1. Dragon’s Den Auditions

    March 18, 2010 by AURP Canada

    Attention budding entrepreneurs!

    Fresh off the highest-rated season yet, CBC Television’s DRAGONS’ DEN is embarking on an epic audition tour. Due to overwhelming demand, produces are expanding the search to over 40 stops. From the Great White North to the edges of every coast, DRAGONS’ DEN is seeking Canadians with creative ideas and money-making savvy to make the case for cash. Successful candidates will make their way to the Den for a chance to appear in front of the Dragons in the new season.

    To apply or for more information, please visit http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/apply/


  2. Lessons from the tech bust

    March 17, 2010 by AURP Canada

    By Simon Avery

    They had no idea the party was over.

    Ten years ago this month, the Nasdaq stock market index hit an all-time high of 5,048.62. Euphoric investors of all stripes, from Wall Street titans to novice retirees, had poured hundreds of billions of dollars into dreams that an unstoppable force of technological innovation was changing everything.

    However, the combination of exuberance, ignorance and greed that sent technology stocks to impossibly high valuations was slowly breaking down.

    Nobody knew the scale of destruction of wealth that would ensue. A decade after the March 2000 high, the tech-heavy Nasdaq benchmark remains 55 per cent off its dizzying peak.

    The tech meltdown weighs on the sector to this day.

    The fallout forced a maturing of the industry. Companies have clamped down on spending, investors demand growing revenue and profits, and financiers have become highly selective about putting money into young companies and new ideas.

    Today’s challenging environment is particularly demanding in Canada, where entrepreneurs and others say the venture capital model for funding innovation is broken. With former giants such as Nortel Networks either failed, sold or faded away. Canada’s tech sector is struggling to create the next Research In Motion.

    “When I look at the future of this country, I am deeply concerned, form an industrial policy perspective,” says John Ruffolo, who heads the technology, media and telecommunications practice in Canada for Deloitte & Touche LLP.

    “I think that particularly now in the 21st century, with the rise of some major economies, like China, India and Brazil, every country is a competitor to you from day one. Canada needs to rethink the future of this country,” Mr. Ruffolo says.

    Last year, Canadian venture capitalists raised $995-million, just short of the $1-billion raised in 2008.

    This represents the lowest level since before the dot-com era, in the mid-1990s. Part of the reason is the poor returns they have delivered over the past decade.

    Where’s the funding?

    Private venture capital posted a 3.9 per cent loss over the 10 years ended June 30, 2009, according to Canada’s Venture Capital and Private Equity Association. In comparison, the 10-year return on the U.S. Venture Capital index was 8.4 per cent.

    “There is a shortage of venture capital in the Canadian market, which is narrowing down the deals to the very best,” says Rob Chaplinsky, managing director of Bridgescale, a Silicon Valley-based VC firm that has set up an office in Toronto to capitalize on the situation. He has met with some 200 Canadian firms in the past year and invested in at least one, BluCat Networks, whose technology helps businesses manage internet protocol networks.

    Funding is both harder for VCs to raise and entrepreneurs to access today, agrees Dave Kroetsch, co-founder and president of Aeryon Labs, a Waterloo-based firms that makes aerial robots for surveilleance.

    “They want as sure a thing as possible,” he says. VCs today like to wait for a market to be proven before making a bet on it, the way Facebook legitimized social networking. “Then everyone wants to invest in the segment. Before, there wasn’t that hesitation.” On the customer side, purchasers are also hesitating to invest in something new, even if it offers compelling value, he says.

    Over the past three years, Aeryon has relied completely on private money, a large amount of sweat equity and mentoring and support from Communitech, an industry network in Waterloo. The firm is in the process of trying to raise VC funding and has fully bypassed the Canadian market, looking instead at VCs in the northeastern U.S.

    One key upcoming test of investors’ appetite for Canadian technology is Smart Technologies ULC.

    A decade ago, the small Calgary-based company developing interactive whiteboards though seriously about joining the rush to the public markets, but abandoned the idea as the market soured. Today, Smart Technologies is one of the most highly-anticipated IPOs in memory, with market watchers expecting the firm to file a prospectus this year. (The company itself was quiet on the matter.) Smart Technologies has annual sales north of $500-million.

    Co-founders David Martin and Nancy Knowlton beat the odds to reach this stage. They found private funds after venture capitalists denied them financing, sidestepped a potential disastrous IPO, hired well and grinded through seven-day workweeks for years.

    CEO Nancy Knowlton says the firm maintained a fundamentally different philosophy to other early-stage firms in 2000.

    “We’ve been very much about being real, having revenue, serving customers, having repeat customers, creating products, intellectual property, creating a channel and really developing something with an element of permanence to it.”

    Still, the list of Canadian tech firms on a path to global success is short.

