Technology Transfer

Despite the introduction of royalty-sharing programs at government laboratories, federal scientists' interest in patenting has not increased. Many scientists said that the small financial rewards, such as those paid under some royalty-sharing programs, offer little incentive to patent. For example, 17 of 21 agencies GAO reviewed use royalty-sharing formulas that often pay an individual only a few hundred dollars for an invention. GAO also found inadequate financial controls over payments to inventors. In addition, agency management is using virtually all of the laboratory's share of invention income to cover the administrative costs of transferring federal technology to U.S. companies, meaning that the benefits of royalty sharing are not visible to other potential inventors.

GAO found that: (1) royalty-sharing programs at federal laboratories had little impact on scientists' interest in patenting inventions; (2) 14 of 21 agencies showed no improvement in the rate of patenting after the act's passage; (3) the small licensing rate increase provided no incentive to scientists to patent inventions; (4) most inventors received an average of $1,000 in shared royalties; (5) many scientists preferred peer recognition to monetary rewards; and (6) many scientists chose federal employment because it offered more freedom, creativity, and longer time frames for research than private-sector employment. GAO also found that: (1) agencies typically used formulas that gave inventors a small percentage of royalties; (2) many scientists did not know of the royalty-sharing programs, and believed that conflict-of-interest policies would hamper collaboration with industry; (3) many agencies did not capitalize on their inventors' successes to publicize their royalty-sharing programs; (4) agencies did not have adequate systems to ensure that inventors timely received royalty payments; (5) some agencies used the laboratory-share of royalties to pay administrative costs, rather than enhance laboratory research or personnel development; and (6) patenting delayed publication of research results, which was important to scientists' professional recognition.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: