Proceedings of a Workshop
The Role of State Governments in Economic Development and R&D Competitiveness
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief
Federal investments in research and development have historically supported the security of the nation, the protection of public health and the environment, the growth of new industries, and the employment of millions of Americans. However, proposed cuts to federal support and policy guidance could encourage more state governments to take on new or larger roles in developing innovation policy priorities. On October 17 and 18, 2017, the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) held a meeting to consider how federal R&D policies affect states, and how state governments’ roles in shaping local and regional innovation ecosystems will affect national R&D competitiveness and economic growth. Speakers also discussed the ways in which economic development efforts in states and regions drive innovation and economic growth.
The keynote address on October 17 was given by Scott Pattison, executive director and chief executive officer of the National Governors Association (NGA). He opened by describing how states are more important now than any other time he can remember during his time working in state policy.
According to Pattison, the main question states are asking is: How can we prepare our workforce and our economy—our citizens and our society—for unprecedented change? By his observations, governors and research universities are recognizing that they must address the skills gap together, regardless of political affiliation.
“When governors get together, they still want to maintain bipartisanship,” said Pattison. “For example, at our February 2017 Winter Meeting, which included going to Capitol Hill to meet with the majority and minority leaders, governors refused to divide their delegations by party, despite efforts to separate them. States also have the desire to work regionally. At an energy summit we held in Colorado recently, governors of both parties from across the west announced a pact to ensure there are enough charging stations for electric vehicles throughout the region. And now nearly every governor has joined a pact to fight opioid addiction together.”
Pattison also sees international collaborations at the subnational level on the rise. “In the 30 years I have worked with states, I have never seen the international community reach out to governors and U.S. states as they are doing now,” Pattison continued. “Governors are also trying to learn from other countries about policies that do and do not work, and to encourage foreign investment and job creation. Similar interest is coming from governors and subnational leaders in other countries.”
State governments are interested in using data and research generated by universities and businesses to solve public policy problems, but one matter of common concern across state borders is cybersecurity. States and local government agencies retain vast amounts of data on residents, and critical services depend on digital systems. NGA’s Resource Center for State Cybersecurity provides governors and their advisors tools to implement concrete cybersecurity policies. The initiative of the 2017-2018 NGA Chair, Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada, concerns innovation with a focus on energy and transportation.
Pattison suggested that states must work with research universities to promote innovation and the startup mentality required to address social problems with creative technology solutions. “Governors are thinking about how to use research and technology to solve problems. For example, how can ridesharing apps help women get to prenatal care appointments—potentially reducing the likelihood that babies are born prematurely—and thereby help reduce Medicaid expenditures on neonatal care?”
“There will be 39 state gubernatorial elections in November 2018; around half of the governors will turn over,” said Pattison. “Governors will need to hear from people like GUIRR members about creative ways to finance innovation, facilitate collaboration between institutions, and prioritize the importance of innovation and research at the state and national level.” Pattison concluded, “Governors are often faced with political decisions about funding research, and there is a perception that universities and other groups simply want money. State policymakers need to feel like they are part of collaborative dialogue when it comes to solving policy issues related to research and innovation.”
BUILDING COMMITMENTS TO STATE-WIDE INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS
The first presentation on October 18 was offered by Richard Celeste, president emeritus of Colorado College and former governor of Ohio. “Our goal has to be to maintain a world-class, curiosity-based, robust and relevant science and technology enterprise,” said Celeste. “To achieve that, the states have to be active partners with the federal government.”
Celeste described five trends federal and state officials are wrestling with:
- Constrained resources. “The commitment of the congressional majority to cut taxes and reach a balanced budget, regardless of party, is very strong. More people and more public universities are competing for a piece of public funding. Increasingly, the notion of sustainable development will be the widely used lens through which we view investment decisions and priorities. Those states will do best that choose to use existing resources more effectively.”
