Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Administration to Innovators: Database not Dollars

The new U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology hopes a large federal research database will help spur innovation.

By Kevin Bullis

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

President Bush has spoken often about the need to support innovation, but the funding for it has been something of a mixed bag. While the president's 2007 budget contains more funding for research in the physical sciences, including nanotechnology and energy-related technology, the life sciences and health-related research are hurting from cutbacks (see "The Budget's Mixed News").

The new U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Robert Cresanti. (Credit: Department of Commerce.)

Meanwhile, funding for new projects in the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which is part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has been stopped. In fact, ATP, which was created to help promote emerging technologies still too speculative to garner private investment, will be phased out under Bush's proposed 2007 budget.

In view of these cuts, Technology Review asked the new Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Robert Cresanti, who oversees NIST, why ATP was cut and how the government intends to promote innovation. His answer: by providing more information to researchers in the form of a database of federally funded research results.

Technology Review: President Bush wants to promote innovation, but he's cutting ATP. Why?

Robert Cresanti: There's no funding for new [ATP] programs, and I think the [2007] budget zeroes ATP completely out. There is huge financial stress coming down on a lot of different programs. And the decision was made inside the administration that ATP was not a high enough value proposition.

TR: Doesn't eliminating ATP widen the gap between a new idea and a commercial product?

RC: Yes, there's the chasm, and there are multiple forces working on it -- not all of them are money. An important one is information. What happens is if you're a young scientist and you haven't had a lot of experience at finding government programs and funding and so forth, you don't know any angel capital investors yourself or any venture capital firms that are willing to do any seed money financing, then you have more difficulty. One of the ways to get venture capital to engage at an earlier level is to provide better laid out information on the product that you're putting together.

TR: How will the government help researchers get this information?

RC: We need to capture the data from the federal research that's going on. Obviously we can't, and shouldn't, and don't want to require that everybody who has a federal government grant write a 100-page dissertation on all the things that they did. But a database for scientists can help them to understand what has been done before, what has been done in the last couple of years that hasn't been published.

TR: Don't researchers already have to report their results?

RC: What happens now is you get a million-dollar grant, and you say here's what I did with the money, you give your form back to the agency, and the agency says thank you, it's too bad that didn't work, and they file it somewhere, and it ends up in an archive somewhere in a building. We need to do a better job of capturing certain elements of that, even if it's 20 questions or 30 questions, that say What area of science was this that the research was conducted in? What was the nature of the experiments?

I think we need to look at designing a form that captures that information and allows it to be searchable and distributable, so that when people are working on new projects, they can at least pick up the phone and call one of the scientists who worked on this project and quiz him on the state of the art, or on what his experiments or her experiments were about, and how they may be able to build off of them.

Comments

  • extensible schema/ontology
    How will what Cresanti proposed differ from the federated search engines in place already?

    The need is for schemas that are extensible by the people who put data into the repository. Not a new "form" for somebody to fill out.

    Ontologies that exist now will not be static. The imposition of structure from the top down can not facilitate discovery because invention will by its nature extend an existing ontology.

    p.s.:
    So the atomic-clock-on-a-chip from NIST doesn't count? What was it - free or something? I was hoping to be able to tell whether my cell phone was in my other pants or the dresser without having to go look.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Bob Calder)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
    • addendum
      The essence of new dB initiatives should be openness. Not only to people who want access but to people who wish to add data.

      What we are really doing here is "harmonizing" the data in different places so that it describes a coherent whole.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Bob Calder)
      06/14/2006
      Posts:1
  • Hmmm
    Global Warming - there isn't any. Evolution - naw, it was intelligent design. Science funding - "we need to look at designing a form" because "we're prying hard-earned tax dollars out of people's hands" and dumping it on saber-rattling ratholes and our favorite oil buddies. This sounds about right.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (inabluestate)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
  • What is RaDiUS?
    https://radius.rand.org/radius/radius_info.html

    From the Rand website above:  "RaDiUS is the most comprehensive database of information on the Research and Development (R&D) activities that are funded by the United States Federal Government. RaDiUS was developed by RAND, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF), to support the work of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), federal agencies, and all others interested in the federal R&D portfolio.   In March 2005, RaDiUS was formally recognized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Executive Office of the President as a central component of OMB's implementation of Section 207(g) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347)."
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (no comment)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
    • radius is....
      Radius is a collection of "who is doing what" information. Besides it is not open.  One of the most important things about the new dB stuff is its openness. These projects are designed with mashups in mind.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Bob Calder)
      06/14/2006
      Posts:1
  • Looks Like Smokestream!
    The undersecretary is spinning his master's message: "I'm for scientific innovation as long as it doesn't cost anything."  Where does he think the funds will come from to make sense of the data contained on grant forms?  Much of that, by nature, will be esoteric. Who will read the forms and put the data in a usable database? And who will pay them?
    The NIST  ATP program is far superior.  The good undersecretary wants to substitute your "little red wagon" for a good car. Of course, the investigators will have to foot the bill, which is not what the founding parents thought should happen.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (TOPPF)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
  • editing mistake
    there is an editing mistake in RC's reply - the same phrase is repeated: "One of the ways to get venture capital to engage at an earlier level, one of the ways to get angel capital to engage at an earlier level, is to provide better laid out information on the product that you're putting together."
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (GG)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
  • hahahahaha
    venture capitalist giving you money to fly to California?!! yeah right.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Gina)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
  • IP Patents
    search the USPTO site for old technologies. researchers will not disclose new ideas, public disclosure can mean no patent.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (me again)
    06/14/2006
    Posts:1
  • What's a big deal about database?
    Does it cost a lot to put federaly funded research reports into a database? You don't need a lot of brain (as well as money) to do that. And government should be doing it anyway in this digital world. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Bob)
    06/16/2006
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.