Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 20
2
Impact of Photonics on
the National Economy
INTRODUCTION
The vast diversity of applications enabled by photonics poses both economic
promise and policy challenges. On the one hand, technical advances in funda-
mental principles of photonics may have broad impacts in many applications
and economic sectors. On the other hand, this diversity means that monitoring
public and private investment, employment, output, and other economic aspects
of photonics is difficult. Photonics is a broad technology rather than an industry,
and the economic data assembled by U.S. government agencies do not support a
straightforward assessment of the “economic impact” of photonics. For example,
there are no North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that
enable the tracking of revenue, employment, and industrial research and develop-
ment (R&D) spending in photonics-related fields, and we lack data on government
R&D spending in photonics. The absence of such information reduces the visibility
of photonics within the industrial community and impedes the development of
more coherent public policies to support the development of this constellation of
technologies and applications.
This chapter takes the following form: First, a case study of lasers is used to
introduce the field of photonics, and the conceptual challenges of developing
estimates of the economic impact of photonics innovations are discussed. Next,
company-level data are presented, and the challenges associated with using such
data to provide indicators of the economic significance of the “photonics sector”
within the U.S. economy are addressed. Next is a discussion of sources of R&D
20
OCR for page 21
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 21
investment within photonics, including government and company funding of
R&D, followed by an examination of the ways in which the changing structure
of the innovation process within photonics (including sources of R&D funding)
reflects broader shifts in the sources of innovation within the U.S. economy. That
section motivates the subsequent discussions of the role of venture-capital finance
in photonics innovation, the role of university licensing, and the implications of
offshore growth in the production of optics and photonics products for innova-
tion in the field. This discussion of the changing structure of innovation finance
and performance in the United States leads to the next section, which considers
the implications of recent experiments in public-private and inter-firm R&D
collaboration in other high-technology sectors for the photonics sector. Finally,
conclusions and recommendations are presented.
THE ECONOMICS OF PHOTONICS: A CASE STUDY OF LASERS
The laser is a central technology within photonics, and a brief history of its
development and expanding applications provides some insights into the eco-
nomic effects of the much broader field of photonics, as well as underscoring
the difficulties of measuring the economic impact of such a diverse field. First
demonstrated in 1960 by Theodore Maiman of Hughes Aircraft, the laser built on
fundamental research on microwave technology by Charles Townes and Arthur
Schawlow at Columbia University and Bell Labs, respectively. The laser exhibits
many of the characteristics of a “general-purpose technology”1 (other examples
include information technology [IT], steam power, and electrical power), in that
laser technology itself has been transformed by a series of important innovations,
with numerous new types of lasers developed over the past 50 years. Innovations
in lasers have broadened the applications of this technology, many of which have
produced dramatic improvements in the performance of technologies incorporat-
1 Rosenberg, N., and M. Trajtenberg. 2004. A general-purpose technology at work: The Corliss
steam engine in the late-nineteenth-century United States. Journal of Economic History 64:61-99. In
this paper, Rosenberg and Trajtenberg highlight four characteristics of a “general-purpose technol-
ogy” (GPT): “first, it is a technology characterized by general applicability, that is, by the fact that it
performs some generic function that is vital to the functioning of a large number of using products
or production systems. Second, GPTs exhibit a great deal of technological dynamism: continuous
innovational efforts increase over time the efficiency with which the generic function is performed,
benefiting existing users, and prompting further sectors to adopt the improved GPT. Third, GPTs
exhibit ‘innovational complementarities’ with the application sectors, in the sense that technical ad-
vances in the GPT make it more profitable for its users to innovate and improve their own technolo-
gies. Thus, technical advance in the GPT fosters or makes possible advances across a broad spectrum
of application sectors. Improvements in those sectors increase in turn the demand for the GPT itself,
which makes it worthwhile to further invest in improving it, thus closing up a positive loop that may
result in faster, sustained growth for the economy as a whole” (p. 65).
OCR for page 22
22 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
ing lasers (e.g., fiber-optic communications). Over the course of the 50 years since
its invention, the laser has been used in applications ranging from communications
to welding to surgery.
The Economic Impact of the Laser
One measure of the economic impact of the laser is provided by Baer and
Schlachter’s 2010 study for the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),2
which compiled data on the size of three economic sectors in which lasers have
found important applications. Baer and Schlachter listed these as follows:
• Transportation (production of transport equipment, etc.), estimated to
account for $1 trillion in output during 2009-2010;
• The biomedical sector ($2.5 trillion); and
• Telecommunications, e-commerce, information technology ($4 trillion).
The value of lasers deployed in each of these three sectors was respectively
estimated at $1.3 billion (CO2 and fiber), $400 million (solid-state and excimer
lasers), and $3.2 billion (diode and fiber lasers).
It is important to distinguish between the role of lasers as “enabling” the growth
of these three sectors and the role of this technology as “indispensable” to these
sectors, because the distinction is central to analyses of the economic impact of
any new technology. The fundamental question that arises in this context is, What
would have happened in the absence of the laser? That is, what if substitutes had
been employed to realize some if not all of the benefits associated with the laser’s
applications in these sectors? What would have been the cost (both in terms of
higher prices and reduced functionality) associated with using non-laser substi-
tutes? In some areas (e.g., surgery, some fields of optical communication), substi-
tutes might well have been unavailable or would have performed so poorly as to
render them useless. In other fields such as welding, however, substitutes for lasers
that presented fewer cost and performance penalties might well have appeared. In
some cases, substitutes for lasers might well have improved their performance and
reliability over time.
In the case of the laser as with most major innovations, the data and the meth-
odology necessary to conduct counterfactual thought experiments of this sort are
lacking, which makes it difficult to develop credible estimates of economic impact.
These analytic challenges are no less significant in assessing the impacts of other
2 Baer, T., and F. Schlachter. 2010. Lasers in Science and Industry: A Report to OSTP on the Contribu-
tion of Lasers to American Jobs and the American Economy. Available at http://www.laserfest.org/lasers/
baer-schlachter.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2012.
OCR for page 23
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 23
photonics technologies currently in use, and they are truly forbidding where one
seeks to predict the economic impact of future applications that have only begun
to emerge.
