Ο Μ Μ Μ Η Β Μ Ι Ι Ι Ι Β Η ^

States Collaborate in Seeking Stronger Voice in National Technology Policy

• Governors foresee that a more productive partnership with federal R&D programs would boost U.S. competitiveness Wil Lepkowski, C&EN Washington

Alot of people in the nation's hin­terlands—and in its population

L centers—think there's a major revolution brewing in the state-federal aspects of national science and technol­ogy policy. If there's a hot trend in that policy field, this is it.

The political people involved are the 50 governors, who for at least a couple of decades have been trying to establish various types of job-inducing research as well as technological and industrial as­sistance programs in their states. The other interested players are mostly the hundreds of officials and staffers who actually operate those programs, at an estimated cost of about $2 billion per year.

These folks have been grinding away at applying science and technology to lo­cal needs for years, and are convinced that the U.S. cannot meet the competi­tive challenges of the 1990s and beyond without a new partnership among the statehouses and the federal government in Washington, D.C. Their wakeup call to Washington sounds like this: The states are where the scientific and tech­nological action really is, where the rub­ber meets the road, the nit meets the grit, and all similar sorts of sleeves-rolled-up cliches.

The latest, and probably most ambi­tious, attempt to begin restructuring the relationship came in mid-September when a group of more than 100 state and federal officials gathered in Warren-ton, Va., to talk about how to do it, and the obstacles to overcome. The meet­ing—the State-Federal Technology Part-

I

Jones: more than commercialization

nership Colloquium—was organized by Richard F. Celeste, former governor of Ohio, who during his eight years (1983-91) in office spearheaded efforts to give states a stronger role in shaping national science and technology policy. Giving the keynote address at the colloquium was President Clinton's science adviser, John H. Gibbons, who said he likes the idea very much, always did, and has plans to help. The Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) was one of the colloquium's sponsors.

States have had their own technolo­gy development programs for years. Three very brief examples should bring their character into focus.

• In three Maryland counties close to Washington, D.C.—Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick—Walter Plosila is running the Suburban Maryland High Technology/Montgomery County Coun­cil, a program of meetings, workshops, conferences, and aid-to-business activities that he hopes will build new, dynamic high-tech companies in those locales. He believes that the three counties, which he says have the highest concentration of sci­entists in the country, could, with better targeted federal programs, become a

commercial leader. This goal is over the horizon right now, but the state and the counties are banking, with real money, on its success.

• In Cleveland, Stephen Gage directs a program that was established to im­prove the manufacturing skills of hun­dreds of small businesses in northern Ohio. The facility is called the Great Lakes Manufacturing Technology Center and is part of the Cleveland Advanced Manu­facturing Program. The center scours the northern Ohio landscape for companies that need the expertise the center has to offer, from advanced machinery knowl­edge to retraining capabilities to manage­ment techniques.

• And in Albany, N.Y., Graham Jones is in his 10th year of administering the New York Science & Technology Foun­dation, which has probably the widest variety of state-supported approaches to attracting new industries and renewing old ones.

Other states have ambitious technology development programs as well. Pennsyl­vania, with its Ben Franklin Partnership Program, that includes a network of uni­versity-based industrial assistance cen­ters, was one of the pioneering states in the effort. North Carolina, which estab­lished several programs in the 1960s, was another pacesetter. The Tarheel State's gemstone remains Research Tri­angle Park, a cluster of high-tech firms in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, which got its inspiration from the many high-tech firms along Route 128 near Boston and the electronics miracle of Sil­icon Valley in California.

Every state has its own story, and all state technology leaders have one domi­nant wish: less confusion and more co­ordination with the U.S. government agencies that administer technology as­sistance programs. When an agency is announcing a new funding program, these officials want the agency to sit down with the states involved and work out not only how that program will af­fect the national good but also how it

OCTOBER 4,1993 C&EN 17

GOVERNMENT

Each state now has a high-ranking science and technology official ALABAMA Department of

