Technology Transfer
Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of Innovative Approaches Could Increase the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Department of Energy Laboratories Gao ID: GAO-09-548 June 16, 2009The Department of Energy (DOE) spends billions of dollars each year at its national laboratories on advanced science, energy, and other research. To maximize the public's investment and to foster economic growth, federal laws and policies have encouraged the transfer of federally developed technologies to private firms, universities, and others to use or commercialize. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 further emphasized the role of such technologies for addressing the nation's energy, economic, and other challenges. Congress requested GAO to examine (1) the nature and extent of technology transfer at DOE's laboratories; (2) the extent to which DOE can measure the effectiveness of its technology transfer efforts; and (3) factors affecting, and approaches for improving, DOE's efforts. GAO analyzed documents and data and spoke with officials at DOE headquarters and all 17 DOE national laboratories.
Although DOE's laboratories routinely share their technologies, capabilities, and knowledge with outside entities, it is difficult to assess the full extent of technology transfer efforts because policies defining technology transfer are unclear and headquarters and laboratory officials do not always agree on which activities should be included. Certain activities performed for or with private companies, universities, and state or local governments are widely regarded as technology transfer, including (1) performing research on behalf of or in collaboration with these entities; (2) licensing the laboratories' existing technologies for such entities to use or commercialize; and (3) allowing these entities access to the laboratories' unique facilities and equipment for their own research. Successful technology transfer efforts have focused on a variety of areas ranging from cancer treatment to biofuels. DOE and laboratory officials do not agree, however, on whether research sponsored by other federal agencies should be considered technology transfer, and DOE's policies are unclear on this. Although work for other federal agencies--worth about $1.8 billion in 2008--may result in technologies that are eventually transferred to the marketplace, in the short run, the work entails sharing federal research and technologies with other federal agencies for noncommercial aims. DOE cannot determine its laboratories' effectiveness in transferring technologies outside DOE because it has not yet established departmentwide goals for technology transfer and lacks reliable performance data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required DOE to establish goals for technology transfer and provide Congress its implementation plan no later than February 2006; DOE has not yet done so. While some DOE laboratories and program offices have begun articulating their own technology transfer goals, these vary widely. In addition, DOE performance data on technology transfer activities are problematic because data accuracy and completeness are questionable. A number of factors can constrain the extent to which DOE laboratories transfer their technologies, although some are using approaches to help increase the likelihood that promising technologies will be commercialized. Officials at the 17 laboratories identified three primary challenges: (1) competing staff priorities or gaps in expertise needed to consistently identify promising technologies or potential markets; (2) lack of funding to sufficiently develop or test some promising technologies to attract potential partners; and (3) lack of flexibility to negotiate certain terms of technology transfer agreements. Some laboratories have used innovative approaches, such as inviting entrepreneurs to evaluate their research and commercialize a technology or tapping into outside funding for the additional development needed to attract commercial interest. Approaches used by other federal laboratories may offer additional ways for DOE to improve its technology transfer. These efforts are especially important given the goals of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the additional funding provided to DOE to meet those goals.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-09-548, Technology Transfer: Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of Innovative Approaches Could Increase the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Department of Energy Laboratories
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-548
entitled 'Technology Transfer: Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of
Innovative Approaches Could Increase the Effectiveness of Technology
Transfer at Department of Energy Laboratories' which was released on
June 16, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2009:
Technology Transfer:
Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of Innovative Approaches Could
Increase the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Department of
Energy Laboratories:
GAO-09-548:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-548, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Energy (DOE) spends billions of dollars each year at
its national laboratories on advanced science, energy, and other
research. To maximize the public‘s investment and to foster economic
growth, federal laws and policies have encouraged the transfer of
federally developed technologies to private firms, universities, and
others to use or commercialize. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 further emphasized the role of such technologies for
addressing the nation‘s energy, economic, and other challenges.
Congress requested GAO to examine (1) the nature and extent of
technology transfer at DOE‘s laboratories; (2) the extent to which DOE
can measure the effectiveness of its technology transfer efforts; and
(3) factors affecting, and approaches for improving, DOE‘s efforts. GAO
analyzed documents and data and spoke with officials at DOE
headquarters and all 17 DOE national laboratories.
What GAO Found:
Although DOE‘s laboratories routinely share their technologies,
capabilities, and knowledge with outside entities, it is difficult to
assess the full extent of technology transfer efforts because policies
defining technology transfer are unclear and headquarters and
laboratory officials do not always agree on which activities should be
included. Certain activities performed for or with private companies,
universities, and state or local governments are widely regarded as
technology transfer, including (1) performing research on behalf of or
in collaboration with these entities; (2) licensing the laboratories‘
existing technologies for such entities to use or commercialize; and
(3) allowing these entities access to the laboratories‘ unique
facilities and equipment for their own research. Successful technology
transfer efforts have focused on a variety of areas ranging from cancer
treatment to biofuels. DOE and laboratory officials do not agree,
however, on whether research sponsored by other federal agencies should
be considered technology transfer, and DOE‘s policies are unclear on
this. Although work for other federal agencies”worth about $1.8 billion
in 2008”may result in technologies that are eventually transferred to
the marketplace, in the short run, the work entails sharing federal
research and technologies with other federal agencies for noncommercial
aims.
DOE cannot determine its laboratories‘ effectiveness in transferring
technologies outside DOE because it has not yet established
departmentwide goals for technology transfer and lacks reliable
performance data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required DOE to
establish goals for technology transfer and provide Congress its
implementation plan no later than February 2006; DOE has not yet done
so. While some DOE laboratories and program offices have begun
articulating their own technology transfer goals, these vary widely. In
addition, DOE performance data on technology transfer activities are
problematic because data accuracy and completeness are questionable.
A number of factors can constrain the extent to which DOE laboratories
transfer their technologies, although some are using approaches to help
increase the likelihood that promising technologies will be
commercialized. Officials at the 17 laboratories identified three
primary challenges: (1) competing staff priorities or gaps in expertise
needed to consistently identify promising technologies or potential
markets; (2) lack of funding to sufficiently develop or test some
promising technologies to attract potential partners; and (3) lack of
flexibility to negotiate certain terms of technology transfer
agreements. Some laboratories have used innovative approaches, such as
inviting entrepreneurs to evaluate their research and commercialize a
technology or tapping into outside funding for the additional
development needed to attract commercial interest. Approaches used by
other federal laboratories may offer additional ways for DOE to improve
its technology transfer. These efforts are especially important given
the goals of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the
additional funding provided to DOE to meet those goals.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending a number of actions, including that DOE articulate
departmental priorities and a definition for technology transfer,
improve its performance data, and ensure that laboratories have
sufficient expertise and a systematic approach for identifying their
commercially promising technologies. In commenting on a draft of this
report, DOE generally agreed with the findings but did not comment on
the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-548] or key
components. For more information, contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841
or aloisee@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DOE Laboratories Share Technologies and Capabilities, but Only Certain
Activities Are Widely Regarded as Technology Transfer:
DOE Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Its
Laboratories because It Has No Overarching Goals or Reliable
Performance Data:
Challenges Can Constrain Commercialization of DOE Laboratory Research,
but Innovative Approaches Show Promise:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Information on the Department of Energy's Technology
Transfer Agreements and Associated Revenue:
Appendix III: The Use Permit at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements,
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 2: Partner-Contributed Funds for Research under CRADAs, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 3: Number of Work-for-Others Agreements, Fiscal Years 2006
through 2008:
Table 4: Sponsor-Contributed Funds for Research under Work-for-Others
Agreements, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 5: Number of Patent License Agreements with Private Partners,
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008, and Associated Revenue, Fiscal Year
2008:
Table 6: Number of User-Facility Agreements with Private Partners,
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008, and Associated Revenue, Fiscal Year
2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: Process to Commercialize DOE Laboratory Technologies:
Figure 2: DOE Laboratories' Technology Transfer Agreements, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
Figure 3: Agreements under the Use Permit at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008, and Associated Revenue:
Abbreviations:
CRADA: Cooperative Research and Development Agreement:
DOE: Department of Energy:
NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 16, 2009:
The Honorable Byron Dorgan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert Bennett:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky:
Chairman:
The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Since the 1940s, the Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories
and specialized research facilities have played a central role in
pushing the research frontiers of physics and other basic sciences and
applying this knowledge to developing technologies.[Footnote 1] Over
the years, some of the research at these laboratories has contributed
to the development of technologies--ranging from wind turbines to key
components of computer microchips--that have benefited daily life,
while creating opportunities for the businesses and investors that
bring the laboratories' technologies to the marketplace. In the face of
today's challenges, Congress and the administration, among others, have
stressed the importance of science and technology in improving
America's economy, moving to sustainable forms of energy, and
protecting national and global security. Recent measures, including the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have underscored the
federal role--DOE's in particular--in funding the scientific research
to develop the technologies for meeting these challenges and bringing
them into widespread use.
As one of the largest research agencies in the federal government, DOE
spends billions of dollars each year on publicly funded research to
support its diverse missions, including energy development, energy
efficiency, and nuclear security. Most of this research is carried out
under DOE's direction and oversight by scientists, engineers, and
others employed at DOE's 17 national laboratories, including its 16
contractor-managed and operated laboratories and 1 DOE-managed and
operated laboratory. The results of this research may further science
and, at the same time, hold commercial potential for addressing needs
of businesses, governments, organizations, or individuals.
To maximize the return on the public's investment in research and to
foster economic growth, federal policies have encouraged the transfer
of federally developed technologies to private firms, universities,
local governments, and others capable of benefiting themselves from the
technologies or further expanding the technologies' benefits by
bringing them into the marketplace. Laws such as the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 have
enabled federal laboratories to transfer their technologies and
scientific capabilities by, for example, licensing the laboratories'
technologies to outside entities or partnering with those entities on
research and development projects. Subsequent laws have aimed to
further expand technology transfer or to improve the technology
transfer efforts of individual agencies. For instance, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 sought to improve the process for transferring
technologies by requiring the Secretary of Energy to, among other
things, appoint a technology transfer coordinator for the department
and to develop technology transfer goals and a plan for implementing
them.
While DOE is responsible for establishing technology transfer policies
and overseeing performance, carrying out technology transfer activities
is a responsibility of the laboratory staff operating DOE's
laboratories. To accomplish technology transfer, these laboratory
operators need to promote their laboratories' technologies and
scientific capabilities to outside entities, identify potential
partners, and negotiate technology transfer agreements.
In response to congressional direction in the explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, this report
examines (1) the nature and extent of technology transfer at DOE
laboratories; (2) the extent to which DOE can measure the effectiveness
of technology transfer efforts at its laboratories; and (3) factors
affecting technology transfer and approaches that may have potential
for improving technology transfer.
To conduct our work, we analyzed DOE's data on the extent of its
technology transfer activities and contacted all 17 DOE national
laboratories. To understand the nature, extent, and overall
effectiveness of DOE's technology transfer efforts, we interviewed the
officials responsible for coordinating the 17 laboratories' technology
transfer activities, including visits to Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence
Livermore national laboratories in California and the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory in Washington state. Although we determined that
DOE's technology transfer data were sufficiently reliable for selecting
laboratories to contact or reporting aggregate numbers of technology
transfer agreements, for verification purposes, we asked responsible
laboratory and DOE officials about their efforts to ensure the data's
reliability and obtained additional data from the laboratories on the
nature and extent of their technology transfer efforts in fiscal years
2006 through 2008. We also obtained copies of technology transfer
agreements, performance measurement plans, or other documentation of
DOE and laboratory efforts to transfer technologies and measure
technology transfer performance. And, we interviewed DOE headquarters
officials in the Office of Laboratory Policy and Evaluation and the
Office of the General Counsel, as well as members of DOE's Technology
Transfer Policy Board and Technology Transfer Working Group, about the
nature and effectiveness of DOE's technology transfer. In addition, to
learn more about technology transfer from the nonfederal perspective,
we interviewed representatives from industry and universities
knowledgeable about technology transfer. Finally, to better understand
how other federal agencies transfer technology, we interviewed
Department of Defense officials who oversee technology transfer for
that department's laboratories. A more detailed description of our
scope and methodology appears in appendix I.
We conducted this work as a performance audit from July 2008 through
June 2009, in accordance with general accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
DOE is responsible for a diverse set of missions, including nuclear
security, environmental cleanup, and energy research. These missions
are managed by DOE program offices, the largest of which include:
* National Nuclear Security Administration,[Footnote 2] responsible for
maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and preventing
nuclear proliferation;
* Office of Environmental Management, responsible for cleaning up
wastes left from decades of nuclear weapons research and production;
* Office of Science, responsible for advancing fundamental research in
physics and other sciences; and:
* Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, of Fossil Energy,
and of Nuclear Energy, responsible for energy research and energy
technology development and deployment.