    “It’s a little bit about getting into the culture of winning, like the Olympics we just had,” says Ungad Chadda, senior vice president of the Toronto Stock Exchange. “I don’t think the technology entrepreneurs around here are encouraged and supported to think beyond the $250-million cheque that a U.S. company can give them.”

    Canada’s junior stock market is one avenue for tech firms, but that route brings its own challenges.

    Nightingale Informatix Corp. which specializes in software and electronic records for the medical industry, opted for an IPO on the TSX Venture Exchange several years ago and followed that up with two years of private financing, for an aggregate $22-million. The market is supportive but opportunistic, says Sam Chebib, founder, president and CEO. “They want to invest on the cheap, and that creates issues for companies.” In this touch environment, Nightingale has chosen to focus on profitability ahead of revenue growth.”

    Of the roughly tech-related firms on the exchange today, only five are profitable.

    Government help

    While U.S. startups and businesses in general remain largely suspicious of government involvement in the market, across Canada diehard capitalists are calling for government to play a bigger role in order to bolster the country’s emerging tech sector.

    The federal government produced a cheer across the industry this month when the budget removed a cumbersome process for foreign VCs to collect their money when they sell investment in Canada, including the need to file tax returns when no tax was payable. But there are also widespread calls for the government to loosen the rules for its research and development tax incentives and to get directly involved in funding firms.

    Quebec is leading the way in corralling the private sector to work with the government. Last year, Solidarity Fund QFL, the Caisse de depot et placement du Québec and Investissement Québec created Teralys Capital, a venture firm with more than $700-million in capital. Fifty per cent of investment will be directed at Quebec-based tech firms, with another 25 per cent funding deals in the rest of Canada and the remainder earmarked for international investment.

    “The government has realized that they need to step in to support the industry. I’m a free-market guy, but on issues like this, where China has the upper hand, this was brilliant,” says Mr. Ruffolo, calling for other provinces to make similar moves. “Government policies need to be strategically pointed to support the idea. But they’re not. they’re sort of a grab bag.”

    The government has a role in helping entrepreneurs build companies, but once they are built the issue becomes Canadian’s entrepreneurial spirit and whether it is strong enough to forge global companies.

    Each year for the past seven years, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has surveyed emerging software firms across Canada. Early on, about one-third of them aspired to be an IPO. Last year, the figure was just 2 per cent. More recently, that has risen to 10 per cent.

    Big thinkers

    “What we need is more $100-million software companies. We need CEOs that don’t want to sell out at $30-million or $40-million,” says Peter Matuat, a partner and leader of PwC’s emerging company practice.

    “There is no question that you can build a world-class company here in Canada,” says Tim Jackson, the CEO of the Accelerator Centre in Waterloo, which is supporting 31 startups today through funding from federal, provincial and municipal governments and the University of Waterloo. He points to Com Dev International Ltd. (market capitalization of $273-million,) Open Text Corp. (2.83-billion) and RIM ($43.18-billion) as evidence.

    Mr. Jackson has never been afraid to think big. He is also a founder and partner of the local VC firm, Tech Capital Partners. But he is perhaps most widely known as the former chief financial officer of PixStream, and the man who negotiated the $369-million (U.S.) sale of the company to Cisco Systems Inc. in 2000.

    Every single firm within the Accelerator Centre aspires to be the next RIM. While most won’t be, the RIM effect is widely felt today, not just through inspiration but more directly from funding to the community and mentoring from its people.

    The RIM effect pulses at Adenyo in Toronto. The startup’s technology helps companies deliver interactive advertising and marketing to mobile devices.

    “We’re a very ambitious management team,” says Tyler Nelson, chairman and CEO. “The sky is the limit. We are here to build a very large Canadian company.”

    Most entrepreneurs boast a sense of eternal optimism and have plenty of bravado. What gives credence to Mr. Nelson’s stand, however, is that he learned about building big from the masters at RIM, where he served as head of global business development. Working with Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis taught him the alternative to selling out.

    “It’s the attitude,” he says. “From the outset you build the culture to build big business. That becomes ingrained. Then when opportunities come to cash out, your team isn’t driven to sell. You don’t come to work to make quick money, but to grow a company. The key is to build a board and a team that think like that and say ‘come along on the ride with us.’”

    Mr. Nelson’s team has a long way to go. Adenyo opted not to seek venture capital fearing that VC firms push for early exits to recoup their investments. It is privately funded, with sales in excess of $20-million and no debt, and is growing at about 40 per cent a year.

    “There will be another Research In Motion,” Mr. Nelson says confidently. “It’s going to take an entire ecosystem of supporters to build that company. We have to create together fertile ground to allow companies like Adenyo to become $100-million, $200-million, $1-billion companies. It’s a team effort.”


