SSTI Digest

A popular strategy in the TBED community is the attempt to both recruit and develop academic entrepreneurs that may have a substantial effect on the growth of a region's economy. Successful efforts to attract researchers, such as the Georgia Research Alliance and Kentucky's Bucks for Brains programs, are being replicated across the country. However, if one of the hoped-for payoffs is the successful creation of innovative companies, what types of researchers are best suited for this role? A recent discussion paper by Dirk Czarnitzki and Andrew Toole released via the Centre for European Economic Research contributes to the growing collection of studies that measure the impact of the background of entrepreneurial researchers on their firms' performance. In preparing their paper, the authors explored the effect of the human capital of academic entrepreneurs who started companies through the government's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). They measured this human capital by the extent academic entrepreneurs were oriented toward scientific endeavors (based on past NIH grants) or commercial…

Cities play a pivotal role in producing the technologies that sustain high-tech industries, hosting a majority of the businesses and individuals that comprise those industries. Modern urban theory, including the work of Edward Glaeser and Richard Florida, has popularized the idea of cities as key nodes in which new knowledge is created, spread and adopted by innovative businesses and entrepreneurs. Successful high-tech cities have a self-sustaining quality, according to Florida, in which a city's reputation for innovation attracts more skilled and creative workers and entrepreneurs, which in turn spurs further economic growth.   This process is symptomatic of a greater trend, according to a recent article by Luís Bettencourt, José Lobo, Dirk Helbing, Christian Kühnert and Geoffrey West. The authors argue that urban life and metropolitan economies develop according to a predictable pattern, one that closely resembles patterns observed in other types of social organization and in biological organisms. Cities with higher populations tend to experience faster rates of innovation and greater productivity in their urban economy.  …

Industrial R&D expenditures in the U.S. totaled $208 billion in 2004 — an increase of 2.1 percent ($4.3 billion) from 2003, according to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Survey of Industrial Research and Development. From 2000 to 2004, industrial R&D expenditures increased by 3.14 percent, the NSF data show. North Dakota experienced the largest increase over the five-year period, more than tripling its 2000 total with $379 million in industrial R&D expenditures in 2004. Oregon (99.4 percent), New Hampshire (84.2 percent), Connecticut (73.68 percent) and Maryland (72.87 percent) followed North Dakota, in terms of percent change. Connecticut showed the largest dollar increase ($3.05 billion) over the five-year period. Six other states also saw an increase in industrial R&D spending of more than $1 billion from 2000-2004: Maryland ($1.61B), Oregon ($1.52B), Virginia ($1.32B), Indiana ($1.32B), Minnesota ($1.23B) and California ($1.12B).   SSTI has prepared a state-by-state table that shows the above NSF data for 2000-2004 and ranks the states accordingly. The table is available…

SSTI’s Annual Conference provides the opportunity to place your organization at the center of the tech-based economic development community, reinforce your brand, and build relationships in 2007 and beyond. Each year, SSTI works to improve upon our annual conference, and one of the improvements in this year's conference is more personalized sponsorship opportunities — an array of strategic marketing opportunities to ensure greater exposure and added value to your partnership. No other event brings together the nation’s top players in the TBED community. SSTI Conference Partners have the chance to showcase their organization with the decisionmakers responsible for crafting and implementing local and state-level policies and programs that directly contribute to the nation's competitiveness. Take advantage of the conference’s powerful reputation to help your organization: Connect with the people who set the agenda for their organizations and control budgets. Access industry movers and shakers. Gain exposure to key decisionmakers. This is the nation’s premier TBED event, gathering more than 350 of the most…

With the title America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, it isn’t surprising that S. 761 had 69 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate. The bill’s passage last night by an 88-8 vote by the full chamber sends an even stronger signal that the vast majority of the Senate has heard the message regarding the need for the federal government to be more aggressive in its support for science and technology.   This morning’s online issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education states “the Bush Administration had expressed ‘serious concerns’ about the measure” but indicates no specific veto threat has been issued.   S. 761, a 210-page bill, compiles the recommendations of the National Academies of Science’s report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the President’s American Competes Initiative, and a few additional initiatives. The House of Representatives, by contrast, is considering several separate bills.   The Chronicle article by Jeffrey Brainard reports S. 761 creates 20 new federal programs. A quick scan of the bill by SSTI yields the following examples…