Overseen by these program offices, contractors carry out the day-to-day
work of these missions at most of the 17 national laboratories and
other facilities nationwide.[Footnote 3] The contractors that manage
and operate national laboratories include universities, private
companies, nonprofit organizations, or consortia thereof. In addition
to carrying out DOE-funded research, some of these contractors also
manage DOE's national user facilities, located at the national
laboratories, in which advanced scientific equipment or expertise are
made available to researchers from outside DOE's laboratories.
Since the early 1980s, Congress has passed several laws related to
technology transfer across the federal government. One of the
foundational technology transfer laws, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980,[Footnote 4] articulated technology transfer as
a federal priority, requiring federal laboratories to establish an
office of research and technology applications and devote budget and
personnel resources to promoting technology cooperation and the
transfer of federal technologies. Another key law, the Bayh-Dole Act of
1980, sought to promote the use and commercialization of federal
technologies by requiring federal agencies to assure small businesses,
universities, and nonprofits the right to elect title to new inventions
made under their federal funding agreements.[Footnote 5] Other laws
also authorize contractor-or federally operated government laboratories
to perform collaborative research with universities, state or local
governments, nonprofit organizations, or private industry. The National
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989[Footnote 6] directed
federal agencies to include provisions in their contracts that
establish technology transfer as a mission of contractor-operated
federal laboratories. In addition, some technology transfer laws
pertain solely to DOE. For example, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
[Footnote 7] and the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development
Act of 1974,[Footnote 8] DOE may waive its claim to title to inventions
that are made under a DOE contract. This authorizes DOE to allow the
contractors that operate its laboratories to elect to retain title to
inventions at their laboratories, obtain patents or other legal
protections, and then license the inventions to others.[Footnote 9]
Federal regulations and DOE's policies and guidance, including federal
and DOE acquisition regulations, govern the implementation of
activities authorized under the various technology transfer laws. These
policies outline DOE's and contractors' responsibilities with respect
to these activities and describe the general processes and guidelines
under which DOE or its contractors may take ownership of discoveries
made at the laboratories, license their intellectual property, or work
with outside entities seeking to benefit from the laboratories'
capabilities. DOE's technology transfer coordinator, most recently the
Under Secretary for Science, is the principal advisor to the Secretary
of Energy on all matters related to technology transfer and
commercialization. DOE's Assistant General Counsel for Technology
Transfer and Intellectual Property helps formulate DOE's intellectual
property and technology transfer policies, along with others in the
department, and represents DOE's interests in matters involving
intellectual property and technology transfer. The Technology Transfer
Policy Board--comprising representatives from various DOE program and
staff offices--supports the coordinator by recommending technology
transfer policies and helping oversee technology transfer activities.
Field-based officials, under the guidance of DOE program officials and
the Office of the General Counsel, are responsible for directly
overseeing laboratory contractors' technology transfer efforts to
ensure that they comply with applicable laws, regulations, and DOE
policies. In addition, DOE's Technology Transfer Working Group--
comprising both federal and laboratory contractor employees--is
responsible for supporting and advising the Technology Transfer Policy
Board and sharing information on technology transfer opportunities and
best practices.
The process of commercializing federal technologies generally begins
with research and development efforts at federal laboratories, which
result in new technologies that may have commercial potential. At each
of DOE's laboratories, the office of research and technology
applications (which, for our purposes, we refer to as the technology
transfer office) is generally responsible for coordinating
laboratories' efforts to identify technologies and obtain patents or
other legal protections for those technologies. The office may also be
responsible for promoting the laboratory's technologies to potential
licensees, negotiating licensing or other agreements, or managing the
laboratory's existing licenses and patents. Licensees are typically
responsible for commercializing the licensed technologies by
integrating the technologies into commercial products and overseeing
the development, manufacture, and marketing of those products. Because
technology commercialization can require significant financial
resources or specialized skills, licensees, particularly small
businesses or startup companies, may obtain help from venture
capitalists or other outside experts. And, because the pathway from
laboratory bench to commercial product is complex, involving numerous
and sometimes difficult steps, the process can derail at any point and
products may not always reach, or find success in, the marketplace (see
fig. 1).
Figure 1: Process to Commercialize DOE Laboratory Technologies:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
A DOE laboratory develops and transfers its technology:
(1) Laboratory researchers invent a new technology (e.g., device,
material, or method).
(2) Laboratory officials evaluate the new technology and decide whether
to retain title and apply for a patent or other protection for
intellectual property.
(3) While a laboratory‘s application for a patent is being considered”a
process that can take several years”the laboratory is free to license
the technology to an outside entity.
The technology is commercialized:
(4) Technology transfer office identifies an outside entity able to
commercialize the technology, and laboratory and entity enter into a
licensing agreement. For some technologies, extensive searching or
additional research or testing may be needed to attract a licensee.
(5) Licensee integrates technology into a commercial product,
performing additional research, development, or other work to ensure
that product is marketable.
During product development, manufacture, or marketing, the licensee may
need to secure loans or investment capital or consult with experts.
(6) New product is manufactured, marketed, and sold.
Licensee may have agreed in step 4 to pay the laboratory licensing
fees, royalties, or both (reference back to step 1).
Sources: GAO analysis of DOE and other information; Art Explosion (clip
art).
[End of figure]
DOE Laboratories Share Technologies and Capabilities, but Only Certain
Activities Are Widely Regarded as Technology Transfer:
DOE and Laboratory Officials Agreed That Four Key Types of Technology-
Sharing Activities and Their Associated Agreements Are Technology
Transfer:
In addition to conducting research on behalf of DOE's missions, DOE's
national laboratories routinely share their technologies, capabilities,
and knowledge with outside entities by performing research, licensing
the laboratories' technologies, and making their facilities and
personnel available to others. Before carrying out many of these
activities, the parties must first enter into agreements that spell out
the terms and conditions for sharing the laboratories' technologies and
capabilities. While DOE's laboratories may enter into agreements with a
variety of outside entities working in areas ranging from health care
to biofuels, only some of the laboratories' technology-and knowledge-
sharing activities are widely considered to be technology transfer.
Specifically, the technology transfer officials we spoke with at DOE's
headquarters and the 17 national laboratories generally agreed that the
following activities at DOE's laboratories and their associated
agreements--if conducted in partnership with, or on behalf of,
businesses, universities, state or local governments, or other
nonfederal entities--constitute technology transfer:
* Cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA): Under these
agreements, laboratory employees collaborate with nonfederal partners
to carry out research projects that will directly benefit DOE program
missions and the partners' research and development goals. Under a
CRADA, a laboratory may contribute personnel, equipment, or other in-
kind resources to a project, while its CRADA partners must contribute
funds, in-kind resources, or both.[Footnote 10] For example, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado collaborated with
Sacramento's utility district on the design and construction of
demonstration homes incorporating the laboratory's research on energy-
efficient buildings. The work, which occurred under a CRADA, allowed
the laboratory to field-test its research and helped the utility
develop design specifications for energy-efficient homes, assisting
builders and helping to meet statewide goals for improving buildings'
efficiency. In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, all 17 of DOE's national
laboratories entered into CRADAs with private firms, universities,
state or local governments, nonprofit organizations, or other
nonfederal partners. In fiscal year 2008, over 90 percent of the 689
CRADAs at the 17 laboratories were with private industry partners.
[Footnote 11]
* Nonfederal work-for-others agreements: Under a nonfederal work-for-
others agreement, a DOE laboratory agrees to conduct research on behalf
of a nonfederal sponsor. Although this research must be consistent with
the laboratory's and DOE's missions and draw on the laboratory's unique
capabilities, these agreements differ from CRADAs in that the research
need not directly benefit DOE's programs. Consequently, the sponsor
must pay the entire cost of a project done under these agreements. In
turn, however, the sponsors typically may elect to receive ownership of
any new intellectual property, including new inventions by laboratory
employees, resulting from the research.[Footnote 12] For example, Los
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, under a nonfederal work-for-
others agreement with the University of California, Los Angeles, is
developing key components of a detection and response system for avian
flu, which will enable rapid DNA analysis of a large number of
biological samples at multiple locations worldwide. Drawing on the
laboratory's expertise in computer modeling and simulation, and using
its patented biological analysis technologies, the laboratory will
develop computer software and hardware, as well as analysis tools and
protocols for detecting and responding to infectious disease outbreaks.
All 17 of DOE's national laboratories had work-for-others agreements
with nonfederal partners in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. In fiscal
year 2008 alone, the laboratories participated in over 2,600 work-for-
others agreements with nonfederal sponsors--65 percent of which were
sponsored by private industry and 35 percent by universities, state or
local governments, or other nonfederal sponsors.
* Licensing agreements: In addition to performing research,
laboratories share their technologies by licensing their patented
discoveries, copyrighted software programs, or other intellectual
property to nonfederal entities seeking to use or commercialize those
technologies. In some cases, the licensee agrees to pay fees or
royalties to the laboratory in exchange for the laboratory's permission
to use or commercialize a technology. For example, Ames Laboratory in
Iowa and Sandia National Laboratories in California and New Mexico
developed and patented a lead-free solder, which became popular after
concerns emerged about potential risks posed by lead solder in
electronics. As of July 2007, Ames laboratory was licensing or
sublicensing the technology to 55 companies around the world,
generating in fiscal year 2007 about $5 million in licensing income. In
fiscal years 2006 through 2008, 16 of the 17 national laboratories had
licensed their patented technologies to others, generating in 2008
about $44 million in fees and royalties.[Footnote 13]
* User-facility agreements: Under a user-facility agreement, scientists
from outside organizations can use DOE's unique scientific equipment
for their own research, sometimes in collaboration with laboratory
staff. Several of DOE's national laboratories are home to the
department's user facilities. For example, the Center for Nanoscale
Materials--an 88,000-square-foot user facility completed in September
2007 at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois--makes customized
laboratory space and specialized equipment available for research on
materials and structures at the atomic, or nano, scale, with
applications ranging from medicine to microchips. Some of the center's
users are also allowed to access the Advanced Photon Source, another of
Argonne's user facilities, for nanoscience research using the photon
source's ultrabright x-ray beams. Users may conduct their research at
DOE's facilities for free or a negotiated cost, if the results of their
research will be made public. The users who wish to keep their results
private, however, must reimburse DOE for the full cost of using the
facilities. According to DOE data for fiscal year 2008, DOE had more
than 2,800 user-facility agreements for user facilities at 8 of the 17
laboratories.[Footnote 14]
Successful examples of technology transfer cited by laboratory
officials, often involving the use of multiple agreements, reflected
research and development or technology commercialization efforts that
led to or show promise for advancements in important areas ranging from
medicine to fuel-efficient vehicles. For example:
* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California transferred
technology to a small medical manufacturing company seeking to develop
and commercialize a medical device that could dramatically improve the
effectiveness and reduce the costs of treating certain types of cancer.
The new device, slated for use in a cancer treatment known as proton
therapy--which doctors consider superior to other types of cancer
therapy because cancerous cells can be more precisely targeted--is
based on a miniaturized version of an atomic particle accelerator,
which the laboratory had developed for testing nuclear weapons.
According to Lawrence Livermore officials, if the development and
commercialization efforts are successful, the device will shrink the
size and cost of current proton therapy technology--from a basketball-
court-sized machine weighing several hundred tons to a much smaller
device 2 meters long and costing millions of dollars less--making the
therapy more widely available. After performing initial research to
verify that the weapons-testing technology could be adapted for cancer
treatment, in 2007, the laboratory licensed the technology to the
medical manufacturer and agreed to collaborate on additional research,
resulting in a licensing agreement and a CRADA. Under the licensing
agreement, the laboratory gave the company exclusive rights to make,
use, or sell the laboratory's patented technology--limited, however, to
the field of cancer therapy--and the company agreed to pay licensing
fees and royalties to the laboratory. Under the CRADA, the laboratory
and the company agreed to perform additional research and develop a
full-scale prototype of the proton therapy device.
* Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington state entered
into a patent license and multiple CRADAs with a major agricultural
products company to develop and pilot-test technologies and processes
for converting corn fibers or other corn materials into fuel (ethanol)
or various industrial chemicals. If successful, the project will lay
the groundwork for improving biorefineries' efficiency, enabling
refineries to use a wider variety of corn materials--for instance, corn
silk and husks rather than just kernels--and produce a wider variety of
products more cost-effectively. The Pacific Northwest laboratory
granted the company exclusive and nonexclusive royalty-bearing licenses
to the laboratory's patented technologies and processes for isolating
and converting sugars, such as those in corn materials, into other
chemicals. Under a CRADA, funding from the company and DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Biomass Program are offsetting
the laboratory's costs for conducting research on the sugar conversion
process and other technical challenges.
