Contact:

Bob Nelson

For immediate release

 

(212) 854-6580

Dec. 14, 1998

 

rjn2@columbia.edu

 

 

Labs, Key to Economic Vitality, Often Ignored,

Say Columbia, Georgia Tech Professors

 

If technological innovation drives economic growth, what drives innovation? Research and development laboratories, say Michael Crow, executive vice provost at Columbia University, and Barry Bozeman, director of the School of Public Policy at Georgi a Institute of Technology, in their new book, "Limited By Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System" (New York, Columbia University Press, 1998, 321 pp.)

Not enough attention has been paid to the labs, which are generally treated as black boxes that eat cash and spit out radar, computers, television, plastics and the myriad other innovations that define the modern age, say the authors. Whether the l abs are publicly or privately funded, whether big, well-established operations like the famous Bell Labs or the tiny Minnesota Agricultural Research Station, whether devoted to weapons or food products, they are the key to technological advances and shoul d be treated as such.

In a telling vignette, Crow and Bozeman report asking policymakers, academics and corporate administrators, all involved in laboratory governance or research, how many labs there are in the United States. Defining a lab as an entity with at least 2 5 employees principally engaged in research , the answers ranged widely - from 500 to 20,000, few close to the real figure, about 16,000. Even though the federal government spends about $25 billion annually on its laboratories, they licensed only about 30 0 innovations annually, with very little economic return to the labs themselves. Much of the information the authors

draw on was compiled by Crow and his colleagues in the National Comparative Research and Development Project, a 14-year effort to research R&D labs that was housed at Syracuse University and grew out of Crow's dissertation work. Though most inno vations happen serendipitously - by accident - governments, corporations and universities can nevertheless take steps to help promote these happy accidents, the authors say. Other studies have shown that relaxed, informal environments where researchers de bate the merits of work in progress are likely to increase both collaboration and innovation.

In the real world, the authors point out, research labs aren't given the autonomy to conduct business that way, but are handed a mandate to solve problems beyond their abilities. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was built to conduct nuclear w eapons research, but in the 1990s its director also was attempting to spur economic development in northern California by serving as a source of new technology for start-up companies - purposes that were at odds.

"What we are saying will be radical to people who oversee the laboratories," Crow said. "You cannot hope to have these institutions, which are solely designed as science enterprises, achieve national objectives."

The authors propose a national data-gathering capability on a par with the government's ability to track the economy. "We need to start studying these institutions on an ongoing basis," Crow said. Although many corporate and university laboratories operate autonomously, few government labs do, and Bozeman and Crow would like to see those labs acquire more independence. Federal laboratories should be able to sign contracts for the projects they will undertake, much as an independent company would, r ather than carrying out objectives handed down from above, they say.

The book is studded with "lab windows," vignettes on the history and mission of 50 of the best-known laboratories. For those who want to understand how that "eureka!" moment happens, this volume is a must.

This document is available at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/. Working press may receive science and technology press releases via e-mail by sending a message to rjn2@columbia.edu.

12.14.98

19,444