Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Participation in National Technology Development Programs
Pages 181-197

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 181...
... Program complexity: The first point is that there is a great deal of complexity and many administrative differences in the programs of the participants in the international system. However, these programs share a common orientation; they are national technology programs designed to promote national industries.
From page 182...
... technology programs to ensure that same condition of access would not only be conceptually difficult (given their different objectives and origins) , but as Tom Kalil, who works with the White House National Economic Council, pointed out, opening up the legislation for all these programs would be impractical.
From page 183...
... Their thought was that, since the semiconductor industry in the United States was now fairly healthy, it was appropriate to have private industry assume full responsibility for funding SEMATECH in the future. Our board and SEMATECH' s management extended what was a very gracious thank you to the federal government for the help they had given us, pointing out that we could not have accomplished what we had over the past few years without their support.
From page 184...
... That roadmap is admittedly fuzzy when you get 15 years out, but we think that for the next 6 or 7 years we know what the industry requirements will be. You heard yesterday from Northern Telecom that one of the key issues for the semiconductor industry is whether we can afford to build fabrication facilities in the future, facilities that are going to cost billions of dollars but that will nonetheless return a profit to the builder.
From page 185...
... Research centers, similar to the National Science Foundation engineering research centers, could be established at selected universities. These centers, jointly funded by NSF and the semiconductor industry, would focus on the technologies required 10-15 years in the future, as identified by the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.
From page 186...
... That is the same amount of money that it will take to build reactors for fusion energy 20 years from now. Our wafer conversion has to be done over the next two years, and the cost will be borne entirely by the semiconductor industry; I hope it will be an international effort, with the cost shared equitably by a large number of companies.
From page 187...
... And when you start talking about international cooperation, the complications of trade policy, international financing, and intellectual property rights are going to be more daunting than the technology issues. These complex interactions will demand innovative experiments.
From page 188...
... Certainly some great corporate labs have existed in the United StatesIBM and Westinghouse in Pittsburgh are good examples. For the most part, if you look at the history of those laboratories, they really existed as great scientific laboratories at the time when those companies enjoyed monopoly positions in the market.
From page 189...
... There is a governmental function, I believe, to sustain a longterm investment in the types of enterprises that are important to our economic health, as well as our military superiority. I do not want to lose sight of that.
From page 190...
... I do think some countries invest quite differently in it. CHALLENGES TO INTERNATIONAE COOPERATION When you move beyond science, you begin looking at international cooperation.
From page 191...
... industry. The MOU outlined the process whereby the IDA or the Japanese FSX contractors provided all derived technology to the DoD or U.S.
From page 192...
... Criteria for Foreign Participation in National Programs William Keller, Ounce of Technology Assessment Today I am going to address the subject of criteria for participation in national technology programs. There is a lot of interest in this because, in the end, it comes down to who gets the money and according to what principles.
From page 193...
... Economic interest: The legislation gives an illustrative list of what might constitute the national economic interest; this list includes investments in R&D and manufacturing in the United States; significant employment in the United States; and an agreement to promote manufacturing and resulting products in the United States. A fourth item on the list is oddly worded.
From page 194...
... I would like to suggest in conclusion that the comparable treatment aspects of the national technology programs could also become a source of broad-based international cooperation. This might be accomplished by elevating the debate to the level of multinational negotiations.
From page 195...
... But it has allowed the international foreign economic policy of the United States to devolve upon individual agencies, so that the Commerce Department is now in a position where it can decide that Japanese firms are not eligible which it has done in the last round of awards for the ATP program. So it does actually provide a legislative vehicle that was not in place before.
From page 196...
... My question is for William Keller. Is it possible that we, particularly Europe and the United States, will move to some type of a general reciprocity community in the same way that, for example, the GATT created MEN reciprocity agreements, which in turn created a basis for a community?
From page 197...
... The problem is that it does not work, particularly in this area of national technology funding, if one country is more open than another. There are just too many interests that would come in to play.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.