* Lawrence Berkeley and Livermore national laboratories in California
and Sandia National Laboratories have long-standing partnerships,
resulting in multiple technology transfer agreements, with a consortium
of major computer-and microchip-manufacturing companies, universities,
and other organizations, working collaboratively on industrywide
problems and managing risks and costs associated with the research and
development and production of semiconductors. Because the industry's
ability to increase computer speed and memory using current
semiconductor technologies and production methods is reaching its
limits, one of the consortium's efforts is to develop the next
generation of mass-produced semiconductor, which, if successful, could
result in computer chips that are 100 times faster and hold 1,000 times
more memory than current chips, according to the industry consortium.
Berkeley laboratory scientists are using the Advanced Light Source--a
user facility at the Berkeley laboratory housing a powerful ultraviolet
and x-ray source 1 billion times brighter than the sun--to develop and
test a more precise method for etching paths into microchips that house
the circuitry and other components. The technology transfer agreements
involved include multiple nonfederal work-for-others agreements and an
earlier CRADA.
The number of agreements associated with the four types of activities
widely recognized as technology transfer--cooperative research and
development, nonfederal work for others, licensing, and user-facility
agreements--remained relatively stable from fiscal years 2006 through
2008 (see figure 2). See appendix II for additional data on DOE's
agreements.
Figure 2: DOE Laboratories' Technology Transfer Agreements, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of User-facility agreements: 3,474;
Number of Nonfederal work-for-others agreements: 2,336;
Number of Patent licenses with private industry: 1,458;
Number of CRADAs: 628.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of User-facility agreements: 3,679;
Number of Nonfederal work-for-others agreements: 2,425;
Number of Patent licenses with private industry: 1,450;
Number of CRADAs: 719.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Number of User-facility agreements: 2,816;
Number of Nonfederal work-for-others agreements: 2,538;
Number of Patent licenses with private industry: 1,502;
Number of CRADAs: 712.
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
Note: Numbers of user-facility agreements come from data collected
annually at DOE headquarters. All other numbers come from the 17
national laboratories, as part of our November 2008 data collection
effort. See appendix I for additional details.
[End of figure]
Lack of Clear Policies on What Constitutes Technology Transfer
Complicates Assessment of Full Nature and Extent of Activities:
Although DOE and laboratory officials generally agreed that CRADAs,
nonfederal work for others, licensing, and user-facility agreements,
constitute technology transfer, they did not agree on whether other
routine activities--similarly aimed at sharing the laboratories'
technologies, capabilities, or knowledge--also constitute technology
transfer, and DOE policies do not provide a clear definition. In
particular, DOE carries out a large body of work funded by other
federal agencies under a type of agreement known as a federal work-for-
others agreement. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has
funded work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that has drawn
on the laboratory's expertise in areas such as radiation detection to
develop passenger-and cargo-screening technologies for ports of entry.
In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, 16 of the 17 national laboratories
conducted work under these agreements. DOE's laboratories had about
4,900 federal work-for-others agreements in fiscal year 2008, including
about 600 funded by the Department of Homeland Security under an
arrangement granting that agency priority access to staff and
facilities at DOE's laboratories.[Footnote 15]
Although technology transfer officials from 10 of the 17 laboratories
said they consider federal work-for-others agreements to be technology
transfer, the officials at several of the other laboratories--as well
as representatives from DOE's Office of the Assistant General Counsel
for Technology Transfer and the Technology Transfer Policy Board--told
us that they do not, in part because the transfer involves another
federal agency rather than private industry. This difference may stem
from the fact that DOE's policies do not clearly define in all cases
what activities and types of agreements constitute technology transfer,
or the policies provide conflicting views. Specifically, the
definitions of activities and agreements, such as CRADAs and technology
licenses, which are considered to be technology transfer in DOE's
acquisition regulations and a January 2008 policy statement on
technology transfer by the Secretary of Energy[Footnote 16] are broad
enough to allow federal work-for-others agreements to fall under the
department's definition of technology transfer. The January 2008 policy
statement--which defines technology transfer as the process by which
knowledge, intellectual property, or capabilities developed at DOE
national laboratories are transferred to "any other entity, including
private industry, academia, state, and local governments, or other
government entities"--does not explicitly include or exclude work for
other federal agencies. Likewise, DOE's acquisition regulations provide
a broad definition that does not explicitly state whether federal work-
for-others is to be considered technology transfer.[Footnote 17] In
contrast, a DOE policy directive reissued in 2003, which aimed to
improve various aspects of DOE's "technology partnering" activities,
identified work for nonfederal entities as one of the activities
covered by the directive, but the covered activities did not include
federal work-for-others.[Footnote 18] We did not identify any law or
policy specifically stating that DOE may not consider work for other
federal agencies to be technology transfer. Nevertheless, laws and
policies emphasize the federal government's role in transferring
technology to nonfederal entities. For example, the Stevenson-Wydler
Act states that its purpose is "stimulating improved utilization of
federally funded technology developments—by State and local governments
and the private sector," and Executive Order 12591 requires all
agencies to "assist in the transfer of technology to the marketplace."
Although nonfederal entities may ultimately commercialize the results
of federal work-for-others projects, in the short run these projects
involve making federal capabilities available to other federal agencies
for noncommercial aims. Under a federal work-for-others agreement with
the U.S. Department of Transportation, researchers at Argonne National
Laboratory, for example, developed a system for detecting and
responding to chemical attacks in confined, populated spaces, such as
buildings and subway tunnels. Developed by the laboratory's Decision
and Information Sciences Division in the wake of the 1995 sarin gas
attack on the Tokyo subway, the technology integrates chemical
detectors, closed-circuit televisions, advanced computer modeling of
chemical dispersion, and other components to provide early warning of
likely chemical attacks and recommend an appropriate response.
According to Argonne laboratory officials, the system was demonstrated
and is currently operating in the Washington, D.C., and Boston subways,
among other places, and it has been licensed to a large company for
commercialization.
Laboratory and DOE officials identified still other activities as
technology transfer, although again there was little agreement. For
example, officials at 11 of the laboratories said that they consider
publishing or presenting research findings to be technology transfer.
Technology transfer officials from the Fermi National Accelerator
Facility in Illinois said that while publications and presentations are
not formally tracked as part of the laboratory's technology transfer
efforts, these activities are commonplace at the laboratory--in fiscal
year 2007 alone, the laboratory had 285 journal publications and 450
presentations at conferences--and involve sharing the laboratory's
knowledge with others. Officials at the other laboratories, in
contrast, did not specifically identify publishing or presenting
research to be technology transfer. Officials at the Pacific Northwest
and Sandia national laboratories told us they considered their
laboratories' economic development programs, in which laboratory
personnel provide technical advice to local small businesses, to be
technology transfer. Technology transfer officials at 5 other
laboratories agreed that these or similar types of programs constitute
technology transfer, while officials at the 10 remaining laboratories
did not. In addition, DOE and laboratory officials we spoke with said
that applied research programs can involve extensive knowledge-or
technology-sharing activities with private industry that do not,
however, take place under a CRADA or another type of agreement widely
viewed as technology transfer. In response to a solicitation from the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, for example, a private company
was awarded DOE funding and an opportunity to work with the laboratory
to develop and test a more energy-efficient method for drying the coal
used in many power plants.
Nevertheless, without a clear definition, it is impossible to
accurately quantify the overall extent of technology transfer at DOE's
laboratories because the decision to include or exclude certain
agreements and activities can materially alter any measure of
technology transfer. For example, in fiscal year 2008, the 17
laboratories had nearly 7,500 work-for-others agreements in total--
about 4,900 with other federal agencies and 2,600 with nonfederal
entities. The total revenue from these work-for-others agreements was
about $2.1 billion--$1.9 billion from work for other federal agencies
and $232 million from work for nonfederal entities. Because the number
of agreements and associated revenue for work for other federal
agencies is a large portion of the total, whether or not this work is
considered technology transfer will significantly affect any
characterization of the extent of technology transfer activities at the
laboratories.
DOE Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Its
Laboratories because It Has No Overarching Goals or Reliable
Performance Data:
DOE Has Not Established Overarching Goals for Technology Transfer:
DOE cannot determine the overall effectiveness of its laboratories'
technology transfer efforts because it has not yet defined its
overarching strategic goals for technology transfer. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 required that DOE establish goals for technology transfer
and provide Congress its plan for implementing those goals no later
than February 8, 2006. As of March 2009, more than 3 years after the
deadline, DOE headquarters had not yet established departmentwide goals
for technology transfer or submitted its plan to Congress. DOE's
efforts to develop departmentwide goals and an implementation plan
began about 18 months after the deadline imposed by the act. In a June
2007 memo by the Secretary of Energy appointing the Under Secretary for
Science as the department's technology transfer coordinator, the
secretary directed the coordinator to establish a Technology Transfer
Policy Board and made that board responsible for developing the
implementation plan, including departmentwide technology transfer
goals. In March 2009, members of the policy board told us that they do
not currently know when the plan will reach Congress. Although a plan
has been drafted, officials said that no further progress will be made
until a new technology transfer coordinator is appointed and the plan
can be reviewed and modified as needed to reflect the priorities of the
new Secretary of Energy and other key officials.
Absent departmentwide strategic goals, some DOE programs have
articulated their own goals for technology transfer. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)--which oversees the Lawrence
Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia national laboratories--is considering
ways to expand its laboratories' technology partnerships with other
federal agencies and nonfederal entities, as part of its ongoing effort
to transform the nuclear weapons complex, so that it may more
effectively respond to a broader range of national security threats.
[Footnote 19] A February 2008 white paper described strategies by
NNSA's Office of Institutional and Joint Programs for increasing NNSA
laboratories' outreach efforts and ability to partner with others,
including steps for streamlining NNSA and laboratory business rules and
processes for executing CRADAs, work-for-others agreements, and other
agreements. Similarly, a goal of "effective and coordinated"
commercialization of technologies was included in the planning of DOE's
new bioenergy research centers, based at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
[Footnote 20] Funded by the Office of Science, the centers bring
together personnel and resources from DOE laboratories, universities,
private companies, and nonprofit organizations to collaborate on
research and development of new and more efficient methods of
transforming plant materials--potential energy crops beyond corn, such
as switchgrass, poplar, and rice--into ethanol or other fuels as a
substitute for gasoline. At the Oak Ridge center, the collaborating
institutions created a management plan for how inventions developed
through the center's research would be disclosed and revenues from
technology licenses shared. To increase the likelihood that
technologies will be commercialized, a council, comprising technology
transfer specialists from the collaborating institutions, was formed to
evaluate the commercial potential of all new inventions arising from
the center's research. According to a laboratory official, since the
center began operating in early 2008, the commercialization council has
evaluated a number of technologies, including some that have been
licensed. A similar approach is being used at the Berkeley center,
although that laboratory will play a more central role in managing the
intellectual property created by the center's collaborating
institutions.
In addition, the contractors operating many of DOE's laboratories and
the DOE program offices overseeing the laboratories have also been
developing and negotiating annual performance goals for technology
transfer, which are incorporated into the laboratories' contracts. For
fiscal year 2008, contracts for 12 of the 17 laboratories included
performance goals related to technology transfer--up from 10
laboratories in 2007. The goals varied widely across the laboratories,
however, ranging from specific numerical targets to more process-
oriented goals. For example, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory set
a target of doubling its new technology-licensing agreements from 20 to
40, from 2008 to 2012. In contrast, a fiscal year 2008 goal at
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York focused on improving
administrative processes, in order to help put technology transfer
agreements in place more quickly. Furthermore, laboratories' goals can
change from year to year to focus on different priorities, which can
make it more difficult to evaluate the laboratories' performance over
time. In fiscal year 2009, for example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
set a new goal of increasing its technology transfer office's
interaction with that laboratory's new technology park, which houses
private companies collaborating with the laboratory's scientists.
Data Used to Measure Technology Transfer Efforts Are of Questionable
Reliability:
In addition to lacking departmentwide goals and an implementation
strategy for technology transfer, DOE uses data of questionable
reliability to evaluate its laboratories' overall effectiveness in
transferring their technologies. Under the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000,[Footnote 21] Congress required all
federal agencies that operate or direct laboratories to prepare annual
reports on the agency's technology transfer activities for the Office
of Management and Budget, which are summarized in an annual report to
Congress and the President. As part of this effort, DOE has been
collecting data annually from its 17 laboratories on the number of
technology transfer agreements--CRADAs, work-for-others agreements,
technology licenses, and user-facility agreements--and dollar amounts
associated with these agreements. The department also issued annual
technology transfer reports on its activities for fiscal years 2001
through 2006 and continues to collect these data from its laboratories.