- Devolution. “The movement of responsibility from top down and from center to periphery is widespread in both business and government. This is more than a fad or an ideology. Flexibility, efficiency, timeliness, and responsiveness to customers or citizens—all of these become drivers for this shift, which is enabled by rapidly evolving technology. States will do best if they welcome new authority and design systems for managing what Dee Hock, founder and former CEO of the Visa credit card association called a ‘chaordic’ environment—one where chaos and order coexist.”
- Globalization. “In every aspect of activity, from the movement of money to the opening of markets to research itself, the reality of globalization will keep pressing upon us. States must invest in centers of excellence that can command international respect and attract international investment.”
- The acceleration of change. “Jobs change, skills change, and whole industries change at an unimaginable pace. For states, it is important to encourage radical changes in institutional behavior, from regulation to partnership, in order to put a premium on timely responses and transparent conduct.”
- The revival of populism beyond partisan boundaries. “Cries of ‘corporate welfare’ betray a deeper concern about the fairness of our society; the growing income gap is reinforced by an even faster growing skills gap. Social issues—poverty, juvenile violence, the opioid epidemic, aging—press for attention alongside a healthy environment and a vital economy and cry out for insights from science. Because of this, states must develop tools to measure and communicate the value public investment in science and technology has for the economy, the environment, and health.”
Celeste argued that states have a place in the science and technology enterprise in six ways:
- Investing in infrastructure. “In making these investments, we need to strike a balance between investing in scientific instrumentation and investing in our people infrastructure. Any system of research investment that squeezes our best scientists out of regular engagement with young students is misdirected.”
- Identifying regional strengths. “A key to economic vitality is to identify particular strengths of a region—usually the result of historic patterns of economic growth, the migration of certain groups with certain skills into an area, or the nurturing of specific competencies at an anchor research institution, usually flagship universities.”
- Inventing fresh partnerships. “Arrangements that bring people and institutions together across traditional boundaries are important. Partnerships derive their value less from the dollars added together than from the changed relationships they create. The measure of a partnership is the fruitful dynamic they create among S&T players.”
- Involving private sector leadership. “Engaging key business leaders gives strength and durability to states’ S&T efforts. The private sector has to be deeply engaged in moving research into the marketplace. States need to work hard to get beyond technology push programs toward more market-directed initiatives.”
- Insisting on quality. “Because states are investing scarce resources in their S&T efforts, they must insist on high-performance standards and resist the political pressure of the pork barrel to spread a little bit around everywhere. The reality of global competition requires that every investment test itself against world-class measures.”
- Informing public stakeholders. “As the expectations of science and technology grow, we need to provide a solid context for those expectations. We need to emphasize the importance of curiosity-driven research and show its linkage over time to applications that improve quality of life. We also need to help people think beyond the 2- and 4-year election cycle and understand the metabolism by which science and technology contribute to society.”
Celeste concluded that successful collaborations require an initial vision that achievements can be measured against, and that all collaborations should be striving to solve problems with world-class solutions, whether that is in business, academia, or public policy.
THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY: STATES’ COMPETITVE ADVANTAGES IN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
Asheq Rahman of Elsevier moderated a panel on states’ competitive advantages in research and innovation. The first presentation was offered by John Hardin from the Department of Commerce of North Carolina, who gave an overview of how North Carolina does S&T policy and planning. According to Hardin, the state government has both a strategic role and a tactical role, but neither role is used for command and control purposes—instead Hardin’s office uses its authority for facilitating, encouraging, and assisting. Hardin’s office also does evaluating, advising, and communicating; they develop technology roadmaps, hold workshops, and provide grants, nearly all of which go to small businesses conducting early-stage research and development geared toward developing and commercializing new technologies.
