2010, state funding
32
for the Nation’s top 101 public research universities decreased by 10% after adjusting for inflation. Coupled
with the negative impacts of national economic conditions on education and research at both public and
private universities (Ehrenberg 2007), trends in state and national funding for research universities are a source
12 PBof concern for the innovation ecosystem. Although state funding for most major public research universities
decreased, enrollment and university costs increased. As a result, state funding per student declined significantly,
and the cost of education that must be covered by other funding sources increased substantially.
Table: Top U.S. States in R&D Performance, By Sector and Intensity, 2008
Sources: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Patterns of R&D
Resources (annual series); State GDP data are from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. See appendix tables 4-11 and
4-12. Notes: Small differences in parameters for state rankings may not be significant. Rankings do not account for the
margin of error of the estimates from sample surveys.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND KNOWLEDGE
DIFFUSION
A vibrant community of scientists, technologists and entrepreneurs is needed to assure the flow of knowledge
and information throughout the innovation ecosystem. Government financial support for education and
training enhances the formation and growth of that workforce infrastructure.
33
The S&E workforce has shown sustained growth for nearly 60 years. The number of workers in S&E
occupations grew from about 182,000 in 1950 to 5.4 million in 2009. This represents an average annual
growth rate of 5.9%, much greater than the 1.2% growth rate for the total workforce older than age 18 during
this period. Workforce growth in S&E occupations from 2000 to 2009 was slower than in the two preceding
decades. Nonetheless, at 1.4% annually, it exceeded the rate (0.2%) for the general workforce.
Industries vary in the proportion of S&E workers in their total workforce. Recent BRDIS survey data show that
companies located in the U.S. that performed or funded R&D domestically or overseas employed an estimated
34
27.1 million workers worldwide in 2009. The domestic employment of these companies totaled 17.8 million
workers, including 1.4 million domestic R&D employees. Domestic R&D employment accounted for 8% of
35
companies’ total domestic employment.
f ederal ITM nves T en In s& e W ceorkfor d opM vele enT
The Federal Government plays a substantial role in preparing the S&E workforce. It was the primary source
36
of financial support for 18% of full-time S&E graduate students in 2009. Most Federal financial support for
graduate education is in the form of research assistantships (RAs) funded through grants to universities. RAs are
the primary mechanism of support for 72% of federally supported full-time S&E graduate students. Fellowships
and traineeships support 21% of full-time S&E graduate students. Undergraduate students, graduate students,
13 PBand postdoctoral fellows who do not directly receive Federal support may still reap the educational and training
benefits of performing research in a laboratory receiving Federal funds or learning from faculty researchers at
the cutting edge of their fields.
s Tanford ogyechnol enTUre T ograM r v p
In July 2011, the National Science Foundation awarded a five-year, 10 million grant to the Stanford
Technology Ventures Program (STVP) to launch a national center based at Stanford University for teaching
innovation and entrepreneurship in engineering. The new national center addresses the critical need for
innovative and entrepreneurial engineers across the United States by teaching students to reduce barriers to
innovation, understand customers and develop scalable business models.
The goal of STVP is to catalyze a wave of change in undergraduate engineering education in the U.S. The new
initiatives made possible through the center are intended to inspire students across the country to envision
possibilities and create viable and innovative products, services and processes for lasting positive economic
and societal impact.
NSF Press Release 11-150
“Engineering Innovation Center Brings Together Tools to Launch Future Entrepreneurs,” 2011.
f ederal v Isa p olIcy for The s&e W ceorkfor
Foreign born workers constitute a considerable proportion of the labor force in S&E occupations, and both
the number and share of foreign born workers have been increasing. For example, the foreign born share of
the total academic employment of U.S. S&E doctorate holders increased from 12% in 1973 to nearly 25% in
2008, and reached particularly high proportions in engineering (46%) and computer sciences (51%). However,
37
immigration of scientists and engineers to the U.S. has declined during the recent economic downturn.
One indicator of new foreign born S&E workers joining the U.S. workforce is the number of temporary
work visas issued by the U.S. Government in visa classes for high-skilled workers. The largest classes of these
temporary visas declined during the recent economic downturn, after several years of growth. Data for 2010,
however, suggest that this period of decline may be short lived. The previous period of decline in the use of
these visas occurred during the milder recession in the earlier part of the 2000s, and these declines were unevenly
experienced across visa categories (Figure 10).