  3. The Chilean Earthquake and the University of Concepcion

    March 16, 2010 by AURP Canada

    by Austin Beggs

    You may have heard of the terrible earthquake in Haiti, as well as the one in Chile. While Haiti got, deservedly, much media coverage, the Chilean one in my opinion has not received much in the way of press.

    Innovation Place has a relationship with the University of Concepcion. The Chileans had visited Saskatoon as a part of their outreach to similar Universities and as part of their visit were introduced to Innovation Place.

    They were so impressed with what they saw that they asked me to go to Concepcion and Santiago on two separate occasions to talk with them about the development of a research park in Concepcion. I have stayed in touch with them since my visits.

    The City of Concepcion and the University were dramatically affected by the earthquake, as they are about 500 km south of Santiago, and just about 100 km from the epicenter of the 8.8 shaker.

    I was naturally very concerned for my contacts and friends in Concepcion and in Santiago. I was able to contact two of the key people at the University. Here is what Marcelo had to say:

    Thank you very much for your concern. The truth is that it was something terrible. In short it is impossible to describe the dimension of what happened and the damage and destruction generated. I think that happened a long time to return to previous state. The university suffered damage in almost all buildings and on many computers. The chemical sciences faculty was burned nearly complete. We’re trying to build international networks of collaboration that can help us.

        Our families and people in the office are all well.

        Un abrazo (a hug)

    Donate to Relief Efforts

    If you have any inclination to support those affected by the Chilean earthquake, there are numerous ways for you to contribute. Just like the Haitian earthquake, what they need most is money.

    While Chile is wealthier, and better equipped in many ways, to deal with disaster, support is still needed as the scale of destruction is beyond imagination.

    I personally donated to the Red Cross. Any way you see fit to support the fine people of Chile (or Haiti) would be welcomed, I’m sure.


  4. Commercializing Research: We’ve got the brains, now we need some brawn

    March 9, 2010 by AURP Canada

    By all accounts there is a treasure trove of potential new products hidden away in Canadian university research. But the challenge continues to be getting the fruits of that research to market.

    Terrence Belford
    The Globe and Mail

    March 8, 2010

    Of you saw Trevor Immelman drive a golf ball farther and harder than the rest of the field to win the 2008 Masters Tournament then you saw research from a Canadian university in action.

    The shaft of his driver was made from Grafaloy, a revolutionary new nano-treated material that adds extra strength without increasing weight, and which was developed by Integran Technology Inc. of Oakville.

    Integran, in turn, was created by PARTEQ Innovations, the Queen’s University unit responsible for commercializing research done by faculty members.

    If the seasonings on your favorite snack food are in perfect balance, you might send a note of thanks to McMaster University. McMaster’s research commercialization team spotted work being done by a professor using digital cameras to remedy irregularities on production lines, gave him support and space at its industrial park and the result was Prosensus Inc.

    That company now makes process control monitoring equipment for a range of industries, including pharmaceuticals and snack foods.

    By all accounts there is a treasure trove of potential new products hidden away in Canadian university research; all told they spend about $6 billion every year on research, says John Molloy, president of PARTEQ (the acronym stands for partners in technology at Queen’s). But the challenge continues to be getting the fruits of that research to market.

    “The trouble is new discoveries just aren’t being turned into commercial products,” Mr. Molloy says. “Universities don’t feel that is their job and industry is not willing to assume the risk and financial burden to take discoveries to the next stage – proof of concept, indentifying potential applications and building prototypes.”

    Yet at the same time there are more and more teams of men and women at universities charged with finding ways to bridge that gap between lab and factory. One on which great hopes are pinned is the creation of 15 new Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research.

    At the same time, universities continue to have their own special departments focused on forming partnerships with industry – especially in the areas of technology and medicine – but that path always represents tough slogging, says Mo Eberstawi, vice-president of research and international affairs at McMaster University in Hamilton.

    “The two chief problems are not enough university technical officers to work with industry and the absence of venture capital to see discoveries through the start-up stage,” he says.

    Those new Centres of Excellence (CECR) are designed to address both needs, said Rui Resendes, executive director of GreenCentre Canada at Queen’s. it focuses on commercial applications of green chemistry and may well have some applications to license to industry by the end of this year, Mr. Resendes says.

    “That is quite remarkable when you consider that traditionally it takes 7 to 12 years to develop new chemical products,” he says. Remarkable, too, in that GreenCentre Canada has a staff of just 10 researchers, 10 commercial specialists and a budget commitment of just under $26 million over the next five years from the federal and provincial governments.

    “In essence you have maybe $1 billion a year in research funneled through a centre with a budget of less than $5 million a year,” Mr. Resendes says.

    What makes those CERCs special is their approach, says Mr. Molloy. “One of the challenges we face is that no single university has sufficient critical mass of research in any one field to make commercialization possible.”