Nonetheless, it seems clear that the laser has been adopted in a diverse ar-
ray of applications, some of which have underpinned the growth of entirely new
methods for the transmission of information.3 Equally important is the way in
which continued innovation in laser technology has enabled and complemented
innovation in technologies using lasers. This mutual enhancement further extends
the adoption of these applications as performance improves and costs decline.
Moreover, the appearance of new applications and markets for lasers has created
strong incentives for further investment in innovation in lasers. All of this feedback
and self-reinforcing dynamics are classic features of general-purpose technologies.
Lasers are one example of such a technology within the field of photonics.
Funding of Early Laser Development
The development of laser technology shares a number of characteristics with
other postwar U.S. innovations, in fields ranging from information technology to
biotechnology. Like these other technologies, much of the research (especially the
fundamental research) that underpinned the laser and its predecessor, the maser,
relied on federal funding. Similar to the experience with IT, much of this federal
R&D funding was motivated by the national security applications of lasers during
a period of high geopolitical tension.4 Industry funded a considerable amount of
laser-related R&D, much of which focused on development and applications, but
3 Interestingly, optical communication was the only foreseen application of the laser in 1958. See,
for example, Sette, D. 1965. Laser applications to communication. Zeitschrift für angewandte Math-
ematik und Physik ZAMP 16(1):156-169.
4 Bromberg, J.L. 1991. The Laser in America, 1950-1970. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. In this study,
Bromberg emphasizes another characteristic of federally and industrially financed R&D in the field
of lasers: the extent of linkage among research and researchers in U.S. industry, federal laboratories,
and academia during the 1945-1980 period: “Academic scientists were linked to industrial scientists
through the consultancies that universities held in large and small firms, through the industrial spon-
sorship of university fellowships, and through the placement of university graduates and postdoctoral
fellows in industry. They were linked by joint projects, of which a major example here is the Townes-
Schawlow paper of [sic] optical masers, and through sabbaticals that academics took in industry and
industrial scientists took in universities. Academic scientists were linked with the Department of
Defense R&D groups, and with other government agencies through tours of duty in research orga-
nizations such as the Institute for Defense Analyses, through work at DoD-funded laboratories such
as the Columbia Radiation Laboratory or the MIT Research Laboratory for Electronics, and through
government study groups and consultancies. They were also linked by the fact that so much of their
research was supported by the Department of Defense and NASA” (p. 224). Similar linkages among
industry, government, and military research characterized the early years of development of the U.S.
computer and semiconductor industries, in contrast to their European and Japanese counterparts.
OCR for page 24
24 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
much of this R&D investment (particularly in the early years of the laser’s develop-
ment) was motivated by the prospect of significant federal procurement contracts
for military applications of lasers.
The early work in the 1950s of Townes at Columbia University on masers, for
example, was financed in large part by the Joint Services Electronics Program, a
multi-service military R&D program that sought to sustain after 1945 the wartime
research activities of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Colum-
bia Radiation Laboratories, both established during World War II. Military fund-
ing supported early work on masers and lasers at RCA, Stanford University, and
Hughes Aircraft. R&D related to lasers at the National Bureau of Standards also was
closely overseen by military representatives. By 1960, according to Bromberg,5 the
Department of Defense (DOD) was investing roughly $1.5 million (1960 dollars)
in extramural R&D on lasers, an amount that rose rapidly after Maiman’s demon-
stration of the ruby laser at Hughes; by 1962, according to Bromberg’s estimates,
the DOD was spending roughly $12 million on laser-related R&D, one-half of the
total U.S. R&D investment in the technology. In 1963, total DOD R&D investment,
including intramural projects, approached $24 million, which increased to just over
$30 million in the late 1970s.6 Another tabulation of military R&D investment es-
timates total military laser-related R&D spending through 1978 at more than $1.6
billion (all amounts in nominal dollars).7
The Early Laser Market
The military also was a major source of demand in the early laser industry,
although its share of the market declined over time as civilian applications and
markets grew rapidly. According to Bromberg, the DOD share of the laser market
fell from 63 percent in 1969 to 55 percent in 1971.8 Although the DOD dominated
the government market for lasers, other federal agencies also were important pur-
chasers, and Seidel estimates that total government purchases of lasers amounted
to nearly 56 percent of the total market in 1975, increasing to slightly more than
60 percent by 1978.9 Commercial laser sales grew from $1.985 billion in 1983 to
5 Bromberg, J.L. 1991. The Laser in America, 1950-1970. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
6 Koizumi, K. 2008. AAAS Report XXXIII: Research & Development FY 2009, Chapter 5. Available
at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch5.htm. Accessed July 30, 2012.
7 Seidel, R. 1987. From glow to flow: A history of military laser research and development. Histori-
cal Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18:111-147.
8 Bromberg, J.L. 1991. The Laser in America, 1950-1970.
9 Seidel, R. 1987. From glow to flow: A history of military laser research and development. Histori-
cal Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18:111-147.
OCR for page 25
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 25
$2.285 billion in 1984, according to DeMaria;10 government sales in these same
2 years amounted to $1.23 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively. The government
share of laser sales almost certainly has continued to decline in more recent years.
The dominance of the early laser market by the military services had important
implications for the development of the embryonic laser industry. In contrast to
the military services of other NATO member nations, U.S. military procurement
officials rarely excluded new firms from procurement competitions, although in
many cases these firms had to arrange for a “second source” of their products to
avoid supply interruptions. The prospect of military procurement contracts there-
fore attracted new firms to enter the laser industry and underlaid a growth in the
total number of firms working with laser development. The number of new firms
in the industry also grew rapidly because of the growth of new laser applications
in diverse civilian markets, as well as the growth of new types of laser technologies.
Clearly, the military contracts sped up the laser development. The appearance of
the diode-pumped solid-state laser in 1988, however, may have triggered the exit
from the industry of a large number of firms, and the number of active firms fell to
87 by 2007, during a period of rapidly increasing sales for the industry as a whole.
