1. Modest progress on innovation in 2010

    March 5, 2010 by AURP Canada

    Forestry, particle physics and satellites are this year’s winners

    By Emily Chung, CBC News
    Thursday, March 4, 2010

    The 2010 federal budget unveiled Thursday didn’t throw the doors of Canada’s telecommunication industry wide open to foreign investment, despite the anticipation created by the throne speech the day before.

    Nor did the budget provide much detail about how the government will “launch a digital economy strategy” and build the jobs and industries of the future it promised.

    Instead, it limited the modest increase in green jobs and clean energy spending to the forestry industry and directed the bulk of new technology spending to a particle accelerator and a group of next-generation satellites.

    While the budget does propose easing foreign ownership rules in the telecommunications industry, that applies only to one specific area – satellites. That will allow greater foreign ownership of private satellites licensed in Canada that provide services such as satellite television.

    However, it won’t impact the wireless industry, where ownership restrictions have caused the most controversy over the past year. In December, the government overturned a Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission decision that original found new wireless entrant Wind Mobile did not meet Canadian ownership rules and could not launch its service.

    While the 2010 federal budget promises to help create the “economy of tomorrow”, new innovation funding will be largely focused on two projects:

    • $222 million over five years to Vancouver-based TRIUMF, a nuclear and particle physics research facility; and
    • $397 million over five years for the Canadian Space Agency’s RADARSAT Constellation Mission, a group of next-generation satellites to support surveillance, defense and environmental monitoring. The project will get another $100 million through the agency’s own budget.

    Forestry gets clean energy funds

    The forestry industry is the main beneficiary of new green jobs and renewable energy spending, through the Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative. The program will provide $100 million over the next four years for clean energy technologies and production in the forestry sector. Details aren’t expected until later in the year, but the program could entail support for biomass energy or the use of alternative energy sources to fuel forestry processing plants.

    Forestry will also benefit from $75 million in new funding for Genome Canada for genetics research targeted at forestry and the environment as well as regional genomics innovation centres.

    While the throne speech mentioned that the government aimed to “expand opportunities” for “top graduates” to pursue post-doctoral studies and commercialize their ideas, the budget provides for a maximum of just 140 post-doctoral fellowships a year. Each new two-year fellowship will be worth $70,000 annually.

    Government to test new prototypes

    Other nods to technology, innovation and the environment in this year’s budget include:

    • $40 million to help federal departments and agencies to adopt prototype products and technologies developed by small and medium sized businesses, through a two-year pilot project involving 20 initiatives.
    • $15 million for the College and Community Innovation Program, which funds research collaborations between colleges and businesses focused on the company’s specific needs.
    • $32 million for Canada’s three granting agencies, including $16 million for health research, $8 million for science and engineering research, $5 million for science and engineering collaborations between academic institutions and provide companies, and $3 million for the social sciences and humanities.
    • $18 million over five years for the pre-construction design phase of the High Arctic Research Station.
    • $80 million in additional incentives for homeowners to make their home more energy efficient through the ecoENERGY home-retrofit program.

    The budget doesn’t allot any funding for the “digital economy strategy” that the throne speech said would “drive the adoption of new technology across the economy.” Nor does it say when such a strategy might be expected.

    Tim Weis, director of renewable energy policy for Pembina Institute, said based on their respective budgets for 2010-11, the U.S. will outspend Canada 14 to 1 per capital on renewable energy and 2 to 1 on energy efficiency. Canada has improved its energy efficiency somewhat by expanding the ecoENERGY retrofit program but continues to subsidize the fossil fuel industry by funding carbon capture initiatives.

    Comments (0)

  2. The Power of Place 2.0: The Power of Innovation (Excerpt)

    March 4, 2010 by AURP Canada

    10 Steps for Creating Jobs, Improving Technology Commercialization and Building Communities of Innovation

    In the Power of Place, the Association of University Research Parks demonstrates how geography and connected communities play a large role in innovation. In it, we called on Congress to view research universities, research parks, technology incubators, and federal lab incubators, and federal lab campuses as innovation zones.

    In the Power of Innovation, we offer ten steps – from policy changes to selected investments – that the federal government can take quickly to leverage existing federal assets and, without developing new bureaucracies, to create jobs, technology companies, and Communities of Innovation.