“In North Carolina’s model of an innovation ecosystem, innovative ideas and discoveries are turned into innovative products and practices, which create new organizations and enhance existing ones, all to the benefit of economic well-being and the quality of life of people,” said Hardin. Hardin’s office tries to fill the gaps in the imperfect system. North Carolina’s strong innovation system is in the Research Triangle Region, but there are many areas of the state where portions of the ecosystem are nonexistent, weak, or stagnant. The office’s work is funded primarily by the state, but it also receives federal, industry, and philanthropic support. Programs and projects Hardin’s office has conducted over the years include developing a nanotechnology roadmap for the state, developing an innovation index, and forming an innovation-to-jobs working group.
Hardin’s office produces a tracking innovation report every 2 years—a statistical report card on how the state is doing, based on 40 indicators. “We often get asked which indicators really matter,” said Hardin. “We collaborated with North Carolina-based data company SAS and analyzed 15 years’ worth of data on 50 states, and found that three indicators matter most [in terms of being connected to outcomes such as per capita GDP per capita, per capita personal income, and average annual pay]. The results were the proportion of workers in high-tech industries, the proportion of workers in science and technology occupations, and the percentage of population that was above average in postsecondary educational attainment.”
Tom Chilton of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission spoke next, first offering some background on the state’s history of economic development. Arkansas had an economy based on subsistence farming until the 1950s, when a member of the Rockefeller family bought a lot of land and founded the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, which leveraged a lot of development in Arkansas. During the next 20 to 25 years the state saw significant industrial and manufacturing development, with low-skilled jobs that had attractive labor rates for corporations. But as low-wage job markets emerged in other nations, that model lost traction. “Fortunately, by that time we had Fortune 100 companies established in Arkansas, although the jobs they provided were mostly service sector and retail,” said Chilton.
In 2003, a Milken Institute report determined that Arkansas was falling behind in terms of developing a knowledge-based economy. “A group of well-intentioned businesspeople came together with the public sector and the university to start an initiative to drive a knowledge-based economy forward. The initiative took about 4 years to get going, but then the private sector disengaged, leaving the public sector and the public universities to carry it through.”
According to Chilton the state research enterprise has been functioning like a three-legged stool supported by only two legs—the public sector and public universities. “We are now making a dramatic effort to re-engage with
the private sector,” said Chilton. “The state’s universities are being driven to do things beyond their capacity regarding commercialization.” He suggested that as the state considers ways to renovate its tech transfer practices, there should be an effort to think about reasonable goals and roles for the parties in partnership.
Concerning state metrics, Chilton restated the importance of job creation to the governor, policymakers, and Arkansans, but emphasized assessing the quality of those jobs as well. “We cannot just move the bar in terms of per capita income; we must also be looking at indicators that reveal ways of improving the quality of life of our citizens. That includes social initiatives and skills development.”
The next presentation was offered by Mridul Gautam of the University of Nevada, Reno, who spoke about how the confluence of academia and industry and government is contributing to Nevada’s economic goals.
“In 2010, Nevada had the nation’s highest foreclosure rate, the highest rate of underwater mortgages, and the highest unemployment rate,” said Gautam. Higher education institutions saw steep reductions in state funding, and the university lost many faculty. Third-party reports validate Nevada’s economic turnaround: the 2017 Forbes American Dream index ranks Nevada first; the state is first in Gallup’s 2016 job creation index (whereas in 2009-2010 it ranked last); and in the 2017 Index of State Economic Momentum published by the State Policy Reports, Nevada ranked first. “Nevada’s research universities are recognized contributors to this success, and there is much more to be done,” said Gautam. The University of Nevada, Reno is following a strategic plan that was updated in 2014 and is achieving record levels of enrollment, retention, graduation, diversity, and faculty achievement, as well as a significantly higher research output. The university has hired 400 new faculty members starting 2 years ago, using the institution’s own resources.