We found that the completeness and accuracy of DOE's technology
transfer data are questionable. In some cases, laboratories failed to
provide data on certain types of technology transfer agreements and DOE
failed to ensure that the laboratories were reporting the data as
requested. For example, 3 of the 17 laboratories did not provide
complete information on their federal or nonfederal work-for-others
agreements, even though this information was requested in DOE's
reporting guidelines. One laboratory failed to report complete
information on its federal work-for-others agreements for fiscal years
2004 through 2008. This laboratory's officials told us that their
laboratory does not consider all federal work-for-others agreements to
be technology transfer, and, unlike nonfederal work-for-others
agreements, federal work-for-others is not handled through the
laboratory's technology transfer office. In other cases, laboratories
used inconsistent reporting methods or failed to report their data
accurately. Officials at one laboratory told us they excluded from
their annual reporting any work-for-others agreements for which no
funding was received during the year, whereas officials at another
laboratory said they reported on all open agreements, regardless of
whether there was funding activity. Also, as the result of our review,
three laboratories made corrections to technology transfer data they
had previously submitted to DOE, including data on the number of
technology licenses in fiscal years 2004 through 2007, and funds
associated with CRADAs and work-for-others agreements. Moreover, to
help us verify the reliability of DOE's technology transfer data and
obtain addition information on its laboratories' technology transfer
activities, in November 2008 we collected data from the 17 laboratories
on their activities during fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and found
discrepancies between DOE's data and our own. For example, one
laboratory had reported to DOE that it had 158 nonfederal work-for-
others agreements in fiscal year 2008 but reported to us that it had
114 such agreements that year--a 39 percent difference. Likewise, there
were similar discrepancies in the data reported by other laboratories,
including differences as large as 55 percent in the number of
nonfederal work-for-others agreements in fiscal year 2008. Overall,
however, the difference in the total number of these agreements for all
17 laboratories was smaller--only 6.2 percent.
Officials from DOE's Technology Transfer Policy Board also said they
recognize that the current performance measures have some limitations
in providing a clear picture of the effect of technology transfer
activities. They said they are currently working to develop improved
measures of technology transfer performance. At least one measure--the
data element capturing the number of startup companies established to
commercialize the DOE laboratories' technologies--however, may go
beyond simply tallying agreements and associated revenues.
Some DOE, laboratory, and non-DOE officials we interviewed said that
broader results, such as the economic benefits of technology transfer,
while informative, are difficult to measure, in part because tracking
technologies once they have left the laboratories can be difficult.
While some technology licenses provide that laboratories shall receive
some information about the extent to which licensed technologies are
commercialized--if licensees agree to pay royalties to the laboratory
once the technologies have been integrated into commercial products and
sold, for example--laboratories may not be able to assess the outcomes
of other technology transfer agreements as easily. In some cases,
laboratories may not be privy to the results of technology transfer
agreements. For example, companies that perform research at DOE's user
facilities under a proprietary user-facility agreement are not required
to make public the results of their work. And, while these facility
users may have to disclose to the government any patentable
technologies resulting from this research, they are not required to
report on the commercial success of those technologies. In other cases,
the results of technology transfer agreements might never be
commercialized, or it could take years before the results are used in
commercial products or applications--particularly if the technology
transfer agreement took place at an early stage of research and
development.
Nonetheless, a few organizations within DOE are attempting to measure
the economic and environmental impacts of their research, development,
and technology deployment efforts, including technology transfer. For
example, as part of an effort by several DOE program offices to measure
the overall benefits of the department's research, development, and
technology deployment programs, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy has forecast various economic and environmental
outcomes of the activities it funds at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, other DOE laboratories, and non-DOE institutions.
Specifically, in March 2007, the office estimated that as a result of
these efforts, in 2010, U.S. consumers would begin saving approximately
$2.1 billion to $4.3 billion[Footnote 22] in annual energy costs and
avoid the annual emission of up to 9 million metric tons of greenhouse
gases. According to the office's estimates, these energy-cost and
carbon-emissions savings could accelerate substantially over time,
depending on such factors as future energy prices or public policy.
Similarly, DOE's Office of Fossil Energy--which funds fossil energy
research both internally, at the National Energy Technology Laboratory,
and at outside institutions--estimated that its pollution-control
research, development, and technology deployment efforts since the
1970s are responsible for a 93 percent drop in the costs of removing
nitrous oxide pollutants from power plant emissions. Although such
accomplishments may depend, in part, on successfully transferring
laboratory technologies, these offices' performance measures reflect
the results of a broader array of programmatic activities.
Challenges Can Constrain Commercialization of DOE Laboratory Research,
but Innovative Approaches Show Promise:
Challenges throughout the Technology Transfer Process Can Constrain DOE
Laboratories' Efforts to Identify and Transfer Technologies for Others
to Commercialize:
Throughout the technology transfer process--which generally includes
identifying promising technologies created at DOE's laboratories,
attracting potential partners to commercialize the laboratories'
technologies or tap into the laboratories' capabilities, and
negotiating technology transfer agreements--the laboratories face a
number of challenges. Technology transfer officials at the 17
laboratories identified three main challenges that constrain the number
of promising technologies transferred out of the laboratories or limit
laboratories' ability to share their capabilities: competing priorities
within a laboratory or a lack of staff with the expertise to identify
and promote technologies having commercial promise; lack of funding to
develop and demonstrate promising technologies in order to attract
partners willing to commercialize them; and DOE-required terms and
conditions of technology transfer agreements, which sometimes
complicate negotiations with potential partners.
Competing priorities, insufficient numbers of technology transfer
staff, or gaps in staff expertise have sometimes constrained
laboratories' ability to recognize and promote technologies with
commercial promise. DOE has acknowledged that although laboratory
staff, particularly scientists, excel at innovation and invention, not
all of them look beyond their research to possible applications in the
marketplace. Some laboratory officials attributed this situation to a
lack of interest in the processes involved in transferring
technologies, while other laboratory officials said that their
scientists are more focused on research and publication of their
results than on collaborating with private companies. The Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986,[Footnote 23] however, makes technology
transfer a responsibility of all federal laboratory scientists and
engineers. Sometimes the commercial potential of certain research may
not be evident until late into or after the research effort. As a
result, laboratories may overlook or fail to promote promising
technologies. In addition, technology transfer officials at 9 of the 17
laboratories said their laboratories may lack sufficient numbers of
technology transfer staff or that skill gaps among the staff may
constrain their laboratories' ability to identify and promote promising
technologies. For example, technology transfer officials at one
laboratory said that the number of staff devoted to technology transfer
had declined from previous levels due to budget cuts, constraining the
laboratory's ability to promote its technologies and identify and
negotiate with potential partners. Officials at another laboratory said
that while technology transfer staff have the technical expertise to
understand the laboratory's technologies, the laboratory lacks
sufficient staff with the entrepreneurial or business development
background needed to assess the commercial potential for all their
technologies and match them with market needs. As a result, potential
partners may be unaware of some commercially promising technologies at
the laboratory. In addition, private sector representatives who have
worked with DOE laboratories said that laboratory officials sometimes
do not fully understand the marketplace or commercialization process
beyond the laboratory's involvement.
After DOE's federally funded research effort has ended and promising
technologies have been identified, additional development or testing
may be needed before the laboratory can attract entities to license and
commercialize those technologies. Known as the "valley of death," the
situation can result in a failure to transfer promising technologies
because, on the one hand, DOE has limited funding to continue research
beyond its initial mission scope and, on the other, potential industry
partners are often reluctant to assume the risks of investing in
technologies whose potential has not been demonstrated with a
prototype, performance data, or similar evidence. Technology transfer
officials at 14 of the 17 laboratories told us that the lack of funding
for additional development or testing was a significant constraint to
transferring their promising technologies to the marketplace.[Footnote
24] Examples of promising technologies currently languishing in the
"valley of death" include the following:
* Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed a technology
that detects toxic agents in water supplies, such as reservoirs,
rivers, and lakes, by analyzing the effects of such agents on algae
occurring naturally in the water. Although the technology, which gives
results faster than present methods for testing water safety, has been
licensed, and municipalities have shown interest in it, according to
laboratory officials, adoption by municipalities has been stalled by
lack of funding to develop a prototype, which is needed before the
Environmental Protection Agency can certify the technology for
monitoring drinking water.
* Officials at Idaho National Laboratory identified 14 technologies
that showed promise but had not been successfully transferred out of
the laboratory, including a process for creating synthetic fuels from
carbon dioxide, electricity, and steam. The same technology can also
create hydrogen, which can itself be turned into electricity. Thus the
technology could help in a transition away from fossil fuels. According
to laboratory officials, the technology has garnered "a high degree of
interest" from industry but lacks funding for further research and
development, which will be needed to attract private investment.
* Similarly, a device, known as a carbon-ion pump, shows promise as a
technology for removing carbon dioxide from industrial emissions.
According to the technology transfer office at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, where the device was developed, the pump involves
a simple process for removing carbon dioxide from the air and other
gases, is appropriate for small industrial plants, and can produce
clean water as a by-product. The director of the laboratory's
technology transfer office identified the pump as 1 of 20 technologies
at the laboratory that had significant potential but needed funding for
additional research and development before they could increase
opportunities for commercial partnerships.
Even when outside entities are interested in partnering with a
laboratory, negotiating technology transfer agreements can sometimes be
problematic. Although laboratory contactor officials generally
negotiate the agreements with their potential partners, the agreements
must be approved by DOE and include certain terms and conditions
required by federal law or DOE policy. While these terms and conditions
may reflect legal requirements and address legitimate policy concerns,
officials at each of the 17 laboratories said that they can also
present difficulties for partnering entities, sometimes slowing the
negotiating process or discouraging potential partners. For example,
outside entities entering into a work-for-others agreement with a DOE
laboratory must agree to pay in advance, most typically, for 90 days of
the work. Officials at several of the laboratories said that this
requirement can be especially problematic for small businesses because
they may not have enough capital to pay in advance. Also, the
requirement does not reflect standard commercial practices and can
therefore prolong negotiations even with businesses that can afford to
fund the work up front. DOE headquarters officials representing the
Technology Transfer Policy Board and the Office of the General Counsel
told us, however, they are concerned that without the requirement DOE
could be violating federal appropriations laws, because budgetary
resources would have to be used to cover any costs that a sponsor
failed to pay. Other terms and conditions require the laboratories'
CRADA partners and licensees to laboratory inventions to "substantially
manufacture" in the United States any commercial products that include
technologies licensed from DOE laboratories.[Footnote 25] Officials
from several DOE laboratories and a number of private-sector
representatives we interviewed said that the requirement can present
difficulties, in particular for companies that typically manufacture
their products overseas. According to DOE headquarters officials, the
requirement reflects federal and DOE policies of supporting U.S.
industrial competitiveness. Nevertheless, private-sector
representatives we contacted emphasized the importance of reaching an
acceptable agreement with the laboratories within a reasonable time
frame, in light of competition in the marketplace.
Some DOE Laboratories and Programs Have Developed Their Own Approaches
to Increase Technology Transfer:
To bridge the gap between the laboratories' research focus and the need
to transfer technologies beyond the laboratories, technology transfer
officials have taken a number of steps, such as the following:
* At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, technology transfer
officials regularly evaluate their laboratories' pending research
publications for evidence of inventions or technologies that have not
been disclosed for commercial opportunities that may have been
overlooked.
* Technology transfer officials at some DOE laboratories that are
managed and operated by universities--such as Ames Laboratory, which is
managed by Iowa State University, and the SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory, managed by Stanford University[Footnote 26]--work with the
universities' technology transfer offices to help the laboratories
patent technologies and manage intellectual property.
* Technology transfer officials at Brookhaven National Laboratory
expanded their office's reach by working with their laboratory's public
relations office to promote selected technologies, which proved
successful in attracting licensees for those technologies.
* Four laboratories have brought in entrepreneurs-in-residence,
representing venture capital firms, with strong backgrounds in business
and science to help identify and commercialize promising technologies.
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy funded
entrepreneurs at three of these laboratories--the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and Oak Ridge and Sandia national laboratories.
[Footnote 27] These entrepreneurs had 1 year to identify at least one
energy-efficiency or renewable-energy technology and develop a plan for
commercializing it. The Sandia-based entrepreneur told us that, after
months of reviewing the laboratory's technologies, he estimated that 80
percent of the more than 100 technologies he assessed were promising
and could be ready for commercialization in about 1 year, after
additional development or testing. DOE plans to fund entrepreneurs at
four additional laboratories in 2009.