A second indicator is the rate at which foreign born recipients of U.S. doctoral degrees remain in the U.S. after
earning their degree (i.e., “stay-rates”). At the time of doctorate receipt, three-quarters of foreign recipients of
U.S. S&E doctorates, including those on both temporary and permanent visas, plan to stay in the U.S., and
38
about half have either accepted an offer of a postdoctoral position or are continuing employment in the U.S.
14 PBFigure 10: Temporary Work Visas by Category, 1989 - 2010
Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
National investment in R&D remains strong in the U.S. However, the recent downturn in research support by
the private sector, coupled with government budget constraints at all levels (which may allow for little growth
in public sector R&D budgets) are reasons for concern. Although R&D is not synonymous with innovation,
companies that perform or fund R&D have a far higher incidence of innovation than companies without
R&D activity and employ a large number of relatively well-paid workers – both in science and engineering and
other occupations. This analysis has identified other potential sources of weakness in our complex innovation
ecosystem. Venture capital funding remains strong but volatile, having peaked in 2000 with some evidence of
growth in late-stage but not in early-stage financing. State strategies to stimulate economic development have
proven successful in many states. However, current fiscal conditions for most states bring into question the
ability of states to continue activities that foster innovation at the same levels as in the past.
The Federal portfolio of innovation policies is broad, ranging from direct investment in basic and applied R&D
and human capital development to tax, regulatory, and visa policies that foster innovation. The decline in private
sector funding during the most recent economic downturn, coupled with the observed increase in hiring of
R&D workers in other countries by U.S. based multinational corporations, underscores the need for continued
and enhanced active involvement by government in nurturing S&T-based innovation in the private sector – and
thereby also increasing employment in relatively well paid high technology industries in this country.
15 PBThe National Science Board found the following:
1. Businesses and industries that perform R&D exhibit a greater likelihood of innovation. Though very few
businesses conduct R&D (3%), the private sector accounts for the majority of R&D performed in the
U.S. (71% in 2009).
2. Basic and applied R&D that the private sector is unlikely to support sufficiently requires sustained, direct
funding by the Federal Government to create a knowledge base of potentially transformative ideas that are
critical building blocks of innovation.
3. Investments in R&D by the private sector may decrease during times of economic distress. The Federal
Government has increased its own R&D investments during the last two economic downturns, which –
though not directed for that purpose – countervailed industry declines in the early and late 2000s.
4. Public funding is essential to sustaining the excellence of public research institutions that play a significant
role in the U.S. innovation system. However, state funding for public research universities decreased
between 2001 and 2009 while enrollment and university costs increased. As a result, funding per student
declined significantly and the cost of education that must be covered by other funding sources has
increased substantially.
5. Federally funded academic R&D is instrumental in creating and sustaining a world-class higher education
system that prepares the next generation of American scientists and engineers and also attracts and trains
high ability international students, researchers, and faculty.
6. Appropriate visa policies enable the attraction and retention of the best and brightest foreign born
students, faculty, researchers and S&E workers.
R&D-based innovation has long been a pillar of the U.S. economy, contributing importantly to the Nation’s
wealth, employment, security, and general quality of life. Federal policies have been and will continue to
be critical to a strong innovation ecosystem. With growing international competition in high technology
industries, the need for continued and enhanced public efforts to strengthen national R&D-based innovation
is clear.
16 PBENDNOTES
1
R&D employment by MNCs outside the U.S. was remarkable with regard to the rapidity of the shift in hiring between
2004 and 2009, increasing from 16% to 27% in the share of their R&D workforce that is foreign, nearly doubling that
workforce (an increase of 85%).
2
Karin E. Pavese, Vice President of Innovation and Sustainability, New York Academy of Sciences, has described an
innovation ecosystem as one in which “the barriers between organizations and individuals are broken down, where
collaboration happens across disciplines and sectors, and where a diverse, democratized culture supports risk taking,
tolerates failure, and celebrates success.” Burke, 2011.
3
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4.
4
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4.
5
Annex 1, Select NSF Programs to Foster Innovation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/.