International Comparison
Although data allowing for a comparison of the structure of the laser industries
of the United States and other nations are not readily available, it is likely that the
number of independent producers of lasers in other nations exhibited less dramatic
growth and decline. Assuming that this characterization of the laser industries
of the United States and other nations is accurate, the differences reflected the
prominent role of government demand for lasers in the United States, as well as
the important role of U.S. venture capital in financing new-firm entrants into the
laser industry.
The origin of U.S. and Japanese scientific publications appearing in Applied
Physics Letters from 1960 through 2009 on the topic of semiconductor lasers was
analyzed by Shimzu (2011);11 data in the study by Shimzu suggest a contrast in the
sources of leading-edge laser R&D during this period. Established U.S. firms in the
areas of electronics, IT, and communications dominated semiconductor-laser pub-
lications during 1960-1964, accounting for more than 80 percent of publications of
U.S. origin. These firms’ share of publications dropped sharply after 1964, to 30 to
10 DeMaria, A.J. 1987. “Lasers in Modern Industries.” In Lasers: Invention to Application, J.H. Au-
subel and H.D. Langford, eds. Report of the National Academy of Engineering. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
11 Shimuzu, H. 2011. Scientific breakthroughs and networks in the case of semiconductor laser
technology in the U.S. and Japan, 1960s-2000s. Australian Economic History Review 51:71-96.
OCR for page 26
26 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
35 percent during 1965-1974, before increasing again to 61 percent during 1975-
1979 and 46 percent during 1980-1984. By 2005-2009, however, the established-
firm share of U.S. scientific publications in semiconductor lasers had dropped to
less than 5 percent. Start-up firms, which contributed no semiconductor-laser
publications during 1960-1980, accounted for more than 10 percent of publica-
tions during 1985-1989 and 9.25 percent during 2005-2009. U.S. university-based
researchers accounted for the majority of U.S. semiconductor-laser publications
throughout the 1965-2009 period, as their share grew from slightly more than 57
percent in 1965-1969 to almost 85 percent during 2005-2009. (See Figure 2.1.)
The data in the Shimuzu study on publications of Japanese origin in
semiconductor-laser research in Applied Physics Letters12 indicate a minimal role
for start-up firms as sources of research. Although all papers published in this
prestigious journal are reviewed by scientific peers, the burden of translation into
English may well introduce some bias into this comparison—papers of Japanese
origin effectively have to clear a higher “quality threshold” to appear in this journal.
This potential source of bias should be kept in mind in comparing Japanese and
U.S. publications. Established Japanese corporations, which accounted for no sci-
entific papers during 1960-1969 (see Figure 2.1), contribute a declining share of
scientific papers of Japanese origin in semiconductor lasers, although their share
declined somewhat less significantly, from 75 percent during 1970-1974 to nearly
40 percent during 2005-2009. Japanese start-up firms, however, played almost no
role as a source of scientific publications, appearing only after 2000 in Shimuzu’s
data, with a share of 0.74 percent during 2000-2004 and 2.94 percent during 2005-
2009. Japanese universities, which accounted for less than 30 percent of papers of
Japanese origin in this journal and field before 1990, by 2005-2009 contributed
more than 55 percent. (See Figure 2.1.)
Although covering only one area of laser technology and limited to one scien-
tific journal, the data analyzed by Shimuzu clearly indicate that new-entrant firms
in the United States accounted for a much larger share of scientific activity (as rep-
resented by publications) in semiconductor lasers than was true of Japanese start-
ups, whereas established Japanese firms have maintained a more prominent role as
sources of scientific publications into the 21st century than have U.S. established
firms in electronics, communications, or IT. The role of university researchers as
sources of published scientific research, however, appears to have grown signifi-
cantly in both nations, albeit more dramatically in the United States than in Japan.
12 Ibid.
OCR for page 27
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 27
100%
90% Japan
80% University
Startups
70% Other
60% Companies
50%
USA
40%
University
30% Startups
20% Other
Companies
10%
0%
1960- 1965- 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985- 1990- 1995- 2000- 2005-
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
FIGURE 2.1 Comparison between the United States and Japan with respect to different sectors’ contributions to
scientific publications that appeared in Applied Physics Letters from 1960 through 2009 on the topic of semi-
conductor lasers. (In the set of two bars for each time period, U.S. data are on the left, and Japanese data are
on the right.) SOURCE: Based on data in Shimuzu, H. 2011. Scientific breakthroughs and networks in the case
of semiconductor laser technology in the U.S. and Japan, 1960s-2000s. Australian Economic History Review
51:71-96.
Conclusions from the Laser Case Study
This brief overview of the development of laser technology and the U.S. laser
industry highlights several issues that are relevant to overall photonics technology.
The difficulty of measuring the “economic impact” of lasers reflects the need for
any such assessment to rely on assumptions about the availability or timing of
the appearance of substitute technologies. These difficulties are more serious for
predictions of the economic impact of technologies currently under development.
Such predictions rely on guesses about the nature of substitutes and markets, as well
as predictions concerning the pace and timing of the adoption of new technologies.
The laser’s development also highlights several of the features of general-purpose
technologies, namely, their widespread adoption, driven in many cases by contin-
ued innovation and improvement in the focal technology, as well as the ways in
which users of the technology in adopting sectors contribute to new applications
that rely in part on incremental improvements in the technology. In the view of
the committee, many other technologies in the field of photonics share these char-
acteristics with lasers.
OCR for page 28
28 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
The development of laser technology and the laser industry in the United States
also displays some contrasts with the experiences of other nations, particularly in
the important direct and indirect role played by the federal government in the early
stages of the technology’s development. Federal R&D and procurement spending,
much of which was derived from military sources, influenced both the pace of
development of laser technology and the structure of the laser industry, revealed
most plainly in the contrasts between U.S. and Japanese scientific publications in
laser technology. Moreover, the high levels of mobility of researchers, funding, and
ideas among industry, government, and academia were important to the dynamism
of the U.S. laser industry in its early years, with few formal policies geared toward
“technology transfer” between government or university laboratories and industry
such as those in place today. Although military R&D spending continues to account
for roughly 50 percent of total federal R&D spending (which now accounts for
roughly one-third of total national R&D investment, down significantly from its
share during the period of laser-technology development),13 the share of long-term
research within the military R&D budget has been under severe pressure in recent
years, and congressional restorations of executive branch cuts in this spending have
often taken the form of earmarks. Moreover, as the laser industry matures and
nonmilitary markets exert much greater influence over the evolution of applica-
tions for this technology, the ability of military R&D to guide broad technological
advances in this field has declined.
ESTIMATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PHOTONICS—
INDUSTRY REVENUES, EMPLOYMENT, AND R&D
INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
This section employs estimates of revenues, employment, and R&D investment
for a sample of firms that are active in the field of photonics to illustrate the breadth
of photonics-based industrial activity in the U.S. economy.
The data were provided by the International Society for Optics and Photonics
(SPIE) and the Optical Society of America (OSA) and include 336 unique (avoiding
double counting of corporations that appear on more than one membership list)
corporate members in 2011; 1,009 unique companies that had exhibited at one of
the two trade shows in 2011; and 1,785 unique companies listed as employers of
13 National Science Foundation. 2012. Chapter 4, “R&D: National Trends and International
Comparison—Highlights.” In Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Available at http://www.nsf.
gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4h.htm#s6. Accessed July 30, 2012.
OCR for page 29
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 29
professional societies’ individual members in 2011.14 Table 2.1 lists the number of
publicly traded and privately held companies in each of these three groups. Note
that although the companies listed within each of the three groups described above
appear only once, there is overlap among companies appearing on each of the three
lists (i.e., a single firm may be listed as a member of one or the other society, as
well as an exhibitor and an employer of society members). Aggregating all unique
companies across the three groups produces a list of 2,442 unique U.S. companies
active in some way within photonics, 285 of which are public and 2,157 of which
are privately held, as shown in Figure 2.2. As a point of comparison, there were
approximately 5.9 million “employer” firms (firms with payroll) in the United
States in 2008, and approximately 17,000 publicly traded companies.15 Thus the
present study’s count of companies across the three lists comprises approximately
0.04 percent of all U.S. employer firms and 1.7 percent of all U.S. publicly traded
companies.
Data on revenues, employment, and R&D spending in 2009 and 2010 for 282
of the 285 publicly traded companies that are listed as members, employers, or
exhibitors can be seen in Table 2.2.16 The total revenues associated with these 282
public companies in 2010 amounted to $3.085 trillion, they invested $166 bil-
lion on R&D (amounting to 5.4 percent of revenues), and employed 7.4 million
individuals. As a comparison point, “employer” firms in the United States in 2008
created an aggregate of $29.7 trillion in revenues and employed an aggregate of 120
14 NAICS or other industry-specific public databases on economic activity in photonics do not
currently exist. In an attempt to create a rough estimate of economic activity in photonics, the com-
mittee collected three types of information with help from the two largest professional societies in
photonics: SPIE and the Optical Society of America (OSA). This information included (1) a list of all
U.S.-headquartered member companies for each society, (2) a list of U.S.-headquartered exhibiting
companies at the largest trade conference for each society, and (3) a list of all U.S.-headquartered
companies associated with individual members of the professional society. The information provided
by these societies covers only 2011. In the analysis of this information, the list of member companies
was considered to be a rough estimate of companies with strong participation in optics and pho-
tonics in 2011, the list of exhibiting companies as a rough estimate of companies selling products
involving photonics in 2011, and the list of companies associated with individual members of the
professional society a rough estimate of companies with some activities in photonics in 2011. This
list of firms also served as the basis for compiling estimates of economic activity during 2010 for the
subset of firms for which data were available (see text). It is important to emphasize that each of these
estimates is very rough, and it is plausible that some photonics-specialist firms are not captured by
these estimates, while other firms for which photonics represents a small share of overall revenues,
employment, or R&D investment may be included.
15 According to the U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “Statistics about Business Size.” Available at http://
www.census.gov/econ/susb/introduction.html. Accessed June 25, 2012.
16 Data from Standard & Poor’s Compustat. Available at http://www.compustat.com/. Accessed
June 25, 2012.
OCR for page 30
30 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
TABLE 2.1 Number of Unique Companies in 2011 That Were Corporate Members, Partici-
pated in One of the Two Largest Trade Shows, or Were Associated with Individual Members
Across the Two Largest Professional Societies in Photonics
Public Private Total
By Type No. % No. % No.
Corporate members 45 13 291 87 336
Exhibited at trade shows 107 11 902 89 1,009
Employed professional society members 243 14 1,542 86 1,785
SOURCE: Data contributed by SPIE and the Optical Society of America, compiled by Carey Chen, Board on Sci-
ence, Technology, and Economic Policy of the National Academies.
FIGURE 2.2 Percentage in 2011 of public versus private companies across the 2,442 unique com-
panies recorded within the SPIE and OSA databases. SOURCE: Data contributed by SPIE and OSA,
and subsequently collated by Carey Chen, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy of the
National Academies.
million individuals.17 Thus, the public firms listed as active in photonics accounted
for approximately 10 percent of U.S.-based employer firms’ revenues and 6 percent
of U.S.-based employer firms’ aggregate employment in 2010.
Data were also used from Dun and Bradstreet to estimate revenue and R&D
expenditures for the publicly traded and privately held firms listed as corporate
17 Public company listings contributed by SPIE and the Optical Society of America. Revenue,
employee, and research and development (R&D) expenditure data subsequently collected from
Compustat.
OCR for page 53
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 53
benefits) of R&D is public-private partnerships or research.47,48 Past research has
found a positive impact of Japanese consortia and of ATP-funded U.S. government-
industry joint ventures on the research productivity of participants in the tech-
nological areas targeted by the consortia.49,50,51 Indeed, in addition to the support
provided by the government’s funding, research consortia can play an important
role in supporting network formation, thus increasing knowledge flows among
participants,52,53,54,55 and supporting skills56,57 and the creation of new industries.58
In addition to considering research consortia, this section looks at several
less widely researched models of coordinated technology development. As Bergh
discusses in his paper “Manufacturing Infrastructure for Optoelectronics,”59 it
considers three models for the coordination of technology development for a
shorter or longer term and with more or less government funding. The first model,
SEMATECH, is a not-for-profit research consortium established in 1987 to provide
a research facility in which member companies could improve their semiconductor
manufacturing process technology. The second, the Optoelectronics Industry De-
velopment Association (OIDA), is a not-for-profit partnership of North American
suppliers and users of optoelectronic components, established in 1991 to improve
the competitiveness of the North American optoelectronics industry with public
47 Spence, A.M. 1984. Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance. Econometrica 52(1):
101-121.