Gautam explained that Governor Brian Sandoval has set the vision for the “new Nevada,” which is based on developing a resilient and diversified economy. Numerous innovative businesses—Tesla, Google, Switch, and Apple included—have chosen to locate businesses in Nevada. This has prompted an upswing in smaller high-tech, knowledge-based startups, which in turn has helped to create high-paying jobs. Often these start-ups are connected to the state’s research universities. A foundational element of achieving the “new Nevada” vision is a Knowledge Fund established by the State of Nevada and investing $30 million targeted toward specific university-based ventures that contribute to the development of knowledge- and technology-based industry and jobs.
“At the University of Nevada, Reno, we have embraced this chance to create and anchor a research and innovation ecosystem that aligns with the statewide goals,” said Gautam. “One anchor is talent: researchers and faculty who are encouraged and inspired, and students who will be the prepared workforce for the future. We are creating industry-responsive degrees and minors, including certificates and minors in autonomous systems, cybersecurity, and batteries/energy storage.”
The innovation ecosystem includes two main centers that serve as entry points for industry: the University of Nevada, Reno Innevation Center Powered by Switch, which is in downtown Reno, intentionally away from the university’s main campus; and the Nevada Center for Applied Research (NCAR), which is located on campus. The Innevation Center, which was established in collaboration with Switch, a global technology leader, is a co-working, collaborative space to spur ideation, commercialization, and entrepreneurialism. NCAR, which was created through the Knowledge Fund investment, provides access to talent, facilities, and equipment on campus.
“Our ecosystem is achieving results,” said Gautam. “Just 18 months in, we’ve created 102 jobs, with hundreds more projected as these businesses grow. Fifty companies are intimately engaged, eight venture start-ups have been created, six faculty spinoffs have been launched, and four early-stage investment funds have been established. We also worked with the Nevada System of Higher Education to get entrepreneurial activity to be included in the promotion and tenure criteria.”
The panel’s final speaker was Donald Sebastian from the New Jersey Innovation Institute. According to Sebastian, U.S industry began in Patterson Falls, New Jersey, with Alexander Hamilton, who believed the country would be a maker nation and hired Pierre L’Enfant to design the nation’s first industrial city. Over the first century of the nation’s existence, Patterson Falls and other areas of New Jersey evolved powerful industries—spinning cotton and assembling garments, tanning and manufacturing saddlery and luggage, glass and ceramics industries, and making the machinery that supported these industries.
Then a wave of new technology came along, but those previous industries did not collapse; instead, New Jersey’s capacity and access to markets attracted inventors and entrepreneurs, such as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, G.W. Merck, John Rockefeller, and more. The inventors developed a model for sustaining their businesses beyond their own lifespans and intellects, in the form of corporate R&D centers—Edison’s Menlo Park, Bell Labs, and Exxon Research and Engineering, among others. The state did not need to depend on universities to deliver intellectual content, nor did it need to invest in businesses and startups. Unfortunately later in the 20th century there was a sea change in how corporations looked at R&D investments, and international competition after World War II challenged
U.S. industry. New Jersey’s leadership in the financial services industry was paired with a disassembling of the manufacturing industry in the state.
“Now we are trying to rebuild,” said Sebastian. “The good news is that the state still has resources, including the highest density of Ph.D. scientists and engineers of any place in the world; the same access to capital, global markets, and transportation assets; and 10,000 manufacturers. About 8 years ago the state started to think about how to identify clusters in which to invest and grow the economy. We are looking at ways to diversify our industrial base and to upgrade and mature existing industries.”
The New Jersey Innovation Institute is oriented toward solving the problems related to industrial clusters, connecting the work that happens in universities and innovative small start-ups with the big companies, which have shorter-term business perspectives.
One outcome Sebastian is targeting is improving the states’ workforce readiness. “In New Jersey, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development has invested in programs, often in universities, to identify and catalog industry clusters and to determine where the employment opportunities are, where the potentially employable are, and where the gaps are. Another goal is to put together programs to properly train citizens to go into those industries, an effort that is evolving into Talent Development Centers. A slogan that reflects the state’s goal is “65 by 25”to have 65 percent of its workforce certified beyond a high school education by 2025.”