    These steps, in brief, are:

    1.    Support research park infrastructure and the development of Communities of Innovation

    The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are considering legislation that would provide planning grants and loan guarantees to build research parks and technology incubators, aligned with the President’s regional cluster strategy. National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) senior economic Dr. Greg Tassey has identified research parks as a key element in the U.S. manufacturing strategy. The primary sponsor of this legislation, Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), remarks, “Science parks provide a launch pad for economic activity in a community. They have a strong record of fostering talent, high tech innovation and job growth. Providing seed funding to create or expand these parks is necessary investment for our economy as well as our global competitiveness.”

    2.    Improve university technology transfer by reforming the Office of Management and Budget federal grant and contract funding model to encourage commercialization efforts by principal investigators and support “cash for commercialization.”

    Federal grant and contract policies to provide no funding or administrative flexibility by principal investigators for technology commercialization or initial proof of concept funding to bridge the first “valley of death” in making technologies attractive for follow-on investment. We urge the reform of restrictions on the use of federal contract and grant funds by

    • Giving principles investigators more authority to direct charge initial commercialization efforts on research-and-development contracts and grants;
    • Increasing by 1 percent overhead negotiated rates with federal agencies for cost reimbursement for patent expenses and for seeding commercialization funds at universities for technologies they elect to take title; and
    • Removing costs of university technology-transfer offices from the overall 26 percent federal administrative cap.

    3.    Support proof-of-concept funding.

    The national Science Foundation FY 2011 budget, based on concepts developed by Krisztina Holly, has a pilot program to develop-of-concept funding to support follow-on efforts to commercialize university owned technology. We urge that this program be fully supported.

    4.    Improve technology commercialization from federal laboratories by creating a congressionally chartered technology intermediary organization.

    To improve the rate of technology commercialization coming out of $25 billion in internal research and development spent at federal laboratories, we recommend the creation of a congressionally chartered commercialization intermediary organization, based on best practices of technology commercialization intermediary models found at research universities, state agencies, and individual federal laboratories. This can be done through expanding the funding, authority, venture staffing and venture acceleration capacity of the Federal Lab Consortium. According to Wendy Schacht of the Congressional Research Service, the FLC is currently funded by set-aside of only 0.008 percent of each agency’s R&D budget used for labs. Its mission, funding, and staffing could be expanded to increase the administrative flexibility and tools available to federal laboratory technology-transfer offices to align their decisions more closely with those of the private sector. The taxpayers are already investing heavily in federal research in federal laboratories. We need to make sure that those laboratories have the financial, legal, administrative and staffing tools such as embedded professionals from the venture community, to transfer technology to the private sector and create jobs.

    5.    Connect federal researchers with private companies.

    The Obama Administration has called on federal researchers to be more involved with private sector companies. No comprehensive agency-wide program exists, however, to allow federal research assignments with private-sector companies in a transparent way. We comment that a Presidential Executive Order on federal lab technology commercialization and private sector partnerships be issued, based on the NASA Ambassadors Program to allow federal research talent to support private companies. We further recommend that the Department of Energy’s Entrepreneur in Residence Program be expanded to all federal agencies.

    6.    Create more private sector involvement near federal lab and regional research clusters.

    We recommend the expansion of Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) authority, which allows leasing of federal land and equipment, to all federal agencies, not just Department of Defense agencies. We recommend as well that an Executive Order be issued to encourage federal leasing of research assets near existing innovation assets, such as universities, research parks, and technology incubators, and technology incubators to create innovation clusters.

    7.    Expand the corporate R&D tax credit.

    Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) President Robert D. Atkinson has demonstrated that expanding the Alternative Simplified Tax Credit (ASC) for research and development from 14 to 20 percent would not only spur job creation at a time when this is desperately needed but would also boost the country’s long term innovation capacity. In particular, his report models how expanding the ASC from 14 to 20 percent would create a number of critical economic benefits, including:

    • 162,000 jobs in the near term
    • A $90 billion increase in GDP as the nation struggles through economic recovery
    • 3,850 new American patents as nations compete for dominance in tomorrow’s technologies
    • $17 billion in new tax revenues as congress and Administration face daunting budget deficits

    8.    Reform export controls.

    In his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama called for reform in the federal government’s export-control system. Reforming export controls and removing troublesome clauses from research projects not affecting the fundamental security of our country will encourage more partnerships between academia and industry. Uncertainty and the too strict application of the current export-control system have proved barriers in developing research relationships.