    The CERCs, however, act as a central repository for all university research across Canada in a particular field. The GreenCentre deals with green chemistry. The Centre for Drug Research and Development at the University of British Columbia brings together all university and teaching hospital research in that field.

    There are also centres for applied physics, bio-industrial innovation, digital media, surgery, organ failure, energy efficiency and immunology and cancer.

    “We are so pleased with what the GreenCentre has achieved that we are now looking at creating on at queen’s that deals with green electronics,” says Mr. Molloy.

    That vital link between researchers and industry comes from the board of directors of the centres, says Mr. Resendes. The GreenCentre, for example has executives from Ford Canada, Nova Chemicals Corp., Veolia Water Solutions and Pressure Chemicals Co. on its board.

    “If we develop a new catalyst, they are right there to see if it will advance any of their own products.”

    While McMaster does indeed participate in research sharing through the CERCs, it continues to try and help development of its own research and also works with industry in two other key areas, says Mr. Eberstawi.

    “We also provide contract research for companies large and small and help them source staff in key areas,” he says.

    “The problem is that big gap between research and commercialization continues. Government is playing a role but it is not big enough.

    “Groups like the Conference Board of Canada continue to point out that when it comes to university research we are among the top nations in the world but when it comes to commercializing that research, we rank well below most industrial nations.”


  5. Perimeter plans to welcome Hawking

    by AURP Canada

    Last week’s flurry of news stories about celebrity physicist Stephen Hawking ended with official denials that he’s going to “move to Canada” and make his new home at the Perimeter Institute just south of the main UW campus.

    The excitement was started by Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper, which said Hawking would leave his life-long base at the University of Cambridge as a “protest” against British government cuts in science and education funding. A spokesman firmly denied that he has any such plans.

    However, Hawking, the author of A Brief History of Time, will make an appearance in Waterloo this summer, Perimeter recently confirmed. Neil Turk, director of Perimeter and a former colleague of Hawking at Cambridge, said the famous scientist will “visit” in June and July “to conduct scientific research and participate in a televised outreach event.”

    Said a news release: “The world’s most famous living scientist, Prof. Hawking has made several path-breaking contributions to theoretical physics. His visit to Waterloo will mainly focus on scientific research and private collaborations with other leading physicists at PI. Prof. Hawking will also take part in the institutes award winning outreach program by delivering a special lecture to be broadcast on TVO across Canada.”

    Said Turok: “We hope Stephen’s visit to Perimeter will be just the first of many. His ideas have had a huge impact on our basic understanding of the universe. He is an exceptional communicator, whether to our scientists or to the wider public. We are delighted he has agreed to deliver a televised lecture, to be shown across Canada. And we are looking forward to his impressions of the Stephen Hawking Centre at Perimeter Institute, now under construction.”

    Last October, when the expansion to the facility was named in his honor, Hawking said that “our field of theoretical physics has been the most successful and cost-effective in all science. Where would we be today without Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein? Many great challenges lie ahead. Where this new understanding will lead is impossible to say for sure. What we can say with confidence, is that expanding the Perimeter of our knowledge will be the key to our future.”

    Perimeter is not part of the university, but has close links through the cross-appointment of many faculty members as well as shared projects and a jointly operated master’s degree program.

    It will be the first Waterloo visit for Hawking, who uses and wheelchair and communicates through a voice synthesizer because of neuromuscular dystrophy. However, he already has many connections to the institution, the Perimeter news release noted: “Prof. Hawking holds a Distinguished Research Chair at PI, which will see him regularly visit for extended periods. He is also a Patron of the Innovative Perimeter Scholars International, a master’s course that nurtures future physics researchers, and will oversee a graduation ceremony for the first class of PSI scholars when he visits.

    “Prof. Hawking was also Honorary President of the recent Quantum to Cosmos: Ideas for the Future festival, celebrating the 10th anniversary of PI, took part via video in the presentation ‘Perimeter Institute – Past, Present & Future’, and appears in PI’s award winning television documentary ‘The Quantum Tamers: revealing Our Weird, Wired Future.’”

    It said a special PI presentation involving Hawking will be broadcast on TVO on Sunday, June 20. “Something TVO does really well is to bring big ideas and bright minds into homes across Canada,” says Lisa de Wilde, the network’s Chief Executive Officer. “And they don’t come any bigger or brighter than Professor Hawking.”

    Stephen Hawking the release says, “has made several extraordinary contributions to the fundamental theoretical physics, especially in establishing the classical and quantum properties of black holes and in building quantum gravitational theories of the origin of the universe and structures within it. His most celebrated work was the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, known as Hawking radiation.” He retired as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge – a position once held by Isaac Newton – last year when he turned 67.


  6. 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.


  7. 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