To reduce the number of technologies stalled in the "valley of death,"
a DOE program office and the laboratories have sought ways to fill the
funding gap:
* The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in 2007 and 2008
awarded over $14 million to eight DOE laboratories to help those
laboratories fund additional research and development on their
promising clean-energy technologies. For example, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory used $250,000 of grant money for additional
research on advanced cooling fan technology, which came out of the
laboratory's geothermal energy research from the 1990s, that could also
be used to cool industrial plants more efficiently than current
technologies. An industrial partner approached the laboratory willing
to match the laboratory's $250,000 investment, as required by the grant
program, and then commercialize the technology. According to laboratory
officials, the laboratory used the money and industry partner matching
funds to develop a prototype of the technology for the industrial
setting, which the partner is currently commercializing and expects to
bring to market in 2009.
* Officials at several laboratories said they invest a portion of the
laboratories' licensing income in other technologies in need of further
research and development to help make them more attractive to outside
investors. For example, technology transfer officials at the Idaho
National Laboratory said this laboratory invests approximately $300,000
to $400,000 of its annual licensing income for this purpose. An
internal committee reviews the laboratory's technologies and selects
those to be developed and, it is anticipated, eventually licensed and
commercialized. In one case, the laboratory spent licensing income to
develop a method of producing nanotechnologies that are useful in solar
energy and other applications, which attracted a startup company
interested in commercialization. According to laboratory officials,
such investments have been highly successful, not only for bridging the
"valley of death," but also for generating new funding to develop the
technology and licensing income for the laboratory.
Finally, the laboratories have taken steps to simplify the negotiation
of technology transfer agreements:[Footnote 28]
* Some laboratories have worked with local DOE officials to develop
standard technology transfer agreements with terms and conditions that
DOE has preapproved, allowing the laboratories to avoid seeking DOE
approval for agreements being negotiated with potential partners.
Officials at Brookhaven National Laboratory told us that, as a result
of using preapproved agreements, they have been able to reduce the time
it takes to put technology transfer agreements in place--down to 1 day
in some cases.
* At least one laboratory has taken this approach a step further by
creating standardized agreements that apply to specific entities with
which the laboratories expect to have a longer-term partnership.
Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina, for example, has
developed a "model" CRADA for its cooperative research projects with
universities in South Carolina.
* Similarly, Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories have set up
"umbrella" CRADAs with major companies, such as Goodyear or Chevron,
with which the laboratories have ongoing partnerships and enter into
multiple agreements. Under these agreements, the laboratories and their
partners have agreed in advance to certain terms and conditions, such
as the parties' rights to review one another's draft publications or
their rights of ownership of intellectual property resulting from the
cooperative research. Other terms and conditions, such as the scope of
work to be completed, are negotiated when new work is being considered
by the parties. Officials at one of these laboratories told us that
standardizing agreements has streamlined the negotiating process and
resulted in more long-term partnerships with industry.
* In addition, laboratories have taken other steps to mitigate
sometimes problematic terms and conditions of technology transfer
agreements. The contractor operating Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, for example, sometimes uses its own funds to help potential
partners pay in advance for 90-days' work toward their technology
transfer agreement.
At headquarters, DOE officials have also taken some steps to increase
the likelihood that promising technologies will be transferred out of
the laboratories and commercialized. The Technology Transfer Policy
Board has published in the Federal Register a request for information
from private industry, DOE laboratories, and others seeking to identify
problems with DOE's current technology transfer agreements, along with
best practices DOE could consider. As of April 2009, DOE was
consolidating responses to its request. The board has also altered some
user-facility agreements to make it easier for users to collaborate
with laboratory staff.
Approaches Used Outside DOE Could Offer Additional Ways for
Strengthening DOE's Own Efforts:
Other federal laboratories outside DOE are using other approaches aimed
at increasing technology transfer. To learn about some of these
approaches, we spoke with Department of Defense (Defense) officials
from the Office of Technology Transition--created to oversee and
encourage technology transfer departmentwide--as well as officials who
more directly oversee technology transfer for the Office of Naval
Research and the Army and Air Force research laboratories. According to
these officials, certain efforts by the Office of Technology Transition
have helped technology transfer staff at Defense's laboratories enhance
their capabilities, resulting in additional technology transfer
opportunities. Specifically:
* Training and networking opportunities: The Office of Technology
Transition sponsors annual departmentwide training and networking
sessions for technology transfer staff, which sometimes include private
industry representatives interested in partnering with Defense
laboratories. Training topics range from general overview of technology
transfer, aimed at new technology transfer staff, to more specific
topics, such as negotiation techniques or legal issues. The officials
we spoke with said that these sessions are well received and represent
a valuable training opportunity and a means for sharing best practices.
* Web-based information sharing: The Office of Technology Transition
also funds a searchable Web-based tool that enables all of the Defense
laboratories to publicize in a single location their available
technologies and partnering opportunities to potential partners within
and outside the government. The site helps consolidate and organize
information on licensing and partnering opportunities available at
approximately 120 Defense laboratories and programs.
* Funding for additional expertise at Defense laboratories: The Office
of Technology Transition pays for contracts with outside experts, used
as needed by Defense's laboratories to supplement their technology
transfer staff members' capabilities.[Footnote 29] According to the
Defense officials we spoke with, the laboratories have used these
experts to help identify promising technologies, publicize technology
partnering opportunities, identify potential partners, or assist in
negotiating technology transfer agreements. Defense officials said the
contracted experts have helped technology transfer offices with small
numbers of staff carry out additional technology transfer activities.
Laboratories have also benefited from some of the experts' connections
with industry, as well as from their business development experience.
Although DOE and its laboratories have taken various steps to improve
technology transfer, approaches used by Defense or suggested by others
outside DOE could offer additional strategies for DOE to strengthen its
own technology transfer efforts. Specifically, although DOE laboratory
technology transfer staff may share best practices through the
Technology Transfer Working Group or less formal means, DOE does not
organize regular departmentwide training or networking opportunities
for all DOE and laboratory staff involved in technology transfer.
According to the department, only DOE and laboratory attorneys involved
in intellectual property issues and technology transfer meet annually
for networking and training. Likewise, while several of the
laboratories showcase their technology transfer opportunities on their
public Web sites, DOE does not have a departmentwide database,
consolidating this information in a single location, and interested
parties would have to compile information from multiple Web sites to
obtain a more complete view of DOE's technology transfer opportunities.
[Footnote 30] Lastly, although outside experts--such as the
entrepreneurs funded by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy--have been made available at a few of DOE's laboratories, to
date not all of the laboratories have benefited. In contrast, the
outside experts under contract with the Department of Defense's Office
of Technology Transition are available to all of the laboratories to
carry out a wider variety of tasks than the entrepreneurs funded by DOE
and are not focused on commercializing a single technology.
Furthermore, unlike the entrepreneurs, who are available to the
participating laboratories for a limited duration, the Department of
Defense's experts are available on an ongoing basis. In addition,
private industry representatives, including those responding to DOE's
request in the Federal Register, offered suggestions for improving
DOE's technology transfer, such as a venture capital firm's suggestion
that DOE ensure adequate resources are available departmentwide for
developing or testing promising technologies to attract industry.
Conclusions:
DOE's national laboratories and specialized research facilities, long a
source for groundbreaking research and technical innovation, routinely
share their technologies and unique capabilities with others, helping
pave the way for technological solutions and economic opportunities in
diverse fields ranging from solar energy to health care. The
unprecedented scale and urgency of the challenges currently threatening
the economy, natural environment, and global security clearly signal
the need for new technologies and effective collaborations among those
capable of developing and commercializing them. While DOE has made
invaluable contributions in this regard, more could be done to ensure
that promising technologies are being transferred. Unclear priorities
within DOE about the role of technology transfer are complicating the
already difficult task of transferring and commercializing new
technologies. DOE's lack of overarching goals--including a consensus on
what activities constitute technology transfer--and reliable
performance data have left DOE's laboratories and program offices to
chart their own course, often with mixed results. While some
laboratories have used various approaches to help address the
constraints that limit their technology transfer efforts, not all the
laboratories or programs have done so. Other strategies, such as those
employed by the Department of Defense, could further enhance the
laboratories' capacity to transfer their technologies and speed the
arrival of solutions to the commercial marketplace. Given the billions
spent each year on research at DOE's laboratories and the urgency of
today's challenges, DOE needs to take a stronger role in ensuring that
its laboratories are providing the maximum return on the public's
investment in federal research.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better measure, and improve, the effectiveness of DOE's technology
transfer efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy, working in
concert with laboratory directors, take the following seven actions:
* explicitly articulate departmentwide priorities for DOE's technology
transfer efforts;
* develop clear goals, objectives, and performance measures in line
with these priorities;
* clarify which activities qualify as technology transfer, including
whether research sponsored by other federal agencies qualifies;
* collect reliable performance data and further consider ways to use
the data to monitor the progress and effectiveness of technology
transfer efforts;
* ensure sufficient laboratory access to both technical and business
development expertise;
* develop a systematic approach to identify technologies with
commercial promise; and:
* develop a comprehensive means of sharing information across
laboratories and with private entities, such as a Web-based
clearinghouse for technologies ready for further development or
commercialization.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Energy for
review and comment. The Acting Director of the Office of Science
responded on behalf of DOE and generally agreed with our findings.
Although DOE was silent on whether it agreed or disagreed with our
recommendations, DOE noted that many of the recommendations touch upon
policy issues that will likely be addressed under the new
administration. DOE's written comments on our draft report are included
in appendix IV. DOE also provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Gene Aloise:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the nature and extent of technology transfer at the
Department of Energy's (DOE) laboratories, we reviewed the federal laws
and DOE policies and guidance related to technology transfer. We also
analyzed technology transfer data collected annually by DOE
headquarters from the department's national laboratories and other
facilities, which are responsible for carrying out DOE's technology
transfer. We contacted the officials responsible for technology
transfer at DOE's 17 national laboratories:
Ames Laboratory, Iowa;
Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois;
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York;
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Illinois;
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho;
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California;
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California;
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico;
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia;
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado;
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee;
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington;
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, New Jersey;
Sandia National Laboratories, California and New Mexico;
Savannah River National Laboratory, South Carolina;
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, California;[Footnote 31] and:
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Virginia.
According to DOE's data, the 17 national laboratories were responsible
for more than 92 percent of the cooperative research and development,
work for others, and technology licensing agreements during fiscal
years 2006 and 2007. We interviewed contractor officials responsible
for technology transfer at each of these laboratories--including visits
to the Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley, and Pacific Northwest
national laboratories--about the nature and extent of their technology
transfer efforts. We also discussed at most laboratories the officials'
efforts to ensure the accuracy or completeness of technology transfer
data collected annually by DOE headquarters. Although we determined
that DOE's data were sufficiently reliable for selecting the
laboratories to contact during this study or reporting the total number
of agreements at DOE laboratories, we were unsure about whether they
could be used to report on the precise extent of technology transfer at
individual laboratories. As a result, in November 2008, we collected
additional data from the 17 laboratories about their technology
transfer agreements in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, including
selected information about the number of these laboratories'
cooperative research and development, work for others, patent
licensing, and user-facility agreements and revenues associated with
these agreements. Because there were indications in the DOE data that
its laboratories were using inconsistent methods for reporting the
dollars associated with some of its agreements--work-for-others
agreements, in particular--and DOE could not verify the reliability of
its data, we asked the 17 laboratories to report this data using a
consistent definition.[Footnote 32] Also, to reduce respondent burden,
we limited the data we collected on the number of the laboratories'
licensing agreements to focus exclusively on patented technologies
licensed to private industry. And, we limited the data we collected on
revenues from user-facility agreements to focus on agreements with
private industry because, according to DOE officials, most such
revenues come from proprietary user-facility agreements with private
industry. In addition, we collected data and other information about
"use permit" agreements, which are unique to 1 of the 17 laboratories.
(See app. II for data on the 17 laboratories' agreements and app. III
for information on "use permit" agreements.) Furthermore, we spoke with
DOE headquarters officials from the Office of the General Counsel, the
Office of Laboratory Policy and Evaluation in the Office of Science,
and the Technology Transfer Policy Board. We also spoke with members of
DOE's Technology Transfer Working Group.
To determine the extent to which DOE can measure the effectiveness of
technology transfer efforts at its laboratories, we obtained and
analyzed the laboratories' annual performance goals and assessments for
fiscal years 2006 through 2009, as available, as well as documentation
of DOE program-office efforts to establish technology transfer goals.