    9.    Keep corporate R&D in the United States by eliminating the link to university intellectual property licensing in “private use” restrictions in university facilities.

        Congress should remove the federal IRS tests related to intellectual-property licensing by universities to corporate research facilities funded by tax exempt bonds. Negotiations between corporations and universities on intellectual property licensing should be a business decision, and not one linked to the tax status of the facility; otherwise, corporations will continue to ship R&D to countries whose governments, in many cases, provide financial support for the facilities where the corporate R&D is conducted and do not intervene in the negotiations on intellectual property licensing.

    10.    Encourage entrepreneurship as a national goal, and include entrepreneurship in STEM initiatives.

        Job creation in the United States will largely depend on start-up companies and individual entrepreneurs. We need to embed the concept of entrepreneurship in all of our STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) activities and policies. The new paradigm should be ESTEEM (Encouraging Science, Technology, Engineering, Entrepreneurship and Math).

    To view the full report, please visit http://www.aurp.net/more/AURPPowerofPlace2.pdf

     

     

     

    Comments (0)

  3. IASP Mexican Members will join the IASP North American Division

    February 17, 2010 by AURP Canada

    As per a decision taken last week by the Board of Directors, IASP International can now welcome its Mexican IASP colleagues into the North American Division of the IASP.

    The proposal was put forward by Pierre Belanger, President of the North American Division of IASP, suggesting that Mexican member’s be included in the IASP North American Division rather than the Latin American Division to which they currently belong. The idea was supported by the Mexican members and approved by the IASP Board of Directors.

    The main reasons behind the proposal were the industrial, economic and technological relationships Mexico has with the USA and Canada which, despite the obvious ties of Mexico with the other Iberoamerican countries of culture and language, are far stronger than with the Latin American countries.

    In line with the operative and flexible nature of our regional divisions, the IASP Board also agreed that our Mexican colleagues should still be invited to participate in any events or programmes that the Latin American Division may organize.

    Comments (0)

  4. Canada gets D for innovation: Conference Board

    February 3, 2010 by AURP Canada

    By Derek Abma, Canwest News Service
    February 2, 2010

    OTTAWA – Canada gets a D in innovation, according to the report card issued Tuesday, ranking the country 14th among 17 industiralized nations for its ability to turn knowledge into money-making products and services.

    In a report from the Conference Board of Canada, this country ranked ahead only of Australia, Italy and Norway for innovation.

    Switzerland, Ireland and the United States topped the list.

    “Canada is well-supplied with educational institutions and carries out scientific research that is well-respected around the world,” said Gilles Rheaume, the Conference Board’s vice president of public policy.

    “But with a few exception, Canada does not successfully commercialize its scientific and technological discoveries into world-leading products and services,” he said.

    Of the 12 indicators used to compile these rankings, Canada was given a D in nine categories, two Cs and one B. Its highest grade was given for the number of scientific articles published relative to the population. Canada was eighth in that category.

    Canada was ranked particularly poorly in the area of international trademarks per capita, finishing ahead only of Japan.

    As well, it was dead last in the technology-exchange category, which measures “the flow of technological know-how and technological services into and out of a country as a share of GDP.” Denmark and the Netherlands, which were part of the overall study, were not graded in this category due to a lack of recent data.

    Canada was noted for having much of its economy based on the trade of commodities, with little value added before export. “Canada sells raw materials to be processed elsewhere,” the report said.

    The Conference Board said countries scoring higher than Canada in innovation spend more on science and technology, and also have public policies that drive innovation supply and demand.

    It is also noted the most innovative countries tend to be leaders in one or more areas. It cited Switzerland’s dominant position in the development of pharmaceuticals, Ireland’s leadership in making technology a bigger part of its economy, and the U.S. for having top science and engineering facilities along with large capital markets.

    The board said Canada was once at the leading edge of biotechnology but has fallen behind due to a complicated and slow regulatory process, and a reluctance of domestic companies to buy products developed in their home country.

