Notes

[32] For example, see Arora, Fosfuri, and Gambardella (2001); Bozeman (2000); and Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, and West (2006).

[33] Data are for R&D contract expenditures paid by U.S. industrial R&D performers (using company and other nonfederal R&D funds) to other domestic performers. In this section, contract R&D refers to a transaction with external parties involving R&D payments or income, regardless of its legal form. Transactions by companies that do not perform internal R&D in the United States are excluded, as are R&D activities contracted out to companies located overseas.

[34] Approximately 3% of expenditures involved universities and colleges, and 44% involved "other R&D performers."

[35] Offshoring refers to the sourcing of production inputs through companies located overseas. Offshoring may be done internally through controlled subsidiaries or affiliates, which involves FDI and related transactions (e.g., affiliated trade), or through external providers. The latter is part of outsourcing activities that in general involve either domestic or overseas external suppliers.

[36] Revenue data include operating surplus and other generally acceptable charges for services rendered. For SAS methodology and sample forms, see Census Bureau (2007).

[37] Note that except for small companies with a single physical location, company-based and establishment-based industry data are not comparable, even when they refer to the same metric. Furthermore, NSF data for companies classified in NAICS 5417 refer to R&D expenditures, whereas SAS data covered in this section refer to total exports by establishments classified in NAICS 5417. SAS data for establishments classified in professional, scientific, and technical services (NAICS 54) are available since 1998. SAS data for R&D services (NAICS 5417) is available for R&D in the physical, engineering, and life sciences (54171) and social sciences and humanities (54172). Data used in this section are limited to the former. For case studies in services industries, including the scientific R&D services industry, see Gallaher and Petrusa (2006).

[38] The category of RDT services is part of business, professional, and technical services (or business services, for short). The latter include royalties and license fees, discussed in chapter 6.

[39] Technology alliances may or may not be part of larger agreements involving manufacturing, licensing, or other forms of business collaboration. For recent studies on the role of technology licensing (e.g., technology development, commercialization strategy), see Fosfuri (2006) and Hagedoorn, Lorenz-Orlean, and Kranenburg (2007).

[40] As amended by the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–42). See U.S.C. Title 15, Chapter 69. More recently, federal patent and trademark law was amended in order to facilitate patenting inventions resulting from collaborative efforts across different companies or organizations. The amendment was instituted by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–453) and applies to patents resulting from joint research as long as the claimed invention is within the scope of a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement and made by or on behalf of the parties to the agreement.

[41] CATI-MERIT is a literature-based database that draws on sources such as newspapers, journal articles, books, and specialized journals that report on business events. It includes business alliances with an R&D or technology component, such as joint research or development agreements, R&D contracts, and equity joint ventures. Agreements involving small firms and certain technology fields are likely to be underrepresented. Another limitation is that the database draws primarily from English-language materials. No data on alliance duration or termination date are available.

[42] Federal laboratories are facilities owned, leased, or otherwise used by a federal agency, according to 15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(2). They include, for example, intramural laboratories (e.g., the laboratories owned by NIH's National Cancer Institute) and government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories such as some of DOE's FFRDCs. See also the section entitled "Federal R&D."

[43] For additional metrics and agencies up to FY 2003, see chapter 4 in NSB (2006), based on data from DOC, Office of the Secretary, Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer: FY 2003 Activity Metrics and Outcomes, 2004 Report to the President and the Congress Under the Technology Transfer and Commercialization Act (2004). An updated report was not available at the time of writing.

[44] For studies on patents, citations, and other technology transfer metrics at NASA and DOE, see chapters 9 and 10, respectively, in Jaffe and Trajtenberg (2001). For technology transfer activities and case studies involving USDA R&D, see Heisey et al. (2006).

[45] SBIR was created by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (Public Law 97–219, U.S.C. Title 15, Section 631). It was last reauthorized in 2000 through September 2008. The 2000 reauthorization bill (Public Law 106–554) also requested that the National Research Council conduct a multiyear SBIR study at five federal agencies with SBIR budgets exceeding $50 million (DOD, HHS, NASA, DOE, and NSF). The study is in progress. See NRC (2007) and National Academies (2007).

[46] STTR was created by the Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992 (Title II of the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act, Public Law 102–564). It was last reauthorized by the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 107–50) through FY 2009.

[47] Title I of the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act, Public Law 102–564.

[48] To obtain this federal funding, a small company applies for a Phase I SBIR grant of up to $100,000 for up to 6 months to assess the scientific and technical feasibility of ideas with commercial potential. If the concept shows further potential, the company can receive a Phase II grant of up to $750,000 over a period of up to 2 years for further development. In Phase III, the innovation must be brought to market with private-sector investment and support; no SBIR funds may be used for Phase III activities.

[49] STTR is also structured in three phases.

[50] Public Law 100–418; 15 U.S.C. Section 278n.

[51] According to the America COMPETES Act, TIP will "continue to provide support originally awarded under [ATP], in accordance with the terms of the original award and consistent with the goals of the Technology Innovation Program." See Library of Congress (2007). For more information on the new bill, see sidebar, "Recent Developments in Innovation-Related Metrics."

[52] See Library of Congress (2007).