48 Katz, M.L. 1986. An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Eco-
nomics 17(4):527-543.
49 Branstetter, L., and M. Sakakibara. 1998. Japanese research consortia: A microeconometric
analysis of industrial policy. Journal of Industrial Economics 46(2):207-233.
50 Branstetter, L., and M. Sakakibara. 2002. When do research consortia work well and why? Evi-
dence from Japanese panel data. American Economic Review 92(1):143-159.
51 Sakakibara, M. 2003. Knowledge sharing in cooperative research and development. Managerial
and Decision Economics 24:117-132.
52 Tripsas, M., S. Schrader, and M. Sobrero. 1995. Discouraging opportunistic behavior in collab-
orative R&D: A new role for government. Research Policy 24:367-389.
53 McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20:1133-1156.
54 Whitford, J. 2005. The New Old Economy: Networks, Institutions, and the Organizational Trans-
formation of American Manufacturing. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
55 Fuchs, E. 2010. Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case
for embedded network governance. Research Policy 39:1133-1147.
56 McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20:1133-1156.
57 Whitford, J. 2005. The New Old Economy.
58 Fuchs, E. 2010. Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case
for embedded network governance. Research Policy 39:1133-1147.
59 Bergh, A. 1996. Manufacturing infrastructure for optoelectronics. Lasers and Electro-Optics
Society Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings. IEEE. Lasers and Electro-Optics Society LEOS-96.
November 18-21, 1996.
OCR for page 54
54 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
funding from various agencies as well as private membership funding. The third,
the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), is one of the largest federal inter-
agency R&D programs; established in 2000, today it coordinates funding from 25
federal departments and agencies for nanotechnology research and development.
An effective industry coalition would take time and resources to develop and
therefore would need staunch commitment by stakeholders. One goal would be
to create a collective voice that is knowledgeable and credible to center activities in
photonics, to provide a positive influence to the industry, and to keep government
agencies and the public informed. The examples below provide insights into how
these goals have been achieved through institutions in the United States historically.
The model provided by the German Fraunhofer Institutes is discussed in Box 2.2.
Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SEMATECH)
As noted above, SEMATECH was established in 1987 to provide a research
facility in which member companies could develop next-generation manufac-
BOX 2.2
Fraunhofer Institutes
The committee heard reports about the unique and successful photonics activities of the
German Fraunhofer Institutes. These institutes represent a novel approach to fostering leading-
edge research by a combination of universities, companies, and government. In this approach
(1) the government provides an overarching forum and core funding, (2) the industry provides
a healthy percentage of the funding but is focused on key areas in which the industry has
interest, and (3) the universities provide the intellectual workforce to achieve technological
advances. Although it is debated whether this model would be effective in the U.S. institutional
structure, this combination has been successful in providing leadership, maintaining interest,
and producing impressive technical advances within the German context.
Even if the full model is not transferable, aspects of these highly respected Fraunhofer
Institutes might be valuable models for the United States, given that these institutes have been
playing a pivotal role in technology commercialization and enabling Germany to have a leader-
ship position in photonics. For example, this model was instrumental in the recent formation
of the €360 million High-Tech Foundation Fund. This fund includes industry and government
participation to provide seed capital for start-up companies to commercialize technologies
that are spun out of the Fraunhofer Institutes. This fund also enables industry leaders to steer
critically needed seed capital to worthy photonics start-up companies without requiring govern-
ment agencies to make the selections.
SOURCES: Fraunhofer. 2012. Available at http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/html. Accessed June
26, 2012. See also German Center for Research and Innovation. 2012. Available at http://www.
germaninnovation.org/about-us. Accessed June 26, 2012.
OCR for page 55
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 55
turing technology.60,61 SEMATECH sought to support horizontal collaboration
among U.S. semiconductor producers on the development of process technology.
This initial focus, however, proved to be infeasible because of the importance of
firm-specific process expertise for the competitive advantage of individual semi-
conductor manufacturers.62,63 As a consequence, SEMATECH altered its research
agenda to a vertical collaboration model that sought to improve the technological
capabilities of U.S. suppliers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.64 This
shift in its research agenda was associated with a shift in SEMATECH’s intellectual
property policies—from licensing research results to member firms on an exclusive
basis for 2 years, to member firms’ receiving priority in ordering and receiving new
models of equipment resulting from SEMATECH-funded research.65 By the mid-
1990s, SEMATECH’s interactions with equipment and material suppliers fell into
four main categories: joint development projects, equipment improvement proj-
ects, provision of technology “roadmaps,” and expanded communication between
suppliers and member firms.66
Although SEMATECH’s role in the improvement of the U.S. industry’s com-
petitiveness may be difficult to prove, SEMATECH met most of its revised objec-
tives in the development of process technology, the supply of manufacturing equip-
ment, and collaboration between manufacturers, suppliers, and research centers.67
Some research suggests that SEMATECH reduced the duplication of member R&D
spending 68,69 and that economic returns to member companies outweighed their
membership costs.70 Several lessons for the design and structure of public-private
consortia can be drawn from the experience of SEMATECH. First, SEMATECH
focused primarily on short-term research, with 80 percent of all R&D efforts
60 Grindley, P., D. Mowery, and B. Silverman. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research: Lessons
in the design of high-technology consortia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(4):723-758.
61 Link, A., D. Teece, and W. Finan. 1996. Estimating the benefits from collaboration: The case of
SEMATECH. Review of Industrial Organization 11:737-751.
62 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
63 Carayannis, E., and J. Alexander. 2004. Strategy, structure, and performance issues of precom-
petitive R&D consortia: Insights and lessons learned from SEMATECH. IEEE Transactions on Engi-
neering Management 51(2):226-232.