The National Science Foundation (NSF) projects U.S. spending for R&D in 2006 will be 6 percent higher than it was in 2005, once all figures are compiled for all sources of funds surveyed: industry, the federal government, universities, colleges and other nonprofit institutions. (Note: State sources of funds are captured only through the separate surveys of industrial and university performers.) Total 2006 U.S. R&D expenditures are expected to surpass $342.9 billion, up $19 billion from 2005. Estimated figures for 2005 were 7.8 percent higher than 2004 in current dollars, NSF reports in its April 2007 InfoBrief. Accounting for inflation increases the difference between 2005 and 2006 growth rates even more, as inflation picked up speed in 2006. Increases in R&D spending outpaced inflation in both years, however. The 2005 figures are 5 percent greater than 2004 after inflation, while 2006 is only 3.5 percent higher than 2005.  NSF notes the increase in real R&D in 2006 primarily reflected growth in R&D performed by for-profit companies operating in the U.S. R&D performed by the federal government declined by $800 million over 2005…

Over the last few months, three states have announced new strategies to encourage regional tech-based economic development. Several states have experimented with how best to support or encourage regional TBED in the past, resulting in both successes and failures. In some cases, state sought partnerships at the local level in the creation of new programs while other states took a more hands off approach, such as providing seed funding to create regional technology councils.   In Massachusetts, the John Adams Innovation Institute released its first grant solicitation inviting government and nonprofit organizations to develop projects that advance opportunities for the development, retention and growth of local cluster employment in tech-related sectors. Through its Project Award Program, the Institute offers two rounds of funding per year, with one-time grants ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. The $4 million program falls under the Innovation Institute Fund, a $15 million fund that supports regional TBED initiatives throughout the state.   In announcing the new initiative, the Institute notes, “Applicants must demonstrate…

Which strategies should rural areas employ to encourage future growth? Many states and community leaders are asking themselves this question as they attempt to compete in a global economy. Several regions recently proposed to build ethanol plants in their areas to capitalize on the energy-production market. Other rural areas are promoting their cultural assets and natural resources to attract tourism. But what works best for each individual county? Unlocking Rural Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters explores this question, highlighting the complex relationship between rural areas, economic performance, and the different types of industries spread throughout the country. Perhaps the most useful component for practitioners is an online database that contains information for every state and U.S. county such as: the number of establishments and employees in each of the study’s 17 industry clusters and six manufacturing subclusters; educational attainment; average wage per cluster; housing information and building permits; labor force statistics; demographics; and, varying indices of rurality. The authors, a team…

California accounted for 22.4 percent of the nation’s total industrial R&D in 2004, leading the U.S. with $46.6 billion in total industrial R&D expenditures, according to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Survey of Industrial Research and Development: 2004. Michigan ($15.2 billion), Massachusetts ($11.8 billion), New Jersey ($11.0 billion), and Texas ($11.0 billion) rounded out the top five.   When ranked by industrial R&D intensity, Michigan placed first at 4.14 percent, followed by Connecticut (3.93 percent), Massachusetts (3.78 percent), Washington (3.49 percent), Rhode Island (3.15 percent) and California (3.07 percent). The national average in industrial R&D intensity for 2004 was 1.79 percent.   Using the NSF data, SSTI has prepared a table presenting state rankings of industrial R&D intensity for 2004. Industrial R&D intensity, or the ratio of industry R&D to gross state product, is shown for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The table may be accessed by visiting http://www.ssti.org/Digest/Tables/042307t.htm.   For 2003 state industrial R&D…

Complete descriptions of the position openings described below are available at http://www.ssti.org/posting.htm. The Georgia Medical Center Authority (GMCA), a state authority whose mission is to develop the life sciences industry in Georgia, is seeking an executive director. Reporting directly to the GMCA board, this individual is responsible for managing the Augusta BioBusiness Center, the provision of bond financing for life science R&D and manufacturing facilities statewide, leadership in developing a research park in east central Georgia, recruiting companies, and performing other duties. The successful candidate ideally will have educational and work experience related to life sciences business development and bond financing, and be a proven executive with outstanding communication and interpersonal skills. The University of Maine is seeking a director for its newly created Student Innovation Center. Reporting to the senior vice president for academic affairs and provost, the director is primarily responsible for providing leadership for the center, which includes all academic, fiscal, strategic planning and…

The Arkansas Department of Economic Development has been renamed the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Leadership Oklahoma announced that Doug Fuller will be the organization's new director, effective May 7. Beth Gorin stepped down as CEO of the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation. Rick Homans will step down as secretary of the New Mexico Economic Development Department to become executive director of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority, effective May 1. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council has named Robert Hooley as vice president of emerging technology. The Montana SBIR Outreach Program is changing its name to the Montana Technology Innovation Partnership. J.D. Stack replaces Oleg Kaganovich as the new CEO of the Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance.

The Arkansas Department of Economic Development has been renamed the Arkansas Economic Development Commission.