MANUFACTURING AND REGIONAL INNOVATION
The next panel, moderated by Wayne Johnson of Maguire Associates, focused on how manufacturing institutes can facilitate regional innovation ecosystems. The first presentation was offered by Craig Armiento of the Printed Electronics Research Collaborative (PERC) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, who explained his organization’s work to advance printed electronics—an additive computer-driven process for depositing electronic materials. Whereas 3-D printing uses additive processes with plastics or metals, this process prints electronic circuits.
“Printed electronics offers the benefits of fast prototyping,” he explained. According to Armiento, companies often wait months for their electronic designs to come back as printed circuit boards, and if there is an error it will take months to get the next iteration. Printed electronics can potentially complete this process in days rather than months, allowing product development to be accelerated. Printed electronics can also change form; electronics will go from being rigid and planar to flexible, conformable, wearable, and embedded. Additive, printed electronics have a wide range of applications, from wearable medical devices and printed batteries to smart packaging for food that can detect spoilage.
Armiento explained that while printed electronics could impact many industries, the method is in very early stages of development. He has identified developing the supply chain as both a priority and an opportunity to be seized by states, which is what PERC strives to accomplish. The job of the collaborative is to pull conventional electronics companies into the world of additive electronics, encourage startups, and facilitate workforce training.
PERC has a partnership with Raytheon and in 2015 moved into the 4th floor of the Raytheon-UMass Lowell Research Institute on campus. Raytheon employees are co-located in the building, which, according to Armiento, is important for creating synergy. On any given day there may be as many as 10 Raytheon engineers working with faculty and students. PERC works on R&D projects for Raytheon, serving as their R&D arm for printed electronics.
PERC’s mission is to develop the supply chain for printed electronics in Massachusetts and New England generally. The organization’s funds come from corporations and the federal government. Fourteen companies have joined PERC so far, representing many needed parts of the supply chain. “The value proposition offered by PERC is to provide research and development through sponsored research projects that use faculty expertise; create and maintain teams who can pursue federal funding under tight deadlines; help build out the supply chain; and train the workforce. These kinds of collaborations need champions on the academic side and the industry side,” Armiento said in conclusion.
John Hopkins of the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI) offered the next presentation. IACMI is one of the 14 Manufacturing USA institutes, which are directed to support manufacturing advances tied to national security interests, energy security, and commerce. Because IACMI is a Department of Energy (DOE)-funded center, its focus is on reducing energy consumption. The centers are about private–public partnerships that leverage funds to meet advanced manufacturing needs and to push new technologies and new ideas into full deployment.
IACMI represents about $250 million in investment from DOE and from state and industry partners. The institute is focused on creating partnerships that drive innovation in the manufacture of advanced carbon fiber composites. It is specifically focused on deployment—on providing the linkage between core innovation assets and the companies who need large-scale demonstration and other assistance in moving it into full-scale implementation.
The institute has three application areas: vehicles, wind turbine blades, and compressed gas storage. Seventy percent of IACMI’s work is focused on vehicles, and specifically on developing materials and manufacturing methods that can lower the cost of carbon fiber components so that large-scale deployment is possible. “IACMI has six core state partners, and managing the budgets and funds that flow across these partners and the many core partner institutions is complicated, but being aligned and focused on outcomes makes it easier,” said Hopkins. “The six states represent about 70 percent of the automobile manufacturing production in the United States.”
IACMI has a facility in the Detroit area to help meet the need for automotive implementation of carbon fiber, another in Indiana at Purdue University, and smaller buildouts at other core partner settings. The institute has a number of partners beyond its core partners, including smaller and medium-sized companies supporting the supply chain, which are critical for large-scale implementation of automotive uses.