Economic & Community Affairs Thomas Holmes (205) 242-5286

Science & Technology Foundation John Sibert (907) 272-4333

3NA Department of Commerce Bill Tompkin (602) 280-1336

ARKANSA Science & Technology Authority John Ahlen (501) 324-9006

RNIA Trade & Commerce Agency Steve Jarvis (818) 568-9437

Advanced Technology Institute Phillips Bradford (303) 620-4777

Innovations Inc. David Driver (203) 258-4305

DELAWARE Development Office Robert Coy (302) 739-4271

Department of Commerce Sam Wooten (904) 922-8701

Office of Planning & Budget Tim Burgess (404) 656-3820

HAWAII High Technology Development Corp. William Bass (808) 625-5293

Department of Commerce Karl Tueller (208) 334-2470

Science Advisory Committee Karen Witter (217) 782-5189

INDIANA Business Modernization & Technology Corp. Delbert Schuh (317) 635-3058

IOWA Office of the Governor Edward Stanek (515) 281-7879

KANSAS Department of Commerce Jim Janousek (913) 296-3564

CKY Cabinet for Economic Development Debbie Kimbrough (502) 564-7670

SIANA Department of Economic Development Nadia Goodman (504) 342-5388

MAIN i Science & Technology Commission Robert Kidd (207) 624-6350

MARYLAND Department of Economic & Employment Development Marsha Schactel (410) 333-6901

Executive Office of Economic Affairs Patrick Larkin (617) 727-3206

1IGAN Office of the Governor Rob van Ravenswaay (517) 373-7949

OTA Technology Inc. Jacques Koppel (612) 338-7722

MISSISSIPPI State University George Parsons (601) 325-2547

Washington Office Jill Friedman (202) 624-7720

MONTAN Science & Technology Alliance Carl Russell (406) 449-2778

NEBRASKA, University of Nebraska Stanley Liberty (402) 472-3181

NEVADA, Washington Office Leo Penne (202) 624-5405

Division of Economic Development Richard Green (603) 271-2341

NEW JERSEY Commission on Science & Technology Jay Brandinger (609) 633-2740

Office of the Governor Arthur Guenther (505) 844-6015

>RK State Science & Technology Foundation Graham Jones (518) 474-4349

NORTH CAROLINA Department of Administration Jane Patterson (919) 715-0960

School of Engineering & Mines Don Mathsen (701) 777-5128

Thomas Edison Program Jay Tieber (614) 466-3086

DMA Center for Advancement of Science & Technology Carolyn Sales (405) 848-2633

Center for Advanced Technology Education John Owen (503)737-3101

LVANIA Department of Commerce Terri Kaufman (717) 787-4147

will address the needs of the states. Af­ter all, Celeste often points out, it's all one country. If you combine state and federal policies into one package, the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts. Right now it isn't.

For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) funds engineering research and science & technology cen­ters at almost 50 universities. But the efforts haven't really enhanced the econ­omies of the states they're in, and state technology officials know why. "There's no evidence that [the centers] are inter­vening in the marketplace in any way," says Gage. He says the Cleveland Ad­vanced Manufacturing Program's tie with Case Western Reserve University "is basically there because we need the

intellectual credibility, even though little [that is] useful comes out of it."

The problem is that the research uni­versities are reluctant to make the local connection, and NSF isn't really pushing them. Gage says his manufacturing cen­ter has much more productive connec­tions with Cuyahoga Community Col­lege (in Cleveland) and Cleveland State University, which aim specifically to train their technology students for local employment.

There are success stories here and there: NSF's program to improve science and math education in the states; the co­operative research and development agreement programs in the federal agen­cies; the new manufacturing extension partnership at the National Institute of

Standards & Technology; or imagina­tive, individual efforts to make connec­tions. But they are all too rare. The Ener­gy Department's national laboratories are working hard but still haven't found the key to helping their regions develop. The Small Business Administration gives all sorts of financial help to small firms, but with little coordination with parallel state programs.

What the states want is a say in the big "reinventing the government" de­bate that is the rage of the Clinton Ad­ministration because, along with mil­lions of other people, they don't think the federal system is working very well.