We also discussed performance measurement issues with the 17
laboratories and DOE headquarters officials, and, to learn more about
technology transfer and performance measurement from the nonfederal
perspective, we spoke with associations representing university and
private-sector technology managers engaged in technology transfer.
To identify the factors affecting technology transfer and approaches
that may have potential for improving technology transfer, we asked the
technology transfer officials at the 17 laboratories and DOE
headquarters officials to discuss key factors, positive or negative,
affecting DOE's ability to transfer its technologies, as well as any
efforts to improve technology transfer or helpful practices. As
appropriate, we obtained documentation of factors that were mentioned
and results of any improvement efforts. Finally, to better understand
how other federal agencies transfer technology, we interviewed
Department of Defense officials who oversee technology transfer in that
department's Office of Technology Transition, Army and Air Force
Research Laboratories, and the Office of Naval Research about the
strategies used to transfer technologies.
We conducted this work as a performance audit from July 2008 through
June 2009, in accordance with general accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on the Department of Energy's Technology
Transfer Agreements and Associated Revenue:
DOE's laboratories share their technologies, capabilities, and
knowledge with other entities through a variety of activities. Certain
activities, and the agreements used to implement them, are widely
regarded as technology transfer. The four primary types of technology
transfer agreements are cooperative research and development, work for
others, licensing, and user-facility agreements. The following tables
contain information about the type and number of these agreements for
fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and, when available, the associated
revenue at the 17 DOE laboratories we reviewed.
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements:
Under a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA),
laboratory employees collaborate with nonfederal partners to carry out
research that will benefit DOE program missions and the partners'
research and development goals. As shown in table 1, the majority of
CRADAs are with private partners, defined as for-profit firms (domestic
or foreign), industry associations, or consortia whose members include
representatives from private industry. A few of the laboratories,
including Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, often partner with other entities such as
universities or state and local governments.
Table 1: Number of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements,
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
DOE national laboratory or facility: Ames;
All CRADAs: 2006: 3;
All CRADAs: 2007: 3;
All CRADAs: 2008: 5;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 3;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 3;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 5.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Argonne;
All CRADAs: 2006: 37;
All CRADAs: 2007: 42;
All CRADAs: 2008: 32;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 37;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 42;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 32.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Brookhaven;
All CRADAs: 2006: 50;
All CRADAs: 2007: 54;
All CRADAs: 2008: 47;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 50;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 54;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 47.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Fermi Accelerator;
All CRADAs: 2006: 3;
All CRADAs: 2007: 6;
All CRADAs: 2008: 10;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 3;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 6;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 10.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Idaho;
All CRADAs: 2006: 64;
All CRADAs: 2007: 76;
All CRADAs: 2008: 67;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 57;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 68;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 61.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Berkeley;
All CRADAs: 2006: 13;
All CRADAs: 2007: 14;
All CRADAs: 2008: 12;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 13;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 14;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 12.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Livermore;
All CRADAs: 2006: 33;
All CRADAs: 2007: 38;
All CRADAs: 2008: 36;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 33;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 38;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 36.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Los Alamos;
All CRADAs: 2006: 55;
All CRADAs: 2007: 70;
All CRADAs: 2008: 89;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 48;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 61;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 70.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Energy Technology;
All CRADAs: 2006: 38;
All CRADAs: 2007: 33;
All CRADAs: 2008: 28;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 31;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 26;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 21.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Renewable Energy;
All CRADAs: 2006: 49;
All CRADAs: 2007: 52;
All CRADAs: 2008: 94;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 37;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 40;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 72.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Oak Ridge;
All CRADAs: 2006: 78;
All CRADAs: 2007: 88;
All CRADAs: 2008: 65;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 76;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 87;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 62.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Pacific Northwest[B];
All CRADAs: 2006: 30;
All CRADAs: 2007: 43;
All CRADAs: 2008: 38;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 30;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 43;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 38.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Princeton Plasma Physics;
All CRADAs: 2006: 0;
All CRADAs: 2007: 1;
All CRADAs: 2008: 1;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 0;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 1;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 1.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Sandia;
All CRADAs: 2006: 139;
All CRADAs: 2007: 149;
All CRADAs: 2008: 138;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 139;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 148;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 137.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Savannah River;
All CRADAs: 2006: 8;
All CRADAs: 2007: 10;
All CRADAs: 2008: 11;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 4;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 5;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 6.
DOE national laboratory or facility: SLAC Accelerator;
All CRADAs: 2006: 5;
All CRADAs: 2007: 11;
All CRADAs: 2008: 11;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 5;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 11;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 11.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Thomas Jefferson Accelerator;
All CRADAs: 2006: 6;
All CRADAs: 2007: 6;
All CRADAs: 2008: 5;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 6;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 6;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 5.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Total;
All CRADAs: 2006: 611;
All CRADAs: 2007: 695;
All CRADAs: 2008: 689;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2006: 572;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2007: 653;
CRADAs with private partners[A]: 2008: 626.
Source: GAO analysis of national laboratories' data.
[A] CRADAs with private partners are a subset of all CRADAs.
[B] Figures for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory do not
include work performed under this laboratory's unique arrangement, or
use permit, with DOE; see appendix III for more information.
[End of table]
Under a CRADA, even if laboratories contribute personnel, equipment, or
other in-kind resources to a project, their CRADA partners must
contribute funds (see table 2), in-kind resources, or both.
Table 2: Partner-Contributed Funds for Research under CRADAs, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008 (dollars in thousands):
DOE national laboratory or facility: Ames;
From all partners: 2006: $90;
From all partners: 2007: $20;
From all partners: 2008: $150;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $150.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Argonne;
From all partners: 2006: $215;
From all partners: 2007: $600;
From all partners: 2008: $236;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $236.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Brookhaven;
From all partners: 2006: $2,000;
From all partners: 2007: $2,100;
From all partners: 2008: $3,700;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $3,700.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Fermi Accelerator;
From all partners: 2006: $44;
From all partners: 2007: $279;
From all partners: 2008: $445;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $445.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Idaho;
From all partners: 2006: $4,316;
From all partners: 2007: $2,941;
From all partners: 2008: $5,910;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $4,399.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Berkeley;
From all partners: 2006: $600;
From all partners: 2007: $100;
From all partners: 2008: $500;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $500.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Livermore;
From all partners: 2006: $1,240;
From all partners: 2007: $4,142;
From all partners: 2008: $9,972;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $9,972.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Los Alamos;
From all partners: 2006: $2,700;
From all partners: 2007: $10,700;
From all partners: 2008: $12,500;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $11,400.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Energy Technology;
From all partners: 2006: $376;
From all partners: 2007: $608;
From all partners: 2008: $92;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $84.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Renewable Energy;
From all partners: 2006: $1,776;
From all partners: 2007: $2,179;
From all partners: 2008: $3,102;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $3,102.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Oak Ridge;
From all partners: 2006: $8,300;
From all partners: 2007: $16,300;
From all partners: 2008: $12,400;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $11,200.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Pacific Northwest[B];
From all partners: 2006: $100;
From all partners: 2007: $100;
From all partners: 2008: $1,400;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $1,400.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Princeton Plasma Physics;
From all partners: 2006: 0;
From all partners: 2007: 0;
From all partners: 2008: 0;
From private partners[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Sandia;
From all partners: 2006: $23,962;
From all partners: 2007: $21,326;
From all partners: 2008: $20,631;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $20,631.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Savannah River;
From all partners: 2006: $868;
From all partners: 2007: $664;
From all partners: 2008: $1,372;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $1,332.
DOE national laboratory or facility: SLAC Accelerator;
From all partners: 2006: $144;
From all partners: 2007: $186;
From all partners: 2008: $319;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $319.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Thomas Jefferson Accelerator;
From all partners: 2006: $709;
From all partners: 2007: $600;
From all partners: 2008: $524;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $524.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Total;
From all partners: 2006: $47,439;
From all partners: 2007: $62,844;
From all partners: 2008: $73,252;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $69,393.
Source: GAO analysis of national laboratories' data.
Note: Because a CRADA can span multiple years, the figures in table 2
represent the amounts "costed" by the laboratories in each of the
fiscal years.
[A] We collected data on funds from private partners only for fiscal
year 2008; the amounts are a subset of funds from all partners.
[B] Figures for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory do not
include work performed under this laboratory's unique arrangement, or
use permit, with DOE; see appendix III.
[End of table]
Work-for-Others Agreements:
Under a work-for-others agreement, a DOE laboratory agrees to conduct
research, for a fee, on behalf of a sponsor. Although this research
must be consistent with the laboratory's mission and draw on the
laboratory's unique capabilities, the research is not required to
benefit DOE programs, as it is under a CRADA. DOE has work-for-others
agreements with both federal and nonfederal entities, but DOE
headquarters and its laboratories do not all agree on whether work-for-
others agreements with federal entities should be considered technology
transfer. Table 3 shows the relative number of work-for-others
agreements carried out with federal entities; with all nonfederal
entities, including private partners; and with private partners,
defined as for-profit firms (domestic or foreign), industry
associations, or consortia whose members include representatives from
private industry.
Table 3: Number of Work-for-Others Agreements, Fiscal Years 2006
through 2008:
DOE national laboratory or facility: Ames;
With federal agencies: 2006: 11;
With federal agencies: 2007: 9;
With federal agencies: 2008: 10;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 9;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 10;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 11;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 7;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 9;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 8.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Argonne;
With federal agencies: 2006: 135;
With federal agencies: 2007: 147;
With federal agencies: 2008: 137;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 133;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 145;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 114;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 86;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 82;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 63.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Brookhaven;
With federal agencies: 2006: 122;
With federal agencies: 2007: 120;
With federal agencies: 2008: 107;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 54;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 55;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 44;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 16;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 18;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 14.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Fermi Accelerator;
With federal agencies: 2006: 4;
With federal agencies: 2007: 4;
With federal agencies: 2008: 3;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 6;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 3;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 4;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 4;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 2;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 2.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Idaho;
With federal agencies: 2006: 436;
With federal agencies: 2007: 464;
With federal agencies: 2008: 502;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 184;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 233;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 278;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 147;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 173;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 216.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Berkeley;
With federal agencies: 2006: 294;
With federal agencies: 2007: 266;
With federal agencies: 2008: 244;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 452;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 431;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 438;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 157;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 153;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 158.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Livermore;
With federal agencies: 2006: 598;
With federal agencies: 2007: 683;
With federal agencies: 2008: 711;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 315;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 335;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 519;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 314;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 296;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 277.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Los Alamos;
With federal agencies: 2006: 684;
With federal agencies: 2007: 812;
With federal agencies: 2008: 1,006;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 154;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 162;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 185;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 75;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 73;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 87.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Energy Technology;
With federal agencies: 2006: 8;
With federal agencies: 2007: 13;
With federal agencies: 2008: 7;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 15;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 21;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 9;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 14;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 20;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 8.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Renewable Energy;
With federal agencies: 2006: 63;
With federal agencies: 2007: 70;
With federal agencies: 2008: 79;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 93;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 110;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 120;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 90;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 95;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 106.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Oak Ridge;
With federal agencies: 2006: 937;
With federal agencies: 2007: 1,013;
With federal agencies: 2008: 1,048;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 447;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 473;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 556;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 394;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 421;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 503.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Pacific Northwest[B];
With federal agencies: 2006: 462;
With federal agencies: 2007: 494;
With federal agencies: 2008: 491;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 12;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 20;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 18;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 2;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 9;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 7.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Princeton Plasma Physics;
With federal agencies: 2006: 17;
With federal agencies: 2007: 17;
With federal agencies: 2008: 18;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 8;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 8;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 8;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 4;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 3;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 4.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Sandia;
With federal agencies: 2006: 527;
With federal agencies: 2007: 528;
With federal agencies: 2008: 530;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 275;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 265;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 262;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 216;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 203;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 201.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Savannah River;
With federal agencies: 2006: 85;
With federal agencies: 2007: 82;
With federal agencies: 2008: 81;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 19;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 26;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 31;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 16;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 21;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 26.
DOE national laboratory or facility: SLAC Accelerator;
With federal agencies: 2006: 0;
With federal agencies: 2007: 0;
With federal agencies: 2008: 0;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 1;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 1;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 4;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 1;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 1;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 4.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Thomas Jefferson Accelerator;
With federal agencies: 2006: 11;
With federal agencies: 2007: 10;
With federal agencies: 2008: 4;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 9;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 9;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 10;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 9;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 9;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 10.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Total;
With federal agencies: 2006: 4,394;
With federal agencies: 2007: 4,732;
With federal agencies: 2008: 4,978;
With all nonfederal entities: 2006: 2,186;
With all nonfederal entities: 2007: 2,307;
With all nonfederal entities: 2008: 2,611;
With private partners[A]: 2006: 1,552;
With private partners[A]: 2007: 1,588;
With private partners[A]: 2008: 1,694.