    The biofuels sector, however, was singled out as an industry Canada could take a leadership role in due to its “relative success story with respect to the interplay between innovation and regulation” and “leading-edge research and technology demonstration.” To build on this position, the board recommended regular reviews of renewable-fuel standards, harmonized regulations on such products between provinces, and resolving the conflict that exists between supporting the biofuels industry and “imposing stringent regulatory requirements.”

    Comments (0)

  5. GreenCentre partners with international plastics recycling company

    by AURP Canada

    GreenCentre Canada has struck a partnership with North American plastics recycling company whose wide-ranging markets touch nearly every plastic process in the world.  With more than 25 years of experience, NexCycle Plastics Inc (NPI) is a full service recycled plastics compounder and distributor of polymers that services a network of manufacturers across Canada and in the northeastern and Midwestern United States.

    “As a major force in plastics recycling, this company makes an immense contribution to global efforts aimed at creating a more sustainable world. We are looking forward to working with NexCycle to identify new green technologies that will advance their own operational goals,” says Dr. Rui Resendes, GreenCentre’s Executive Director. For full details, see www.greencentrecanada.com

    Comments (0)

  6. Canadian R&D is Feedstock for Other Nations’ Growth – Terry Matthews Calls for Pan Canadian Innovation Plan: community mobilization for a new Vision of Canada

    January 27, 2010 by AURP Canada

    Ottawa, January 25, 2010…CATAAlliance National Spokesperson, Sir Terence Matthews is calling on political parties and all Canadians to adopt a new vision for Canada, an Innovation Nation vision that will lead us  from 13th to 1st place or an A grade in Innovation performance.

     “The award of national prosperity will go to those countries that can generate international confidence in their ability to lead in the design, development, production and distribution of goods and services. These countries will attract and retain investment. For Canada to prosper we must become a leading Innovation Nation; we all need to do our part to get there.” 

     Canada’s Innovation Gap is a fundamental challenge to Canada’s economic growth in a world where our competitors are focused on becoming the world’s innovators.  In their report highlighting the Innovation Gap, the Council of Canadian Academies emphasized [1] that Canadians are good at research but are equally weak when it comes to leveraging the results into successful businesses that mature to become world class.  Canada’s technologies and researchers have become the feedstock for our competitors’ growth. 

     In a September 2009 Update, CATA highlighted the Federal Government’s emerging commitment to developing a “High-Tech Plan” to address Canada’s Innovation Gap.  However, there is still no plan to discuss.

     Matthews added, “While we recognize that there have been a number of distractions and that significant discussions are occurring on whether a structural budget deficit exists, everyone agrees that Canada has a structural deficit in innovation that continues to impede growth in many of our communities across the country.”

     Russ Roberts, CATA’s Senior Vice President, Tax and Finance, points out, “The decades-long inability of Canada’s governing leaders to provide a coherent and effective innovation policy framework for leveraging our creativity as scientists and technologists into viable business ventures is a critical challenge.”

     He notes that “This is particularly true as the Canadian dollar approaches and likely exceeds parity with the U.S. dollar, a situation that is expected to remain for some time.  CATA finds that the economics of investing in Canadian innovations are becoming less favourable.  Over 40% of the respondents to a recent CATA poll indicated that it is likely they will have to move their R&D offshore to counteract the high cost of doing R&D in Canada.”

     CATA’s Board of Directors calls on all Members of Parliament to step back while they look at the options for managing the deficit and focus on the national benefits of immediately tabling an Innovation Plan that addresses the negative impact of the Innovation Gap on their constituencies and local business.  

     We do know that the Government is taking a close look at its investment in the SR&ED Tax Incentive Program.  Extensive discussions have taken place with the community on behalf of the former Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for (Agriculture and Agra-Food) The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn. 

     CATA has been consulted.  Our experience with these discussions and the feedback we have received from members who were consulted is that the review of the SR&ED Program appears to be thorough. 

     However, as Russ notes, “We understand that changes to the SR&ED Program are being announced but we have not seen any comprehensive, transparent plan.  The community is looking for a comprehensive plan, given the systemic and long entrenched nature of the issues being brought forward to the Minister.” 

