Building structures that contain laboratory space are becoming an important component of many entities pursuing TBED strategies. Research spaces such as cleanrooms and wetlabs pop up throughout universities, but they also are being constructed within research parks and business incubators.
The theory of spatial clustering has been very popular in the TBED field for many years, as researchers attempt to explain the transformation of places like Silicon Valley and the reasons various locales are economically competitive. Practitioners have utilized the theory as a method to describe their own state and regional economies and to support the development of specific industries. As an industry cluster grows, additional benefits of agglomeration are realized.
The physical layouts of many colleges and universities across North America are undergoing dramatic changes as more and more relationships develop outside of the traditional boundaries of institutions of higher learning. As public-private partnerships are established, additional research parks are being built on or adjacent to campus, and in some cases, empty space is designed into new academic and research buildings to accommodate future spin-off companies and incubating firms.
The establishment and maintenance of research parks has been a strategy for many organizations to strengthen TBED within their regions. This strategy continues to grow, as announcements for new research parks and the expansion of established ones take place all over the U.S. and Canada. But looking at these research parks in aggregate, what can we learn about them? And what can current developments tell us about the design of research parks in the future?
Throughout this special issue of the Digest, we’ve explored how future trends in design may affect how TBED practitioners advance the field and how altering the organization of the physical components around us – from laboratory space to economic development organizations – may impact innovative performance. It seems an emerging field, one that is sought in the design community and one that may be welcomed by the customers of design services, is the practice of evaluating the spaces that are intended to produce innovation.
Linda Fettig was named director of the Nebraska Rural Development Commission.
Kathie Olsen, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, is the new deputy director of the National Science Foundation.
Linda Fettig was named director of the Nebraska Rural Development Commission.
Kathie Olsen, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, is the new deputy director of the National Science Foundation.
The San Antonio Technology Accelerator Initiative (SATAI) announced that James Poage is SATAI's new president and CEO. Poage replaces Randy Goldsmith, who continues as a director.
A handful of competitiveness reports have been released in the past two weeks, each comparing various geographic locations and incorporating a range of innovation metrics. Perhaps the publication garnering the most international press has been The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008 by the World Economic Forum.
In support of his New Energy Economy Initiative, Gov. Bill Ritter introduced last week a statewide action plan to expand renewable energy opportunities and reduce the impact of climate change.
Hawaii's research and investment tax credits for high-tech companies have been a issue of debate for nearly a decade. In a survey conducted earlier this year, 45 percent of a sample of high-tech business owners said these credits played a "major influence" in their decision to grow and expand in Hawaii.
Despite pioneering the development of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the U.S. for years has lagged behind other industrialized countries in offering broadband services to its citizens. The U.S. ranks 16th in per capita broadband subscribers, and even when Americans do receive high-speed Internet services, they frequently pay more for lower speeds that their counterparts in Asia and Europe. A new report from the Alliance for Public Technology, the third in a series of reports on U.S.
Over the past several months, universities, city and state governments, and private companies alike have announced the creation of high-tech incubators that will serve as springboards for developing specialized companies to help grow the regional economy. Following is a sampling of recent incubator news from across the nation.
At $453.28, the District of Columbia led the nation in federal R&D obligations per capita to colleges and universities in 2005, according to recent National Science Foundation (NSF) report. For the U.S. as a whole, the per capita amount rose 25.8 percent from 2001 to 2005.
For more information on the positions below, visit SSTI's online Job Corner at http://www.ssti.org/posting.htm.
The 2007 state elections resulted in two newly elected governors, both promoting TBED strategies as a means to grow the states’ economies. In both cases, the new governorships reflect a change in party affiliation. A third gubernatorial race resulted in the re-election of Gov. Haley Barbour to a second term in Mississippi.
Kentucky
On Tuesday, exactly one year before the U.S. goes to the polls to choose its next president, the Brookings Institution launched a national competitiveness initiative titled Blueprint for American Prosperity: Unleashing the Potential of a Metropolitan Nation. The central premise of the Blueprint is that the “health, vitality, and prosperity” of the major cities and metropolitan areas in the U.S. will be the drivers of the country’s ability to compete globally and meet future economic, social, and environmental challenges.
In an effort to streamline economic development strategies and market the state as a globally competitive place to pursue new business ventures, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano recently announced the creation of a new model for economic development last month.
The federal government made obligations of $25 billion in R&D to colleges and universities in fiscal year 2005 - a 4.8 percent increase from the FY 2004 total of $23.8 billion, according to new National Science Foundation (NSF) data. In its report, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2005, NSF details all categories of direct federal science and engineering support to institutions of higher education in the U.S.
If one of the keys to competing in a flat or flattening world is better integration of universities into the economic system, then one of the best ways to measure success is to examine industry's share of academic R&D expenditures.
Earlier this month, Oregon’s University Venture Development Fund began operations, which will allow the state’s taxpayers to receive a 60 percent income tax credit on contributions that will be applied toward commercialization and entrepreneurial programs at Oregon’s eight public universities. Authorized by the state legislature, the fund will enable $14 million to be provided to the universities in aggregate, with each institution’s allocation formulated by its annual income from research grants and contracts.
Many Digest stories in recent years have described the actions of states and regions to build a stronger educational foundation in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The National Science Board (NSB), the policy-making body of the National Science Foundation, released its recommendations to improve the ability of all American students to receive the necessary skills and knowledge to successfully participate in the workforce of the future.
While discussions of successful university technology transfer programs tend to revolve around a select set of high-achieving institutions, a number of less-recognized institutions are now being proposed as national models for their approaches to entrepreneurial support and regional outreach.
The U.S. venture and angel markets appear to have fully recovered from their slump earlier this decade. Pricewaterhouse Coopers' Moneytree Survey reports that as of the third quarter, 2007 is on track to become the most active year for venture investment since 2001. Three years after hitting a tech bust low of just under $20 billion in 2003, venture firms investment surpassed $26 billion last year. Venture fundraising has been even stronger, as funds recovered from a low of less than $5 billion in 2001 to more than $30 billion in 2006.