6
OECD, 2010. Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. OECD, Paris based on OECD Innovation microdata project.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/24/45392693.pdf.
7
R&D intensity is the amount of R&D spending by a firm or industry divided by net sales. For the economy as a whole,
it is national R&D spending divided by GDP. It indicates the amount of an economy’s output of goods and services that
are being invested in developing technologies as a means of competing in the future. Larger economies have to spend more
on R&D than do smaller economies to maintain an aggregate competitive position in global markets.
8
R&D intensive industries include pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, medical equipment, computers and communications.
Non-R&D intensive industries include: basic chemicals, machinery, electrical equipment, plastics & rubber, and fabricated
metals, Tassey 2011.
9
Index = sum of percent of companies in an industry reporting product innovations and percent reporting process
innovations. Sources: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, Appendix Table 4-14, and Boroush, 2010.
10
See NSF, Boroush, 2010.
11
See NSB, SEI2012, appendix table 4-16.
12
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4, calculations from table 4-3.
13
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 6.
14
See NSF, Boroush, 2010.
15
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 6.
16
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4, table 4-3.
17
Though the measurement of innovation is an emerging field, activities related to the commercialization of inventions
and new technologies are regarded as important components of innovation.
18
See NSB, SEI2008, 5-49 to 5-54.
19
Overall, the number of scientific articles authored by academics grew 0.9% between 1998-2010, as did those by authors
in private nonprofit settings (1.1%). The number of articles by authors working in other sectors declined during the same
time: Federal Government (-1.0%), FFRDCs (-0.3%), industry (-1.4%), and State/local government (-0.5%). See NSB,
SEI2012, chapter 5.
20
The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act) (Public Law 96-517) permitted
small businesses, universities, and nonprofits to obtain titles to inventions developed with Federal funds and also permitted
Government-owned and Government-operated laboratories to grant exclusive patent rights to commercial organizations.
The Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Stevenson-Wydler Act) (Public Law 96-480) established technology transfer
as a Federal Government mission by directing Federal labs to facilitate the transfer of federally-owned and originated
technology to nonfederal parties.
21
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4.
22
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4.
23
OECD, 2003. R&D tax incentives: rationale, design, evaluation. OECD Innovation Policy Platform. http://www.oecd.
org/dataoecd/32/37/48141363.pdf.
24
Business research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit claims were about 8.3 billion both in 2007 and in 2008.
Five industries accounted for 75% of R&E credit claims in 2008: computer and electronic products; chemicals, including
pharmaceuticals and medicines; transportation equipment, including motor vehicles and aerospace; information, including
software; and professional, scientific, and technical services, including computer and R&D services. See: NSB, SEI2012,
chapter 4.
25
Annex 2, Select State Strategies to Foster Innovation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/.
26
Innovation clusters are sector and spatial concentrations of business and non-business enterprises that allow the exchange
of ideas and information across product or service networks. The Figure illustrates a “State-anchored” cluster dominated by
public or non-profit entities such as universities, R&D labs, defense installations or Government offices that “play the role
of a key anchor tenant in a district,” e.g., the supply-web network: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, SEMATECH-Austin,
Los Alamos Lab.
17 PB27
See U.S. Economic Development Administration, Regional Innovation Clusters, 2011.
28
See NSB, SEI2012, appendix table 4-7.
29
State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2010.
30
See Yamaner, NSF, 2011.
31
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4.
32
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 2.
33
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 3.
34
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 3.
35
See NSB, SEI2012, table 3-13.
36
See NSB, SEI2012, appendix table 2-6.
37
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 3.
38
See NSB, SEI2012, chapter 4.
REFERENCES
Alic, John A., David C. Mowery, and Edward S. Rubin. 2003. “US Technology and Innovation Policies: Lessons for
Climate Change.” Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Engineering and Public Policy. Technical Paper 95.
Available at: http://repository.cmu.edu/epp/95.
Atkinson, Robert D. and Andrew S. McKay. 2007. Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the
Information Technology Revolution. Washington DC: The ITI Foundation. Available at:
http://www.itif.org/files/digital_prosperity.pdf.
Block, Fred L. 2011. “Innovation and the Invisible Hand of Government.” In Fred L. Block and Matthew R. Keller
(eds.) State of Innovation: the U.S. Government’s Role in Technology Development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers,
pp.1-26.