     On the venture financing front, CATA has just received commitments that barriers to obtaining clearance certificates exempting foreign investors (particularly U.S. investors) from withholding taxes on their Canadian venture investments will be addressed by the Department of Finance.

     While a little encouraging, improvements to the administration of the SR&ED tax incentives and clearance certificates are only a couple pieces and only the beginning of the puzzle for solving the Innovation Gap. 

     What Is Needed?

     CATAAlliance is looking for a plan that goes well beyond SR&ED and piecemeal fixes – here and there interventions.  CATA is looking for an Innovation Plan that clearly addresses the country’s systemic imbalances and focuses on how to leverage the creativity of Canada’s science and technology capital into successful, internationally competitive technology intensive businesses.

     John Reid, President, CATA, stresses, “At this critical crossroad in Canada’s economic history, we urge all Members of Parliament to not lose focus on the broader challenge of crafting the environment needed to dig Canada out of its perennial Innovation Gap.”

    Canada needs a comprehensive, coherent and effective Innovation Plan that reflects CATA’s “Innovation Nation” Plan, a plan which:

    •  effectively fosters the creation, retention and growth of IP such that Canadians obtain the full benefits of the country’s investment;
       
    • addresses the dearth of funding available for early stage businesses and for the financing of growth opportunities in established businesses;
       
    • promotes a regulatory climate that is not a drag on innovation; one that encourages Canadians to lead as creators, innovators and adapters of next generation technologies; and
       
    • promotes trade relations that permit Canadian firms to compete, and to seek success and growth in global markets effectively.

     

     The plan includes a comprehensive set of recommendations that enable Canada to become a leader as an Innovation Nation.  Sir Terence Matthews, together with CATA, is currently promoting dialogue by outlining the risks for Canada of inaction and the advantages of action.

     Matthews concludes, “Governments at all levels and all Members of Parliament need to hear that it is time to put a cohesive Innovation Plan on the table.”

     Call to Action:

     MP and Community Mobilization
    Please send electronically and/or print out and fax this communiqué and follow up with a phone call to your local MP at the federal and provincial levels, elected officials, such as, the Mayor of your  City and Counselors,  media and network of public and private sector contacts, inclusive of posting on your social media. This will help us get across the need for change and the consequences to your firms and communities if they do not act.  

    Organizational Mobilization
    Please circulate this communique internally to all your employees and alumni and ask them to engage in the MP and Community Mobilization.

     [1] “Canada’s Innovation Gap  Estimating Its Size; Explaining Its Causes” by Peter J. Nicholson, President, The Council of Canadian Academies, Presentation to Socio-Economic Conference 2009, Gatineau, QC, 5 May, 2009�
    Read: Tycoon plans fund to fill Nortel void Matthews seeks $100M-$200M to finance startups before ex-Nortel staff leave area (Ottawa Citizen, Bert Hill)

    Media Contact: Emily Boucher, at email eboucher@cata.ca  or John Reid at jreid@cata.ca

    Comments (0)

  7. AUCC calls on Ottawa for $2.5-billion boost to university research and education

    January 8, 2010 by AURP Canada

    RE$EARCH MONEY
    December 21, 2009

    Canada will be ill-prepared to emerge from the recession as a globally competitive knowledge economy unless it substantially increases funding of key elements in the university system.  In its pre-Budget submission to the Finance Department, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) is calling for more than $2.5-billion in new spending over five years, including more than $1 billion fro the three granting councils to support the direct and indirect costs of research and launch and ambitious post-doctoral fellows program.

    The recommendations also include the launch of an ambitious international recruitment strategy to increase the number of foreign students undertaking undergraduate and graduate studies in Canada, particularly from China and India.  Aboriginal university education is also targeted for new funding to boost the participation rates and performance of the fasted growing demographic group in Canada.

    The size and scope of the AUCC’s recommendation reflect growing concern over the slowing pace of increases for university based research in recent years.  While FY07-08 saw a healthy 9.4% hike in federal support for higher education, the previous two years were virtually flat (R$, September 22/09). Over the same period, competing nations have increased support for university research at a greater rate and have accelerated those increases more recently part of comprehensive stimulus packages.