According to New York State's Jones, the action in the states can be downright

18 OCTOBER 4,1993 C&EN

RHODE ISLAND Department of Economic Development Thomas E. Gardner (401) 277-2601

SOUTH CAROLINA Research Authority Robert Henderson (803) 799-4070

SOUTH DAKOTA School of Mines & Technology Richard Gowen (605) 394-2411

TENNESSEE Department of Economic & Community Development Bill Eads (615) 741-2994

TEXAS Department of Commerce Mike Klonsinski (512) 320-9561

UTAH Office of the Governor Gordon Peterson (801) 538-1843

VERMONT Office of the Governor Cynthia Clancy (802) 828-3326

VIRGINIA Secretariat of Commerce & Trade Gate Magennis (804) 786-7831

WASHINGTON Department of Trade & Economic Development Barbara Campbell (206) 586-0265

WEST VIRGINIA Office of Community & Industrial Development Andrew Flores (304) 558-2234

WISCONSIN Department of Development Louise Rech (608) 267-9382

WYOMING Science, Technology & Energy Authority Shelby Gerking (307) 766-6797

Source: National Governors' Association

inspirational. "It's so much more than simple commercialization of research/' he says. "When you bring together the people who know what can be done in the universities with the people in in­dustry who have a much better feel for what needs to be done, and you add a little imagination, some good things happen. It is very exciting to see how many new faculty members become ex­cited by industrially relevant work."

The mid-September colloquium was designed to get maximum work out of the participants. General sessions regu­larly broke into five working groups, then re-formed to synthesize the discus­sions. The result was dozens of sheets of easel paper hung on windows and walls, scribbled with recommendations

of the five groups—commercialization of research; manufacturing, modernization, and extension; redefining federal labora­tories; telecommunications and informa­tion infrastructure; and national and state science and technology policy.

One of the major recommendations distilled off the sheets after the meeting included developing a more clearly de­fined mission for the Science & Technolo­gy Council of the States (STCS), the work­ing group on defense conversion and technology under the National Gover­nors' Association (NGA). Many people are not satisfied with its current setup and think it should be enlarged and given a separate office in Washington, D.C. In in his talk outlining the direction in which state science and technology policy is headed, Jones said: "We are an organiza­tion that needs to be more strongly for­malized if we are to meaningfully affect federal policy in any authoritative way. But unless we bring the governors in, the people in the federal government will be much less interested in us."

Just what form STCS will take is pret­ty much up for grabs. But it seems to be­lieve that it needs to be a body that on the national level is the policy equivalent of OSTP.

The major recommendations emerg­ing at the end of the two days included bringing governors more frequently into national science and technology policy discussions; creating ways for states to more readily share policy and program ideas; bringing the NGA into better rela­tionship with STCS, OSTP, the National Council of State Legislatures, and Con­gressional committees; having OSTP be­come more active in its support of state initiatives and directly involving the states through point-of-contact liaisons; involving the national laboratories—not just those in the Energy Department—in the social, economic, and environmental goals of the states; and in the era of the "electronic information highway," devel­oping communication systems among states and Washington for all manner of policy and regulatory matters.

Hoechst offers out of R+D:

Various Fluorinated Alcohols

now available

either on laboratory or pilot plant scales

H(CF2CF2)2CH2OH

HCF2CF2CH2OH CF3CFHCF2CH2OH

CF3(CF2)6CH2OH (CF3)2CHOH

from current production

F(CF2)nCH2CH2OH n > 6 F(CF2)nCH2CH2CH2OH n > 6

another example of

Hoechst High Chem PQ

A 1

0038

G

Hoechst AG Marketing Chemikalien attn: Mr. Robert Brockmann D-65926 Frankfurt am Main Germany Tel: (69) 305-68 24 Fax: (69) 30 91 79

Hoechst IB CIRCLE 8 ON READER SERVICE CARD

OCTOBER 4,1993 C&EN 19

Principles and Techniques examines how precursors and char­acteristic odor compounds are formed and released and describes sophisti­cated instrumentation routinely used to obtain information quickly from small samples. It also discusses bio­technology in the flavor industry. Of interest to professionals both inside and outside the field of flavor research. Based on a successful American Chemical Society workshop. Contents: • Bioassays for Flavor • Common Chemical Sense in Food Flavor • Sweet and Bitter Tastes • Sweetness Antagonists • Sample Preparation • Instrumental Analysis in the Flavor Industry • Biotechnology: Challenge for the Flavor