64 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
65 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
66 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
67 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
68 Irwin, D., and P. Klenow. 1996. High-tech R&D subsidies: Estimating the effects of SEMATECH.
Journal of International Economics 40:323-344.
69 Irwin, D., and P. Klenow. 1996. SEMATECH: Purpose and performance. Proceedings of the
N
ational Academy of Sciences 93:12739-12742.
70 Link, A., D. Teece, and W. Finan. 1996. Estimating the benefits from collaboration: The case of
SEMATECH. Review of Industrial Organization 11:737-751.
OCR for page 56
56 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
focused on outcomes within 1 to 3 years.71 Second, SEMATECH was organized
originally by industry, its operations were led and its decisions directed by industry,
and it retained substantial support in the form of funding from industry.72 Third,
SEMATECH operated with a fairly centralized organizational structure rather than
as an umbrella consortium of independent projects (although this characterization
is less true for the equipment projects), which facilitated adjustment of its research
agenda and operations in response to the changing needs of the industry.73,74
Fourth, SEMATECH drew top executives from member firms into organizational
decisions and management.75,76 Fifth, SEMATECH was a consortium of established
companies with underlying strengths in product and process technology.77
Optoelectronics Industry Development Association (OIDA)
Similar to the situation in the semiconductor industry, the value of a photonics
community coalition is apparent in providing leadership to help interface with in-
dustry and government on policy matters, as well as in informing the general public
and the investment community on current matters. However, previous attempts
to form photonics industry trade associations have had limited success, possibly
because these organizations did not receive sufficiently broad industry participa-
tion. For example, the Laser Electro-Optics Manufacturers Association and OIDA
were composed largely of photonics technology manufacturers and tended not to
have support from the applications for those outcomes from industry. The case of
OIDA is further discussed here.
In 1988, a National Research Council study entitled Photonics: Maintaining
Competitiveness in the Information Era recommended the formation of “an indus-
try association that could help organize consortia to conduct cooperative research
and address technical problems and policy issues beyond the scope of any one
71 It is important to point out that the R&D activities of SEMATECH were complemented by
two other initiatives. SEMI/SEMATECH represented the U.S. semiconductor equipment producers
within SEMATECH, and operated with a modest funding base contributed by the members of the
Semiconductor Equipment Manufacturing Industry Association (SEMI); and the Semiconductor
Research Corporation (SRC), which enlisted the members of SEMATECH and other U.S. semicon-
ductor firms, supported long-term R&D at U.S. universities.
72 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
73 Browning, L., J. Beyer, and J. Shelter. 1995. Building cooperation in a competitive industry:
S
EMATECH and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Journal 38(1):113-151.
74 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
75 Browning et al. 1995. Building cooperation in a competitive industry.
76 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
77 Grindley et al. 1994. SEMATECH and collaborative research.
OCR for page 57
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 57
organization.”78 In 1991, OIDA was founded as a North American partnership of
suppliers and users of optoelectronics components to improve the competitiveness
of the North American optoelectronics industry.79 Early on, OIDA undertook an
Optoelectronic Technology Roadmap Program, intended to identify the critical
paths for the development of enabling optoelectronic technologies. This roadmap
exercise concluded in 1996 that mastering volume manufacturing was essential to
its members’ ability to reduce costs and improve competitiveness.80
The U.S. optoelectronics industry and OIDA have a long-standing association
with NIST as well as with the Department of Defense. In October 1997, at the
request of OIDA leaders, NIST organized a photonics manufacturing competition
within the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) that led to the funding by ATP of
10 proposals from industry.81 In 1992, DARPA began a series of programs, which
continued through 2009, to promote the development of new optoelectronics tech-
nologies, including direct funding for OIDA workshops and operating expenses. In
1994, NIST’s Optoelectronics Division was founded “to provide the optoelectronics
industry and its suppliers and customers with comprehensive and technically ad-
vanced measurement capabilities, standards, and traceability to those standards.”82
As indicated by NIST,83 the division’s mission was to maintain close contact with
the optoelectronics industry through major industry associations, including the
Optoelectronics Industry Development Association, and to represent NIST at
the major domestic and international standards organizations in optoelectronics
such as the Telecommunications Industry Association and the American National
Standards Institute. This division is now part of the new Quantum Electronics and
Photonics Division.84
OIDA remains active in technology roadmapping and in the improvement of
member-firm capabilities in high-volume manufacturing, including support for
such “R&D infrastructure” as an optoelectronics foundry.85 Although the found-
78 National Research Council. 1988. Photonics: Maintaining Competitiveness in the Information Era.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
79 Bergh, A. 1996. Manufacturing Infrastructure for Optoelectronics.
80 Bergh, A. 1996. Manufacturing Infrastructure for Optoelectronics.
81 Kammer, R., Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1998. Prepared Remarks.
Optoelectronics Industry Development Association. Washington, D.C., October 2.
82 National Research Council. 1999. An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Measurement and Standards Laboratories: Fiscal Year 1999. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
83 More information is available from the NIST Physical Measurement Laboratory at http://www.
nist.gov/pml/. Accessed August 6, 2012.
84 Quantum Electronics and Photonics Division. Physical Measurement Laboratory, National In-
stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST), website. Available at http://www.nist.gov/pml/div686/.
Accessed July 25, 2012.
85 These efforts have produced few measureable outcomes.
OCR for page 58
58 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
ing membership of OIDA included larger companies, such as AT&T, Bellcore,
Corning, IBM, 3M, Hewlett-Packard Company, and Motorola, the number of
member companies has declined over the course of OIDA’s history. Further, in
contrast to SEMATECH membership, many OIDA member firms are smaller,
with less developed technologies, and membership fees for all are low compared
to SEMATECH—in the low thousands to tens of thousands. Along with its modest
industry funding, a key challenge for OIDA is that of enlisting the participation of
senior industry executives in managerial positions. Perhaps most importantly, in
contrast to SEMATECH, OIDA has lacked a clear R&D agenda. This consortium’s
inability to develop such a focus reflects the diversity of applications characteristic
of photonic semiconductors, which complicates agreement among member firms
on technological goals. Inasmuch as photonics manufacturing technology is less
mature than semiconductor process technologies, the optoelectronics industry
might be better served by a university-government-private partnership that focuses
more intensively on early-stage R&D. The Semiconductor Research Corporation
(SRC) is an interesting contrast to SEMATECH in this respect. (See Box 2.3.)