Source: GAO analysis of national laboratories' data.
[A] Work-for-others agreements with private partners are a subset of
work-for-others agreements with nonfederal entities.
[B] Figures for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory do not
include work performed under this laboratory's unique arrangement, or
use permit, with DOE; see appendix III.
[End of table]
Under a work-for-others agreement, the sponsor must pay the entire cost
of a project. Table 4 shows the funds associated with work-for-others
agreements from fiscal year 2006 through 2008.
Table 4: Sponsor-Contributed Funds for Research under Work-for-Others
Agreements, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 (dollars in thousands):
DOE national laboratory or facility: Ames;
From federal agencies: 2006: $1,490;
From federal agencies: 2007: $1,510;
From federal agencies: 2008: $1,850;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $460;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $430;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $850;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $500.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Argonne;
From federal agencies: 2006: $80,400;
From federal agencies: 2007: $73,800;
From federal agencies: 2008: $85,700;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $28,300;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $33,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $26,889;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $9,400.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Brookhaven;
From federal agencies: 2006: $40,300;
From federal agencies: 2007: $39,100;
From federal agencies): 2008: $41,700;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $16,800;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $3,500;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $4,400;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $2,100.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Fermi Accelerator;
From federal agencies: 2006: $153;
From federal agencies: 2007: $66;
From federal agencies: 2008: $132;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $301;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $298;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $3,889;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $3.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Idaho;
From federal agencies: 2006: $165,978;
From federal agencies: 2007: $192,597;
From federal agencies: 2008: $256,223;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $12,869;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $12,358;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $8,495;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $4,448.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Berkeley;
From federal agencies: 2006: $69,400;
From federal agencies: 2007: $67,300;
From federal agencies: 2008: $64,200;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $47,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $43,200;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $40,700;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $12,300.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Livermore;
From federal agencies: 2006: $277,000;
From federal agencies: 2007: $215,800;
From federal agencies: 2008: $236,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $34,200;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $33,900;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $43,600;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $27,200.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Los Alamos;
From federal agencies: 2006: $232,000;
From federal agencies: 2007: $216,000;
From federal agencies: 2008: $207,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $16,400;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $15,700;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $21,200;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $8,000.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Energy Technology;
From federal agencies: 2006: $527;
From federal agencies: 2007: $120;
From federal agencies: 2008: $833;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $133;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $37;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $94;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $94.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Renewable Energy;
From federal agencies: 2006: $3,758;
From federal agencies: 2007: $3,426;
From federal agencies: 2008: $4,126;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $7,220;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $6,898;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $9,780;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $9,363.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Oak Ridge;
From federal agencies: 2006: $196,000;
From federal agencies: 2007: $237,000;
From federal agencies: 2008: $289,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $39,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $54,000;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $48,000;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $44,100.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Pacific Northwest[B];
From federal agencies: 2006: $237,500;
From federal agencies: 2007: $218,900;
From federal agencies: 2008: $228,700;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $2,600;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $1,300;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $1,200;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $700.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Princeton Plasma Physics;
From federal agencies: 2006: $1,200;
From federal agencies: 2007: $1,100;
From federal agencies: 2008: $900;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $500;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $400;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $100;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $100.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Sandia;
From federal agencies: 2006: $380,531;
From federal agencies: 2007: $390,907;
From federal agencies: 2008: $430,056;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $28,299;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $24,158;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $20,617;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $17,489.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Savannah River;
From federal agencies: 2006: $8,764;
From federal agencies: 2007: $13,414;
From federal agencies: 2008: $17,801;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $1,177;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $1,396;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $1,931;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $1,791.
DOE national laboratory or facility: SLAC Accelerator;
From federal agencies: 2006: $0;
From federal agencies: 2007: $0;
From federal agencies: 2008: $0;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $0.5;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $0;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $0.7;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $0.7.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Thomas Jefferson Accelerator;
From federal agencies: 2006: $14,526;
From federal agencies: 2007: $7,761;
From federal agencies: 2008: $1,800;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $353;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $455;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $243;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $243.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Total;
From federal agencies: 2006: $1,709,526;
From federal agencies: 2007: $1,678,802;
From federal agencies: 2008: $1,866,022;
From all nonfederal entities: 2006: $235,612;
From all nonfederal entities: 2007: $231,029;
From all nonfederal entities: 2008: $231,988;
From private partners[A]: 2008: $137,831.
Source: GAO analysis of national laboratories' data.
Note: Because work-for-others agreements can span multiple years, the
figures in table 4 represent the amounts "costed" by the laboratories
in each of the fiscal years.
[A] We collected data on funds from private partners only for fiscal
year 2008; the amounts are a subset of dollars from all nonfederal
entities.
[B] Figures for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory do not
include work performed under this laboratory's unique arrangement, or
use permit, with DOE; see appendix III.
[End of table]
Patent Licensing Agreements:
In addition to performing research, laboratories share their
technologies by licensing their patented discoveries, copyrighted
software programs, or other intellectual property to nonfederal
entities seeking to use or commercialize those technologies. In some
cases, the licensee agrees to pay fees or royalties to the laboratory
in exchange for the laboratory's permission to use or commercialize the
technologies. Table 5 shows the total number of licenses with private
partners. DOE may also have licensing agreements with other nonfederal
entities, such as universities, which are not captured in the table.
Table 5: Number of Patent License Agreements with Private Partners,
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008, and Associated Revenue, Fiscal Year
2008 (dollars in thousands):
DOE national laboratory or facility: Ames;
Number of licenses: 2006: 47;
Number of licenses: 2007: 45;
Number of licenses: 2008: 41;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $6,500.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Argonne;
Number of licenses: 2006: 75;
Number of licenses: 2007: 89;
Number of licenses: 2008: 88;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $3,877.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Brookhaven;
Number of licenses: 2006: 520;
Number of licenses: 2007: 473;
Number of licenses: 2008: 498;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $9,500.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Fermi Accelerator;
Number of licenses: 2006: 0;
Number of licenses: 2007: 0;
Number of licenses: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Idaho;
Number of licenses: 2006: 70;
Number of licenses: 2007: 74;
Number of licenses: 2008: 79;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $93.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Berkeley;
Number of licenses: 2006: 72;
Number of licenses: 2007: 80;
Number of licenses: 2008: 86;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $2,700.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Livermore;
Number of licenses: 2006: 91;
Number of licenses: 2007: 99;
Number of licenses: 2008: 108;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $9,411.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Los Alamos;
Number of licenses: 2006: 148;
Number of licenses: 2007: 169;
Number of licenses: 2008: 187;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $1,500.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Energy Technology;
Number of licenses: 2006: 8;
Number of licenses: 2007: 10;
Number of licenses: 2008: 11;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $67.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Renewable Energy;
Number of licenses: 2006: 44;
Number of licenses: 2007: 53;
Number of licenses: 2008: 50;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $643.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Oak Ridge;
Number of licenses: 2006: 109;
Number of licenses: 2007: 99;
Number of licenses: 2008: 82;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $2,600.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Pacific Northwest;
Number of licenses: 2006: 87;
Number of licenses: 2007: 81;
Number of licenses: 2008: 77;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $3,338.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Princeton Plasma Physics;
Number of licenses: 2006: 2;
Number of licenses: 2007: 2;
Number of licenses: 2008: 3;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $30.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Sandia;
Number of licenses: 2006: 178;
Number of licenses: 2007: 151;
Number of licenses: 2008: 164;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $3,506.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Savannah River;
Number of licenses: 2006: 12;
Number of licenses: 2007: 17;
Number of licenses: 2008: 18;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $44.
DOE national laboratory or facility: SLAC Accelerator;
Number of licenses: 2006: 2;
Number of licenses: 2007: 1;
Number of licenses: 2008: 1;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $5.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Thomas Jefferson Accelerator;
Number of licenses: 2006: 10;
Number of licenses: 2007: 10;
Number of licenses: 2008: 11;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $40.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Total;
Number of licenses: 2006: 1,475;
Number of licenses: 2007: 1,453;
Number of licenses: 2008: 1,504;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $43,855.
Source: GAO analysis of national laboratories' data.
[A] We collected data on revenue from licenses to private partners for
fiscal year 2008 only.
[End of table]
User-Facility Agreements:
Under a user-facility agreement, scientists from outside organizations
can use DOE's scientific equipment for their own research, sometimes in
collaboration with laboratory staff. Users may conduct their research
at DOE's facilities for free or a negotiated cost, if the results of
their research will be made public. The users who wish to keep their
results private, however, must reimburse DOE for the full cost of using
the facilities. Table 6 shows the number of user facility agreements
with private partners from fiscal year 2006 through 2008, and the
amount paid by the partner for fiscal year 2008.
Table 6: Number of User-Facility Agreements with Private Partners,
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008, and Associated Revenue, Fiscal Year
2008:
DOE national laboratory or facility: Ames;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Argonne;
Total agreements: 2006: 189;
Total agreements: 2007: 202;
Total agreements: 2008: 221;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $2,200.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Brookhaven;
Total agreements: 2006: 85;
Total agreements: 2007: 111;
Total agreements: 2008: 163;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $1,000.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Fermi Accelerator;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Idaho;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Berkeley;
Total agreements: 2006: 82;
Total agreements: 2007: 96;
Total agreements: 2008: 119;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $1,700.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Lawrence Livermore;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Los Alamos;
Total agreements: 2006: 33;
Total agreements: 2007: 36;
Total agreements: 2008: 36;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $500.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Energy Technology;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: National Renewable Energy;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Oak Ridge;
Total agreements: 2006: 75;
Total agreements: 2007: 180;
Total agreements: 2008: 157;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $600.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Pacific Northwest;
Total agreements: 2006: 9;
Total agreements: 2007: 9;
Total agreements: 2008: 5;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Princeton Plasma Physics;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Sandia;
Total agreements: 2006: 5;
Total agreements: 2007: 6;
Total agreements: 2008: 7;
Revenue[]: 2008: $69.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Savannah River;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: SLAC Accelerator;
Total agreements: 2006: 75;
Total agreements: 2007: 75;
Total agreements: 2008: 75;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $376.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Thomas Jefferson Accelerator;
Total agreements: 2006: 0;
Total agreements: 2007: 0;
Total agreements: 2008: 0;
Revenue[A]: 2008: 0.
DOE national laboratory or facility: Total;
Total agreements: 2006: 553;
Total agreements: 2007: 715;
Total agreements: 2008: 783;
Revenue[A]: 2008: $6,445.
Source: GAO analysis of national laboratories' data.
[A] We collected data on revenue from user-facility agreements with
private partners for fiscal year 2008 only.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: The Use Permit at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory:
[End of section]
Since 1964, the contractor in charge of managing and operating the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in southeastern Washington state
has been allowed to use the laboratory's personnel and DOE-owned
facilities for its own private work, subject to some restrictions,
under a unique arrangement called a use permit. Due to expire in 2012,
this arrangement was originally developed to stimulate economic
diversity and private investment in the local community by encouraging
the contractor (Battelle Memorial Institute) to pursue private research
and development work and to invest in facilities and equipment at the
laboratory beyond what the federal government would invest, in part to
support this private research work. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory contractor officials who administer the use permit estimated
that about $70 million in research and development work is performed
each year under the use permit--equivalent to about 10 percent of all
the work done at the laboratory. Most of this work is undertaken on
behalf of outside entities--including federal agencies, private
companies, universities, state or local governments, or others--that
enter into agreements with the Pacific Northwest laboratory's
contractor for work under the use permit. In conducting this work,
however, the contractor must use its own funds to pay the full costs of
using the laboratory's government-owned facilities, equipment, and
personnel at the laboratory. Since fiscal year 2006, the contractor has
entered into about 700 to 800 separate agreements each year under the
use permit (with the same entity in some cases), the majority with
nonfederal entities (see fig. 1). Laboratory contractor officials said
that, because of the use permit, the laboratory does not have as many
CRADAs or nonfederal work-for-others agreements as other DOE
laboratories. In fiscal year 2008, for example, the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory reported having 18 nonfederal work-for-others
agreements, whereas other DOE laboratories with roughly comparable
budgets had, in some cases, significantly more nonfederal work-for-
others agreements that year.
Figure 3: Agreements under the Use Permit at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008, and Associated Revenue:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of agreements with nonfederal entities: 676 ($56.0 million);
Number of agreements with federal entities: 135 ($11.0 million).