Hopkins offered an overview of activities in three of the core partner states—Indiana, Michigan, and Tennessee—and closed by offering observations about state engagement. “Stakeholder perspectives are critical, as is an emphasis on job creation and workforce development,” he noted. “Navigating cultural differences between institutions is challenging, as is managing expectations about investment-to-return timelines, given the fact that these efforts are not going to create jobs tomorrow. It is also important to maintain momentum and commitment across changes of administration.”
CONNECTING INNOVATION TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
The last panel of the meeting considered how states can link research and development activities at universities, industries, and state governments to economic development and economic growth at state and national levels.
Christine Gulbranson of the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Office of the President of the University of California System spoke first, offering an overview of the UC system’s assets and efforts around entrepreneurship and innovation. Currently the UC system has 49 entrepreneurship education programs; 33 incubators and accelerators; and 15 startups, proof-of-concept programs, initiatives, and competitions. The system’s top two industries are medical therapeutics and software and services.
There were 1,267 UC-affiliated startups between 1968 and June 2015; as of June 2015, 622 of these UC-affiliated startups were still active. Of these still-active startups, 447 have recorded employment of over 38,000 people.
“Since its founding in 1868, UC has served as a primary engine for the state’s economy. In turn, the state of California has been an active supporter of UC’s strategic initiatives around innovation and entrepreneurship. We are particularly excited about state funding that UC received to launch and expand innovation and entrepreneurship in an effort to accelerate economic development,” said Gulbranson. Last year, UC worked with the state legislature to obtain $22 million to strengthen the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the state. “These funds are being used as a catalyst to bring together resources on campuses and in local communities to develop the skills of entrepreneurs and to help commercialize our products and technologies.”
Gulbranson is working to expand the system’s network of external partners, including private industry, government, and philanthropy, and to enable technology commercialization via partnerships and spinouts. “We need to replicate UC Berkeley’s approach to engage companies in the R&D process early on,” she said. “By doing so, and offering companies the ability to license the results of the research or an option agreement to patent the technology, we will be able to develop industry affiliate programs, including industry-sponsored institutes.”
Another project the office is working on is the One Stop Shop, which will enable outside partners to engage with the UC system in a very simple and direct way—reinforcing the unity of the system and facilitating collaborations between the corporate partners and the various campuses.
The next presentation was offered by Katie Stebbins of the University of Massachusetts. Her career expertise has been in managing economies that have been in decline, giving her an understanding of the frustration of local officials who want but cannot get the help of local universities in boosting their economies.
Stebbins focused her presentation on her work as a public official, prior to her work at the University of Massachusetts. One part of her work focused on the state’s supercluster, which includes partners ranging from UMass, MIT, GE, Mitre Corp., and Massachusetts General Hospital. The other part of her work involved the Massachusetts Economic Development Framework, which is meant to support economic development and job creation in all parts of the state.
“One challenge Massachusetts faces is that the state money to support university R&D comes from the same pot as the money for housing—meaning that the governor needs to choose between investing in R&D and housing homeless people,” said Stebbins. Nevertheless, her office was able to create a $25 million Collaborative R&D Matching Grant Fund, which provides matching funds for public-private research initiatives that commercialize new technologies and accelerate the development of new regional industry clusters. Massachusetts is also involved in Manufacturing USA; over the next 5 years the state has committed $113 million across five centers.
The state has also started a program to provide capital grants to support life sciences workforce development, research and development, and commercialization and manufacturing.
Stebbins noted that complications can arise from the differences between university priorities and the state’s priorities. “While universities want to educate talent, the state wants workforce training. While universities want to stimulate the local economy, the state thinks ‘you had better grow that local economy.’ While universities want to build their global brand, state officials think the university’s entire focus should be on the state and its competitiveness.”
Stebbins believes finding the balance between those two sets of priorities is a worthy challenge, and suggested that a capital investment program is a good place to start and can serve as a relatively easy way to build partnerships and develop the economy. Stebbins also argued the importance for universities to develop immediate partnerships with industry, get commitments from private industry, and form pathway partnerships with community colleges to help answer the workforce need.