BOX 2.3
Semiconductor Research Corporation
The Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) is another semiconductor research and
development consortium whose structure contrasts with that of SEMATECH. In 1982, the
Semiconductor Industry Association launched the Semiconductor Research Association as
a cooperative research organization to “enhance basic research in semiconductor related
disciplines” by funding “long-term, pre-competitive research in semiconductor technology at
U.S. universities.” In contrast to SEMATECH—which was created in 1987 out of an SRC initia-
tive—SRC uses horizontal collaborations between member firms and academic researchers to
define and fund long-term technology developments central to the survival and success of the
semiconductor industry.
In addition to SRC’s receiving funding from member firms, SRC program directors also
seek matching funds from federal, state, and local governments. Federal-level collaborators
have included the U.S. Army Research Office, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agen-
cy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation.
In 2000, the SRC board committed to globalizing the SRC membership and research
base. To date, however, little empirical research exists on the history, processes, or successes
of SRC. SRC is viewed by several of its member companies as an ongoing success and war-
rants further study as an interesting model for research consortia focused on long-term pre-
competitive research.
SOURCE: Semiconductor Research Corporation. 2012. “About Semiconductor Research
Corporation.” Available at http://www.src.org/about/. Accessed August 3, 2012.
OCR for page 59
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 59
National Nanotechnology Initiative
In September 1998, the Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology (IWGN)
was formed within the National Science and Technology Council of the Office of Sci-
ence and Technology Policy.86 As described in the National Research Council’s 2002
report Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanoechnology
t
Initiative (from which material in this paragraph is drawn substantially and, in some
cases, extracted), this group formalized the operations of a set of staff members
from several agencies that in November 1996 had begun to meet regularly to dis-
cuss their plans and programs in nanoscale science and technology. In August 1999,
IWGN’s plan for an initiative in nanoscale science and technology was approved by
the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and OSTP,
and in its 2001 budget submission to Congress, the Clinton administration raised
nanoscale science and technology to a federal initiative, referring to it as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The National Science and Technology Council (a
cabinet-level committee with membership drawn from federal agencies across the
government) formed the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET)
Subcommittee to focus on NNI activities. The National Nanotechnology Coordi-
nation Office, established in 2001, provides technical guidance and administrative
support to the NSET Subcommittee, facilitates multiagency planning, conducts
activities and workshops, and prepares information and reports. The NRC also
provides feedback to NNI through its triennial review of NNI;87 such a review is
currently ongoing.88
Today NNI is one of the largest federal interagency R&D programs, coordinat-
ing funding for nanotechnology research and development among 25 participating
federal departments and agencies. Its federal funding grew from $225 million in
FY 1999 to $464 million in 200189 and an estimated $1.639 billion in 2010.90,91 As
86 National Research Council. 2002. Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
87 National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnol-
ogy Initiative. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
88 See National Research Council. 2012. “Interim Report for the Triennial Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, Phase II.” Prepublication copy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13517. Accessed October 23, 2012.
89 National Research Council. 2002. Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers.
90 National Research Council. 2002. Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers.
91 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): A Decade of Investments in Innovation Co-
ordinated Through the National Nanotechnology Initiative. National Nanotechnology Initiative
Investments by Agency from FY 2001 through FY 2010. OSTP’s “High Value Data Sets.” The White
House. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/highvalue. Accessed
December 26, 2011.
OCR for page 60
60 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
stated on the NNI webpage,92 NNI has four goals: (1) maintain a world-class re-
search and development program aimed at realizing the full potential of nanotech-
nology; (2) facilitate the transfer of new technologies into products for economic
growth, jobs, and other public benefit; (3) develop educational resources, a skilled
workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnol-
ogy; and (4) support responsible development of nanotechnology.
NNI has facilitated several developments to enhance dialogue and coordination
among nanoscale R&D programs at federal agencies; these include working groups,
an infrastructure network involving an integrated partnership of user facilities at
13 campuses across the United States, centers to support the development of tools
for fabrication and analysis at the nanoscale, and NNI-industry consultative boards
to facilitate networking among industry, government, and academic researchers,
analyze policy impacts at the state level, and support programmatic and budget
redirection within agencies. In contrast to either OIDA or SEMATECH, NNI is
focused more intensively on priority setting and support for more fundamental,
long-term research in this emerging technology.
Given the diversity of applications characteristic of photonics and the relative
immaturity both of much of the science and much of the industry, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative may provide an interesting model for the increased
coordination and tracking of long-term funding of research in photonics. Since
the writing of the 1998 NRC report Harnessing Light: Optical Sciences and Engi-
neering for the 21st Century,93 there has been an explosion of new applications for
photonics. Indeed, in spite of the maturity of some of the constituent elements of
photonics (e.g., optics), the committee believes that photonics as a whole is likely to
experience a period of growth in opportunities and applications that more nearly
resembles what might be expected of a vibrantly young technology.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The preceding overview of some recent experiments in collaborative R&D
makes apparent several implications for similar efforts in photonics. First, industry
participation and leadership, both intellectual and financial, are essential. Second,
such an industry commitment to collaborative R&D may be more difficult in a sec-
tor that spans a diverse array of applications and is populated mainly by new, rela-
tively small firms. Finally, consortia (such as SEMATECH) in which industry plays
a major role in establishing and funding the R&D agenda may not be well suited
for supporting long-term research. An interesting exception may be the model
92 National Nanotechnology Initiative. Available at http://www.nano.gov/. Accessed August 6, 2012.
93 National Research Council. 1998. Harnessing Light: Optical Science and Engineering for the 21st
Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
OCR for page 61
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 61
presented by the Semiconductor Research Corporation (see Box 2.3), which has
supported work by academic researchers in the United States. Nonetheless, given
that SRC programs tend to focus on developing technologies to achieve specific end
goals that involve stakeholders from a single industry, the long-term precompetitive
research agenda supported by the SRC may be insufficient by itself to deal with the
diversity of applications that are the focus of R&D within the field of photonics.