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of agreements with nonfederal entities: 678 ($57.4 million);
Number of agreements with federal entities: 113 ($9.4 million).
Fiscal year: 2008;
Number of agreements with nonfederal entities: 708 ($57.3 million);
Number of agreements with federal entities: 122 ($9.5 million).
Source: GAO analysis of data from Battelle Memorial Institute.
[End of figure]
According to contractor officials, the flexibilities afforded the
contractor under the use permit--flexibilities not available at other
DOE laboratories--have helped increase the extent to which the
laboratory's technologies and capabilities are transferred. For
example, under the use permit, the Pacific Northwest laboratory
contractor may respond to competitive solicitations, such as those put
out by federal agencies, and compete against private entities for
research and development work to be carried out using the laboratory's
facilities and staff. The contractor also has enhanced flexibility to
negotiate the terms and conditions of its research agreements, enabling
the parties to tailor the terms of the agreements to fit the parties'
interests and making optional many of the constraints imposed by terms
and conditions required under DOE's technology transfer agreements.
According to laboratory contractor officials, this feature has made the
use permit an attractive option for entities doing business with the
laboratory and has helped bring resources into the local community, in
line with the use permit's original goals. Whereas terms and conditions
of DOE agreements may conflict with standard commercial practice, under
the use permit the contractor can, for example, assume the risk of
guarantee that it will perform the agreed-upon scope of work within the
allotted budget and time frame. And, according to contractor officials,
because the contractor has more flexibility to set the price of
agreements, the contractor can earn a profit from work performed under
the use permit, reflecting in part the risks the laboratory contractor
assumes in performing work on its own account.
DOE, in contrast, has expressed concerns about the use permit
arrangement. Specifically, officials in DOE's Office of Science, which
oversees the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Office of the
General Counsel stated that the structure of the use permit limits the
extent to which DOE can perform oversight. For example, work under the
use permit is not allowed to interfere with research performed for DOE
at the laboratory. A DOE official told us that, while he was not aware
of any instances in which use permit work interfered with DOE work, DOE
has limited ability to ensure this rule was followed. Furthermore, DOE
officials said the flexibilities under the use permit afforded the
Pacific Northwest laboratory contractor some "unfair" advantages. In
responding to competitive solicitations, for example, the contractor is
able to bring work into the laboratory that would otherwise be off-
limits, because DOE laboratories are restricted by federal statutes,
regulations, and DOE policies from directly competing for work against
private entities. Likewise, competing against these private entities
for work could place the entities at a distinct disadvantage, because
the Pacific Northwest laboratory contractor is able to access and use
publicly-funded facilities and equipment, even though the laboratory
contractor is paying the full costs of using government resources.
Finally, according to DOE officials, this arrangement posed problems
for DOE when it attempted to recompete the contract to manage the
laboratory, which was due to expire at the end of 2008. Specifically,
because some work carried out under the use permit would have remained
unfinished at the time a new contract was to begin, it was unclear how
the current contractor would complete the work if another entity won
the contract to manage the laboratory. Following negotiations on these
issues in 2008, DOE and the laboratory contractor agreed to extend the
management and operating contract--including the use permit--until
September 2012, by which time the contractor must have concluded all of
the work under the use permit. After September 2012, the use permit
will be ended. DOE officials have said that in the interim, they will
examine ways to enhance technology transfer departmentwide.
Although we analyzed over 300 agreements under the use permit, we were
unable to determine whether those agreements ultimately led to
additional technology transfer. In general, these agreements appeared
to draw on the Pacific Northwest laboratory's unique capabilities--a
factor considered by DOE officials to help them evaluate proposed work-
for-others agreements and ensure that an agreement would not
inadvertently place the laboratory into competition with the private
sector--and they entailed work contributing to critical areas ranging
from climate-change research to advanced homeland security
technologies. Nevertheless, it was unclear to what extent these
agreements would constitute technology transfer. For example, according
to DOE and the contractor, a large portion of the 300 agreements could
have been performed under a nonfederal work-for-others agreement,
because they satisfied key criteria for performing work under those
agreements. It is unknown, however, whether the partnering entities
would have chosen to carry out the work, except under the use permit.
As another example, agreements resulting from competitive
solicitations--approximately one-third of the 300 agreements--may not
have come to the laboratory without the use permit. Since traditional
technology transfer agreements preclude a laboratory from competing for
work, however, it is unclear whether those competitively awarded
contracts for research actually constitute technology transfer.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
May 29, 2009:
Mr. Gene Aloise:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20584:
Dear Mr. Aloise:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report, entitled "Technology Transfer:
Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of Innovative Approaches Could
Increase the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Department of
Energy Laboratories (GAO-09-548)". The Department of Energy agrees with
many of the findings in this report. The DOE Technology Transfer Policy
Board is already taking steps to examine ways to improve technology
transfer activities within the Department.
Many of the recommendations made by the GAO, as well as those resulting
from a study of recommendations gathered through DOE's Request for
Information published November 26, 2008, "Questions About DOE
Laboratory Technology Transfer Seeking Input From All Parties Including
Industry, Universities, Non-Profits and the General Public", which had
a final deadline of March 26, 2009, touch upon policy issues that we
anticipate will be addressed under the new administration.
Please find an attachment to this letter which provides additional
general and specific comments on the draft report. Many of these
comments were provided to the GAO in response to their initial
Statement of Facts but may not have been reelected in the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Patricia M. Dehmer:
Acting Director:
Office of Science:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gene Aloise (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Janet Frisch, Assistant
Director; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Ellen W. Chu; Stanley Kostyla; Jeff
Larson; Omari Norman; and Jeff Rueckhaus made important contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Department of Energy, whose predecessors include the Atomic
Energy Commission, was created in 1977 from diverse agencies.
[2] Although the National Nuclear Security Administration is a
separately organized agency under DOE, unless otherwise specified, for
purposes of this report, references to DOE or its program offices
include the National Nuclear Security Administration.
[3] Unlike DOE's 16 contractor-managed-and-operated national
laboratories, the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, one of the 17 DOE national
laboratories, is managed and operated by DOE itself. As a result, DOE
employees--rather than employees of one of DOE's contractors--carry out
this laboratory's technology transfer and other activities.
[4] Pub. L. No. 96-480, 94 Stat. 2311.
[5] Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015. Bayh-Dole also currently
requires that the right to elect title to an invention was to be
included in contracts with small business, universities, and nonprofits
for the operation of federal laboratories. Prior to the enactment of
Bayh-Dole, however, DOE's enabling legislation authorized the
department to elect title and license its technologies to others.
[6] Pub. L. No. 101-189, 103 Stat. 1352.
[7] 42 U.S.C. § 2182.
[8] 42 U.S.C. § 5908.
[9] A similar provision in the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. § 202) applies
throughout the federal government; however, it pertains only to small
business and nonprofit contractors.
[10] DOE is not required to contribute in-kind resources toward a
CRADA, nor may DOE funds flow to a CRADA partner. The partner, however,
must contribute in-kind resources and--if DOE decides not to contribute
any of its own resources--must fund any work performed by the DOE
laboratory.
[11] Unless otherwise noted, data presented throughout this report on
the number of the 17 laboratories' technology agreements, or the dollar
amounts associated with those agreements, came from the data we
collected from those laboratories in November 2008. See appendix I for
additional details.
[12] If the work-for-others sponsor elects to receive ownership of any
resulting laboratory inventions--effectively giving the sponsor
exclusive authority to determine whether and for what purpose others
can use the inventions--the sponsor must also grant the government a
license to use the invention on behalf of the government. In contrast,
ownership over laboratory inventions, made in whole or in part by
laboratory employees, resulting from a CRADA is determined through
negotiation between the laboratory and the CRADA partner. Regardless of
any negotiated outcome, by law the CRADA partner always has the option
to choose an exclusive license in a predetermined field of use for
reasonable compensation. And, the federal government always retains
full rights to use the inventions on behalf of the government, even if
the invention was made solely by the nonfederal partner's employees.
[13] This $44 million includes only patent licenses with private
industry. Although DOE's laboratories may have licensed their patented
technologies to other nonfederal entities, such as universities, to
reduce respondent burden, we limited the licensing data that we
collected from the laboratories to focus exclusively on patented
technologies licensed to private industry in fiscal year 2008. See
appendix I for additional details.
[14] Data on the number of user-facility agreements came from data
collected annually by DOE headquarters.
[15] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. § 189) authorizes the
Department of Homeland Security to access the capabilities of DOE's
laboratories to further its own mission objectives. Under a memorandum
of agreement between the two departments, DOE laboratories give
research funded by the Department of Homeland Security equal priority
for laboratory staff and facilities as DOE-funded research. Under DOE
policy, work for all other federal agencies must not interfere with
work for DOE or the Department of Homeland Security.
[16] Secretarial Policy Statement on Technology Transfer at Department
of Energy Facilities (Jan. 31, 2008).
[17] Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation section 970.5227-3,
"Technology Transfer Mission," defines technology transfer activities
as "including but not limited to: identifying and protecting
intellectual property made, created, or acquired at or by the
laboratory—negotiating all aspects of and entering into CRADAs;
providing technical consulting and personnel exchanges; conducting
science education activities and reimbursable work for others;
providing information exchanges; and making available laboratory or
weapon production user facilities."
[18] The directive, DOE Order 482.1, "DOE Facilities Technology
Partnering Programs" aimed to ensure that DOE's technology partnering
activities are carried out efficiently, are consistent with applicable
laws, and receive proper review and oversight. The activities and
agreements covered under the directive include CRADAs; nonfederal work-
for-others, technology licensing, and user-facility agreements;
activities to identify and protect intellectual property; technical
consulting; and personnel exchanges.
[19] See GAO, Nuclear Weapons: Views on NNSA's Proposal to Transform
the Nuclear Weapons Complex, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1032T] (Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2008).
[20] At the same time, DOE also funded a third bioenergy research
center at the University of Wisconsin.
[21] Pub. L. No. 106-404, 114 Stat. 1742, 15 U.S.C. § 3710(f).
[22] These consumer savings, as described in Projected Benefits of
Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs, FY 2008 Budget
Request, March 2007 (NREL/TP-640-41347), are expressed in 2004 dollars.
[23] Pub. L. No. 99-502, § 4, 100 Stat. 1785, 1790 (1986).
[24] Although DOE laboratories have sometimes used CRADAs to develop
and help commercialize promising technologies, the use of CRADAs peaked
in the mid-1990s, when DOE, in response to congressional direction,
phased out a program whose specific purpose was to provide DOE
resources for CRADAs. Although DOE may use its program funding to
offset the costs of DOE laboratory work performed under CRADAs,
programs may be less likely to do so if the CRADA does not meet the
specific goals of a particular DOE research program. For additional
information, see GAO, Technology Transfer: Several Factors Have Led to
a Decline in Partnerships at DOE's Laboratories, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-465] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19,
2002).
[25] Alternatively, the licensee or CRADA partner may make a legally
binding commitment to provide an "alternate net benefit to the U.S.
economy."
[26] In 2008, the Stanford University-managed and operated laboratory
changed its name from Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to SLAC
National Accelerator Laboratory.
[27] Los Alamos National Laboratory also funded an entrepreneur there
from 2005 to 2008.
[28] One laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, has a
unique arrangement, called a "use permit," which allows the nonprofit
research organization contracted to operate the laboratory to use the
laboratory facilities and staff for its own research and technology-
sharing activities. This arrangement also provides the contractor
enhanced flexibility to negotiate agreements with potential partners
for activities falling under its use permit. The use permit will end in
2012. See appendix III for more information.
[29] Defense's Office of Technology Transition contracts with these
experts under authority provided in 15 U.S.C. § 3715, "Use of
Partnership Intermediaries," according to an official in that office.
[30] DOE, in fact, has a single searchable Web site showcasing current
opportunities to license DOE laboratory technologies, but only
technologies owned by DOE; the site does not include laboratory
technologies owned and patented by the contractors operating most of
the 17 laboratories. If DOE laboratory contractors do not elect title
to inventions made at the laboratory within a certain time frame, DOE
may decide to pursue patents (or other legal protection for
intellectual property) and then license the patented technologies to
interested parties. According to DOE's Office of the General Counsel,
because DOE only owns 5 to 10 percent of the new inventions made at the
laboratories, the Web site only includes a fraction of the technologies
at the laboratories.
[31] In 2008, the Stanford University-managed and operated laboratory
changed its name from Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to SLAC
National Accelerator Laboratory.
[32] Specifically, we asked the laboratories to report on the dollars
"costed"--or actual costs--of the work performed under these agreements
in the fiscal year.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