    If implemented, the infusion of new cash would boost the collective base budgets of the granting councils from slightly more than $1.5 billion in FY09-10 to nearly $2.6 billion by FY14-15, with almost half coming in the first two years.  The AUCC also asked the government to consider addressing the growing gap between the councils, specifically through asymmetrical increases that would provide a greater percentage increase to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    “Many of today’s problems require both scientific and social responses. New models of innovation have people at centre stage placing a stronger emphasis on the contributions of the social sciences and humanities,” states the AUCC submission.

    The largest single increase ($648 million) would go to support the current programs of the three granting councils. A new post-doctoral fellows program would inject $450-million over five years into fellows support, providing $65,000 annually to 750 post-doctoral fellows in the first year and 1,500 every year thereafter.

    “In light of the global demand for their skills, it is important to provide additional support to keep the growing numbers of talented young graduate students and post-doctoral fellows from a broad range of disciplines here in Canada,” states the submission.

    Indirect costs would also be significantly boosted to raise support from its current level of 23% of direct costs to 35%.  That would require the budget of the Indirect Costs Program (ICP) to be increased from its current level of $325 million annually to $738 million.

    While such an increase would not achieve the AUCC’s long-standing support for at least 40%, a 35% target is seen as an interim measure and an acknowledgement of the government’s difficult financial position.

    “(Indirect costs) are a difficult case to make. We’re trying to make it more clearly and emphasize what is at stake here, and illustrate how it is funded differently in other countries,” says Herb O’Heron, AUCC’s director of policy analysis and research. “Indirect costs are also not seen or understood by researchers… Most of the indirect costs are unfunded direct costs. They are the costs of research and people can’t seem to get their heads around that.”

    Attracting a larger share of international students is behind the request for $100 million over five years strategy, leveraging the existing Edu-Canada initiatives led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The AUCC submission notes that far more Chinese and Indian students are studying in Australia and the UK than Canada.  The new funding would be allocated to provide resources for institutions to undertake market research and pilot missions as well as student permit processing capacity and support for not-for-profit and stakeholder driven initiatives.

    Support for Aboriginal students is a key component of the AUCC submission, with the bulk of new funding directed towards student assistance. An existing program delivered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is inadequate, it contends, and AUCC is recommending $35 million annually be added to this initiative and redesigned to be focus on institutions. In addition, university efforts through the Indian Studies Support Program should be doubled to $40 million immediately and reach $150 million a year within five years.

    A pilot program of $10 million is also being recommended to boost K-12 completion rates.  This could involve using upper year students as ambassadors, training more Aboriginal teachers, and awareness raising in Aboriginal communities.  The Aboriginal youth population is growing at three times the national rate while degree attainment is one-third the national average.

    AUCC Budget Recommendations($ millions)

    Boost current granting council programs

    684
    Indirect costs of research

    413
    Post-doctoral fellow support program

    450
    Sub Total

    1,547
    Aboriginal university education

    875
    International student recruitment strategy

    100
    Total

    2,522

    Note: all amounts over five years from FY10-11 to FY14-15

    Comments (0)

  8. Pryor, Snowe Legislation to Spur Innovation, Economic Development with Science Parks Clears Committee Hurdle

    December 18, 2009 by AURP Canada

    December 17, 2009
    Press Release

    Bill Passes Committee with Bipartisan Support

    Washington, DC – The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today unanimously passed legislation, introduced by Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), intended to spur innovation and economic development through the development of science parks.

    The Building a Stronger America Act will help construct or expand science parks, which seek to encourage new start up businesses, generate student interest in science and technology fields, and encourage relationships between universities and industry.  Specifically, the legislation allows the Secretary of Commerce to guarantee up to 80 per cent of loans exceeding $10 million for the construction of new science parks.  The bill would also provide grants for the development of feasibility studies as well as plans for the construction of new, or expansion of existing, science parks.  Finally, the bill would require the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the program.

    “Science Parks provide a launch pad for economic activity in the community.  They have strong record of fostering talent, high tech innovation and job growth,” Pryor said. “Providing seed funding to create or expand these parks is a necessary investment for our economy as well as our global competitiveness.”