She concluded, “In creating an economic development strategy, it is necessary to think about cities and communities that are disinvested in, or are struggling with poverty or disparities in health or education. Universities should get familiar with the map of community-based partners taking on these challenges—such as non-profits, innovation centers, and maker spaces—in your own state, because they are potential partners.”
ENABLING COOPERATION BETWEEN STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The final presentation was offered by Mike Cassidy of the Georgia Research Alliance, a consortium of research institutions and industry and state leaders. Cassidy focused his presentation on his work with the State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI), where he has chaired federal advocacy work for the past 4 years. SSTI, which is made up largely of practitioners in the tech-based economic development field, is focused on policies and programs that can lead to prosperity through entrepreneurship, science, and technology. SSTI has had success in recent years in forging a valuable relationship between state entities and the federal government that has led to funding for regional innovation strategies.
“At SSTI we recognized that tech-based economic development needed a stronger voice in Washington,” said Cassidy. “We first had to commit some resources and to identify one or two initiatives in the field to push for. We decided to focus on efforts that were underrepresented and under resourced. In digging around, we found Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS)—a program that was authorized in the 2010 reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, but was never funded. It called for grants to be made on a competitive basis to cities and municipalities as regions to test ideas, and to serve as laboratories for innovation.”
“We began a strong effort to advocate for these strategies and raised some money,” continued Cassidy. “We call ourselves the Innovation Advocacy Council. We started in earnest around 2012, and by fiscal year 2014 the appropriations bill included $10 million for RIS, which led to more than 20 grants from the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Economic Development Administration. The appealing thing about regional innovation strategies is that they are not highly prescriptive; the program is meant to identify interesting ways to bring a region together over innovation, and to develop prototypes that possibly can be used elsewhere.” Funding for the RIS program has increased incrementally over the past few years, and there have been over 100 grants awarded to around 40 states. The grants require cost sharing and total about $500,000 over a 2-year period.
While the Innovation Advocacy Council’s efforts have been largely focused on regional innovation strategies so far, it is starting to broaden its efforts and now has 10 to 12 agenda items to advance innovation on a regional basis. “It has been difficult but rewarding work,” said Cassidy, who noted that there is strong bipartisan support for these efforts right now in Congress.
DISCLAIMER: This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief has been prepared by Sara Frueh as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The committee’s role was limited to planning the meeting. The statements made are those of the author or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
REVIEWERS: To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed in draft form by Janet Nelson, University of Idaho, Paula Sorrell, University of Michigan, and James Woodell, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
PLANNING COMMITTEE: Katie Stebbins, University of Massachusetts at Boston; Wayne Johnson, Maguire Associates; Luis Proenza, University of Akron.
STAFF: Susan Sauer Sloan, Director, GUIRR; Megan Nicholson, Associate Program Officer; Claudette Baylor-Fleming, Administrative Coordinator; Cynthia Getner, Financial Associate.
SPONSORS: This workshop was supported by the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable Membership, National Institutes of Health, Office of Naval Research, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the United States Department of Agriculture.
For additional information regarding the workshop, visit www.nas.edu/guirr.
For additional information see these resources: Dee Hock, Birth of the Chaordic Age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2000. For more on Dee Hock’s reflections on ‘chaordic organizations,’ see: www.deehock.com/essays/chaordic-age-organizations. Richard Celeste co-chaired the Committee on Improving Higher Education’s Responsiveness to STEM Workforce Needs: Identifying Analytical Tools and Regional Best Practices, which authored the report: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Promising Practices for Strengthening the Regional STEM Workforce Development Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21894.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Role of State Governments in Economic Development and R&D Competitiveness: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25022.
Government-University-Industry-Research Roundtable Policy and Global Affairs
Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.