Rather than endorsing any single structure for the support of R&D that in-
volves collaboration among industry, government, and academic researchers, the
committee believes that a higher-level venue for discussion and assessment of R&D
priorities is needed. Any such structure could include among its activities R&D
consortia of the type represented by SRC, or SEMATECH, or still other models for
collaborative R&D. A research consortium is more likely to succeed in a focused
application of the optics and photonics landscape. In the absence of some coordi-
nating initiative, it will prove difficult to develop an effective strategy for public and
private R&D investment that seeks to support longer-term R&D and to translate
innovation into economic opportunities for U.S. firms and employees across the
diversity of emerging photonics applications. Accordingly, the committee’s judg-
ment is that the time is overdue for a federal initiative in photonics that seeks to
engage industry, academic, and government researchers and policy makers in the
design and oversight of R&D and related programs that include federal as well as
industry funding.
Proposed National Photonics Initiative
A national photonics initiative would coordinate agency-level investment in
photonics-related R&D and could provide partial support for other technology-
development initiatives, including R&D consortia funded by federal and industry
sources. The committee believes that a number of experiments in coordinating
across industry-government-academia in different fields of R&D and technology
development are warranted. As pointed out in the next chapter, “Communications,
Information Processing, and Data Storage,” one application area that may be par-
ticularly ripe for such a public-private consortium is large-scale data communica-
tions and storage, now the focus of an initiative overseen by OSTP.94 Finally, as with
NNI, a national photonics initiative would assume responsibility for developing,
coordinating, and measuring federal funding and national outputs (such as eco-
nomic indicators) in photonics, to help inform national policy.
94 Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2012. “Big Data Press Release.” Available at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/big_data_press_release_final_2.pdf. Accessed July
30, 2012.
OCR for page 62
62 Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for O u r N at i o n
FINDINGS
Key Finding: Photonics is a key enabling technology with broad applications in
numerous sectors of the U.S. economy. The diversity of applications associated
with photonics technologies makes it difficult to quantify accurately the economic
impacts of photonics in the past and even more difficult to predict the future eco-
nomic and employment impacts of photonics.
Key Finding: Given the diversity of its applications and the enabling character of
photonics technology, data on photonics industry output, employment, and firm-
financed R&D investment are not currently reported by U.S. government statistical
agencies, further complicating analysis of this technology’s economic impact and
prospects. Although the 1998 National Research Council study Harnessing Light:
Optical Science and Engineering for the 21st Century reached a similar conclusion
and recommended that members of the photonics community be involved in the
next round of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) development, no such action was taken by federal
statistical agencies.
Finding: Another significant gap in the economic data on photonics is a lack
of systematic collection or reporting by the federal government of its significant
investment in photonics R&D. As a result, the most basic data are lacking for esti-
mating the overall federal R&D investment in this technology field or the allocation
of federal photonics R&D investments among different fields and applications.
Finding: The private organizations that monitor U.S. venture-capital investment
trends also do not collect information on the full spectrum of photonics-related
venture-capital investments. Changes in the structure of the U.S. R&D and in-
novation systems mean that the importance of venture-capital funding for the
formation of new firms in photonics, as well as for these firms’ investments in
R&D and technology commercialization, has grown; thus these gaps in data on
venture-capital investment hamper the ability to monitor innovation in photonics.
Finding: Many of the important early U.S. innovations in photonics relied on
R&D performed in large industrial laboratories and benefited as well from defense-
related R&D and procurement spending. The structure of the R&D and innovation
processes in photonics, similar to other U.S. high-technology industries, appears
to have changed somewhat, with universities, smaller firms, and venture-capital
finance playing more prominent roles. These changes in the structure of R&D
funding and performance within photonics increase the potential importance of
inter-firm collaboration and public-private collaboration in photonics innovation.
OCR for page 63
Impact of Photonics on the N at i o na l E c o n o m y 63
RECOMMENDATIONS
Key Recommendation: The committee recommends that the federal govern-
ment develop an integrated initiative in photonics (similar in many respects to
the National Nanotechnology Initiative) that seeks to bring together academic,
industrial, and government researchers, managers, and policy makers to develop a
more integrated approach to managing industrial and government photonics R&D
spending and related investments.
This recommendation is based on the committee’s judgment that the photonics
field is experiencing rapid technical progress and rapidly expanding applications
that span a growing range of technologies, markets, and industries. Indeed, in spite
of the maturity of some of the constituent elements of photonics (e.g., optics),
the committee believes that the field as a whole is likely to experience a period of
growth in opportunities and applications that more nearly resembles what might
be expected of a vibrantly young technology. But the sheer breadth of these ap-
plications and technologies has impeded the formulation by both government
and industry of coherent strategies for technology development and deployment.
A national photonics initiative would identify critical technical priorities for
long-term federal R&D funding. In addition to offering a basis for coordinating
federal spending across agencies, such an initiative could provide matching funds
for industry-led research consortia (of users, producers, and material and equip-
ment suppliers) focused on specific applications, such as those described in Chap-
ter 3 of this report. In light of near-term pressures to limit the growth of or even
reduce federal R&D spending, the committee believes that a coordinated initiative
in photonics is especially important.
The committee assesses as deplorable the state of data collection and analysis of
photonics R&D spending, photonics employment, and sales. The development of
better historical and current data collection and analysis is another task for which
a national photonics initiative is well suited.
Key Recommendation: The committee recommends that the proposed national
photonics initiative spearhead a collaborative effort to improve the collection and
reporting of R&D and economic data on the optics and photonics sector, includ-
ing the development of a set of North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes that cover photonics; the collection of data on employment, output,
and privately funded R&D in photonics; and the reporting of federal photonics-
related R&D investment for all federal agencies and programs.
It is essential that an initiative such as the proposed national photonics initia-
tive be supported by coordinated measurement of the inputs and outputs in the
sector such that national policy in the area can be informed by the technical and
economic realities on the ground in the nation.