    “A hallmark of science parks is that they create well-paying jobs and spur critical innovation,” said Senator Snowe.  “Our bill goes beyond the traditional ‘mortar and bricks’ model and leverages the networks of people, knowledge and technology clusters in order to meet economic development needs of the 21st century.  Additionally, I thank Senator Pryor for working with me to include a provision that recognizes the critical nature of military bases shuttered by the BRAC process into vibrant science parks, this assisting these installations to redevelop in a timely fashion and recoup thousands of lost jobs.”

    Science parks improve the economic base of the region and the  state. According to the Association of University Research Parks (AURP), science parks contribute over $31 billion to North America’s economy annually.  For example, 31 organizations are affiliated with the Arkansas Research and Technology Park at the University of Arkansas, employing more than 350 individuals at an average salary of $63,277.  The Park is making scientific breakthroughs in the areas that include energy, electronics, photogenics, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and “green” products and techniques.

    The bill is also cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jeff Bingaman (D-MN), Bob Casey (D-PA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mike Johanns (R-NE), and Tim Johnson (D-S.D) and Tom Udall (D-NM).

    Comments (0)

  9. Green Buildings: Fewer Sick Days, Higher Rents

    December 1, 2009 by AURP Canada

    by Chris Palmeri
    www.businessweek.com
    November 19, 2009

    Environmentally friendly construction practices have gotten a lot of hype over the past few years but do the really pay off as an investment? A new study found that tenants in green buildings experienced increased productivity and fewer sick days.  The research also found that green buildings have lower vacancy rates and higher rents than non-green counterparts.

    The study, conducted by the University of San Diego and commerical real estate broker CB Richard Ellis Group, found that tenants in green buildings such as Behnisch Architekten-designed Unilever offices in Hamburg are more productive based on two measures: the average number of tenant sick days and a productivity change. Respondents reported an average of 2.88 fewer sick days in their green office versus their previous non-green office. About 55% of respondents indicated that employee productivity had improved.

    Based on the average tenant salary, an office space of 250 square feet per worker and 250 work days a year, the decrease in sick days translated into a net impact of nearly $5.00 per square foot per year. The increase in productivity translated into a net impact of about $20 per square foot.  The study also showed that green buildings have 3.5% lower vacancy rates and 13% higher rental rates than the market.

    The work was based on surveys of 154 buildings under CBRE’s management, totaling more than 51.6 million square feet and housing 3,000 tenants in ten markets across the U.S.  The study defined a green building as those with LEED Certification at any level or those that bear the EPA ENERGY STAR ® label.

    Another report out in the past week concluded that constructing new green buildings or retrofitting existing structures with energy efficient air conditioning, solar panels and the like will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump $554 billion into the American economy over the next four years.  The study, by the U.S. Green Building Council and Booz Allen Hamilton, determined that green construction spending currently supports more than 2 million American jobs and generates more than $100 billion in gross domestic product and wages.

    The economic impact of the total green construction market from 2000 to 2008, the study found, was $178 billion. It created or saved 2.4 million jobs and generated $123 billion in wages.

    The U.S. Green Building Council certifies LEED buildings and obviously has an interest in the movement, but Rick Fedrizzi, chief exec of the group said something remarkably down to earth in releasing the report: “Our goal is for the phrase ‘green building’ to become obsolete, by making all building and retrofits green – and transforming every job in our indstury into a green job.”

    Can’t argue with that.

    Comments (0)

  10. Lack of commerce culture behind why early-stage tech firms are disappearing

    November 6, 2009 by AURP Canada

    Re$earch Money
    October 8, 2009

    Different report, similar conclusions.  The authors of a new study probing the distressingly high number of Canadian R&D-performing firms that are disappear despite adequate financing say Canada’s lack of a culture of commerce is largely to blame.  The study by Drs. Doug Barber and Jeffery Crelinsten discovered that, of the 18 firms they examined and the 28 entrepreneurs or investors they interviewed, eight firms had no customers and seven had no sales.

    Whether it was the entrepreneur heading the firm or the investing venture capitalist, the absence of a culture of commerce inevitably led to a disconnect between products and customers that resulted in insolvency or sale to a foreign entity.

    The findings cut to the heart of the dilemma Barber and Crelinsten have highlighted in previous reports on R&D-performing companies.  A preoccupation with technology and dysfunctional governance (including boards of directors) were also cited as reasons behind the disappearance of the firms examined.