Industry • Quantitative and Sensory Aspects of Flavor

of Tomato and Other Vegetables and Fruits • Hydrolytic Flavor Release in Fruit and Wines

through Hydrolysis of Nonvolatile Precursors

• Key Flavors from Heat Reactions of Food Ingredients

Terry E. Acree, Cornell University, Editor Roy Teranishi, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Editor ACS Professional Reference Book 350 pages (1993) Clothbound ISBN 0-8412-2516-8—$79.95 • Text: $49.95

Order from: American Chemical Society • Distribution Office, Dept. 74 • 1155 Sixteenth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20036

Or CALL TOLL FREE AT 1-800-227-5558 (in Washington, DC, 202-872-4363) and use your credit card!

ACSIIIPUBUCAnONS Essential Resources for the Chemical Sciences

20 OCTOBER 4,1993 C&EN

GOVERNMENT

Celeste spearheads partnership spirit Richard F. Celeste has been the lead­ing figure in the reshaping of a stron­ger state-federal partnership. As one of the 50 members of the National Governors' Association (NGA), he es­tablished NGA's first Science & Tech­nology Council of the States (STCS), the working group on defense conver­sion and technology under NGA. Un­able by law to run for a third term as Ohio governor, Celeste stepped down from the council, but has remained ac­tive in improving the relationship.

The people who compose the coun­cil are the science and technology offi­cials at varying levels of state bureau­cracies—governors' science advisers, economic development staffers, tech­nology program managers, and so on. Its chairman is New York State Sci­ence & Technology Foundation direc­tor Graham Jones

Celeste personifies the way the ef­forts have evolved over the past decade. With Christopher Coburn, who at the time was an Ohio economic develop­ment official, Celeste established, and appointed Coburn to run, his state's highly touted Thomas Edison Program in 1983. Its goal was to modernize Ohio's declining "rustbelt" industries and diversify its industrial economy toward materials processing, biotech­nology, welding, supercomputing, ad­vanced manufacturing, and polymer development. The idea was to find companies that needed help, convince them to pay for some of it, and then work on improving their entire opera­tion—from accounting to R&D grants

Plosila, who formed Pennsylvania's Ben Franklin Partnership under former Gov. Richard L. Thornburgh, had this to say about the colloquium: "For the last 12 years the feds were never even inter­ested in anything we thought. Their atti­tude was do it [their] way or forget it. This time I was impressed that the fed­eral people were willing to listen. On the negative side, some of the federal people seemed to take the attitude that if there were multiple parties involved in a pro­gram or projects, the states couldn't deal with it."

"This was fun for me," Celeste said in his wrapup talk. "And it will continue to be fun for me in the future. I feel a certain amount of impatience. There is a spirit in Washington right now that wants to see

I ι s 3

Celeste: proponent of state strength

to attracting venture capital to improv­ing production processes to running technical training programs.

Celeste currently has his own con­sulting firm in Columbus, and Coburn heads Battelle Memorial Institute's Public Technology Program in Cleve­land. The two have continued to work together and were the impetus behind a report issued in September 1992 by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology & Government. That re­port—"Science, Technology, and the States in America's Third Century"— argued for a renewal of the state-feder­al partnership, traced the underlying reasons, and called for establishment of a pact between the states and the feder­al government, one that would ensure that federal policies were continually integrated with state interests.

[the new partnership] happen. And the Administration needs a lot of help in ways that can only be provided by folks down the line in the agencies in the feder­al government and by people on the line in state governments across the country.

"We need to develop a better sense of how we can work together," he contin­ued. "There's a terrific spirit of partner­ship here and a significant and thought­ful set of agenda items. We shouldn't be afraid of what we all have to do in our spheres. We're each going to have to be prepared to take some risks. The language and experience in the way we have inter­acted are part of a large federal system which ultimately ends up as a national government. Thaf s what we are about and lef s make no mistake about it." •

ί ν ϊ V ^ \ > ^ r u m e describes the β ^ ί ι Λ ^ τ use and importance V A ^ i r °f bioassays in the ^ j ^ ^ s t u d y of flavor chemistry.

^^r Flavor Science: Sensible

Sensible Principles and Techniques

Terry E, Acree and Roy Teranishi