Block, Fred L. and Matthew R. Keller. 2011. State of Innovation: the U.S. Government’s Role in Technology
Development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Boroush, Mark. 2010. “NSF Releases New Statistics on Business Innovation.” NSF InfoBrief, October. http://www.nsf.
gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11300/nsf11300.pdf.
Branscomb, L.M. and P.E. Auerswald. 2002. “Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for Early Stage
Technology Development.” US Department of Commerce. Washington, DC.
Burke, Adrienne J. 2011 “How to Build an Innovation Ecosystem.” New York Academy of Sciences Magazine. Available
at: http://www.nyas.org/publications/Detail.aspx?cid=da1b8e1d-ed2d-4da4-826d-00c987f63c82.
Cole, Jonathan R. 2010. The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It
Must Be Protected. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Davis, S., Lerner, J., Haltiwanger, J., Miranda, J. and Jarmin, R. 2008. “Private equity and employment.” In: Lerner, J.
and Gurung, A. (eds.) The Global Impact of Private Equity Report 2008, Globalization of Alternative Investments , 43–64.
Working Papers Volume 1, World Economic Forum.
Dertouzos, Michael L., Richard K. Lester, and Robert M. Solow. 1989. Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 2007. “The economics of tuition and fees in American higher education.” Cornell Higher
Education Research Institute. Available at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=workingpapers.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 2010. “Financing and restructuring doctoral education in the future.” Cornell Higher Education
Research Institute. Available at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=workingpapers.
18 PBExecutive Office of the President. 2009. A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and
Quality Jobs. September. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/
SEPT_20_Innovation_Whitepaper_FINAL,pdf.
Executive Office of the President. 2011. Economic Report of the President. February. Available at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2011/pdf/ERP-2011.pdf.
Grindley, Peter, David C. Mowery and Brian Silverman. 1994. “SEMATECH and Collaborative Research: Lessons in
the Design of High-Technology Consortia.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13.4: 723-758.
Jeng, L. and P. Wells. 2000. “The Determinants of Venture Funding: Evidence across Countries.” Journal of Corporate
Finance 6(1): 241-89.
Keller, Matthew R. 2011. “The CIA’s Pioneering Role in Public Venture Capital Initiatives.” In Fred L. Block and
Matthew R. Keller (eds.) State of Innovation: the U.S. Government’s Role in Technology Development. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Publishers, 109-132.
Kerr, W.R.; Lerner, J. and Schoar, A. 2010. “The Consequences of Entrepreneurial Finance: A Regression Discontinuity
Analysis.” Working Paper No. 10-086. Harvard Business School.
Kortum, S. and J. Lerner. 2000. “Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation.” RAND Journal of
Economics 31(1): 674–92.
Lerner, J., M. Sorenson and P. Stromberg. 2008. “Private Equity and Long-Run Investment: The Case of Innovation.”
Working Paper No. 14623. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Link, Albert N. and John T. Scott. 2011. Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D. New
York NY: Oxford University Press.
Narin, F., K.S. Hamilton and D. Olivastro. 1997. “The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public
science.” Research Policy 26(3): 317-330.
National Academies. 2008. State Science and Technology Policy Advice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges: Summary of a
National Convocation. Steve Olson, Rapporteur, J. Labove, Editor. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2011. Report of a Workshop on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Workforce Needs for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base. Washington DC: National
Academies Press.
National Science Board. 2008. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. 2010. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012. Arlington VA: National Science
Foundation.
National Science Foundation. 2011. Press Release 11-150, Engineering Innovation Center Brings Together Tools to Launch
Future Entrepreneurs.
National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). 2011. NVCA Yearbook 2011. Arlington VA: NVCA.
Negoita, Marian. 2011. “To Hide or Not to Hide? The Advanced Technology Program and the Future of U.S. Civilian
Technology Policy.” In Fred L. Block and Matthew R. Keller (eds.) State of Innovation: the U.S. Government’s Role in
Technology Development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 77-95.
OECD. 1996. Venture Capital and Innovation. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
19 PB
Advise:Why You Wasting Money in Costly SEO Tools, Use World's Best Free SEO Tool Ubersuggest.