    “Customer focus is a very human thing.  It’s not objective- or evidence-based.  Marriage doesn’t work that way and neither does commerce,” says Barber, co-founder and former president and CEO of Gennum Corp.  “Customer focus is at the societal level which means the educational level.  Universities influence everything.  You can’t be a professional without going through university.  And boards of directors are professionals that make a lot of the decisions.  Half the companies we talked to could not identify a potential customer they are doing this work for.

    Entitled Understanding the Disappearance of Early-stage and Start-up R&D-performing Firms, the study is the latest in a series of reports by Barber and Crenlinsten that began in 2003 with the report, Can Canada’s Private Sector Do Its Part to Move Canada into the Five Most Innovative Economies of the World?

    Crenlinsten – a partner with The Impact Group and co-publisher of RE$EARCH MONEY – says one of the new findings in the latest study is the general incompetence among the investor community.  Nearly all of the 12 investors interviewed for the report came from the banking and corporate finance sectors and had negligible experience running start-ups.  Lack of investor experience exacerbated in the case of labour-sponsor venture funds (LSVF) which were burdened with investment quotas and often lacked the resources to make follow-on investments.

    “They had absolutely no interest in the companies successfully doing business. They were just protecting their interests,” he says. “Many spread their investments too thin and they were only expecting a 10% success rate.  There was no sense of customers or the need to find them.”

    “Canada’s inability to grow successful firms and retain growing firms in the country translates into less corporate tax revenue for the federal government.  In addition, firms like the ones we studied employ highly skilled people who have above average salaries that generate significant personal income tax to governments. A high rate of firm disappearance means these jobs are lost along with the accompanying income tax revenue.” – Barber – Crelinsten Report 

    To address the problem of firm disappearance, the report makes three sets of recommendations gleaned from interviews:

    • Enhanced cultural and entrepreneurial learning;
    • Greater awareness among Canadians of the appropriate enterprise sources of financing; and,
    • Modification to government programs that includes more direct support to business and streamlined tax credits.  The latter includes a number of points including the need to reconsider more direct support to companies.

     “Governments need to get off this resistance to direct support programs … Policy people can be ideologically against directly supporting business,” says Crelinseten. “Right now there’s only IRAP (Industrial Research Assisastance Program), SADI (Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative) and the AIF (Atlantic Innovation Fund).”

     Crelinsten says a good model for Canada to examine is the US Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, which ensures that small, high-tech, innovative business are a significant part of the federal government’s R&D efforts.

     The report also makes three recommendations of its own that clearly indicate the primacy of commerce to increase the chances of company success in a globally competitive environment.

     “If there’s too much focus on R&D, firms will disappear,” says Barber. “The idea of ideas-to-market is one of the pieces of our craziness.  We need to get ideas from the market and the customer to know where to add the value.”

     Barber contends that the onus is on Canada’s universities to immediately inject the concepts of commerce and the customer into its teachings so that graduates are prepared for the challenges of commerce when they enter the workforce.

     “We are integrated into these beautiful silos and we don’t worry about the other silos. If we get scared, we might actually do something right. But we have so many resources.  The thing is, the US and the Chinese will soon own most of them.”

     Crelinson agrees that an over-reliance on raw materials has allowed Canada to prosper. Canadians aren’t hungry enough, he asserts, adding that technology and financing are mistakenly seen as adequate to support start-up firms.

     “It’s all about the customer and commerce and growing global companies through the creation of value,” he says. “We are going to have to go down the tank or the deceleration of prosperity must be so swift that we get scared.”

     The report was financed by Statistics Canada, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification, Information Technology Association of Canada, and Industry Canada, and supported by the National Angel Capital Organization.

     Report Recommendations

    1.   Establish entrepreneurial and commerce learning by introducing commerce and enterprise in school curricula and institute mentoring programs to connect company executives, potential entrepreneurs and students with people with commerce-experience;

    2.   Increase the understanding that the role of customers is critical for cusses in the knowledge economy.  The human dimensions of the value exchange we call commerce must be better understood; and

    3.   Governments must play a strong role in enterprise and commerce learning for entrepreneurs and Canadians in general.  This includes education and learning for civil servants to acknowledge their role in the value exchange.

    Comments (0)