Search

Byline: Jacob N. Erlich (1) Abstract: While great strides have been made in increasing the awareness of the significance of technology transfer among policymakers and regulators, much still remains to be done. Budgetary problems will not be short-term, and it is likely that the next steps in improving technology transfer must be taken through existing channels. This paper examines strategies for improving technology transfer which might be taken within the federal laboratories themselves, as well as strategies to be followed by government policymakers and private firms. Also examined are alternative measures of technology transfer activity. Author Affiliation: (1) Perkins, Smith &amp Cohen, LLP, One Beacon St., Boston, sMA, 02108-3106 Article History: Registration Date: 07/10/2004

Over the past 20 years, there have been numerous studies of the Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories. Most of these studies recognize the high technical quality and unique capabilities […]

Corporatizing the Department of Energy laboratories will give the nation the most science at the lowest cost. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) produces an incredible array of products and […]

FRANKFURT--Germany's 16 national research centers--a sprawling, $2-billion-a-year array of labs ranging from the DESY synchrotron in Hamburg to the Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine in Berlin--are too insular, according [...]

A high-level task force summoned by the US Department of Energy (DoE) charges the DoE with mismanagement of the ten national laboratories under its control. The task force suggests the bureaucracy and the lack of credibility of the department as possible causes of decline in the maintenance of the laboratories. It has recommended corporatization of the national laboratories that will detach them from the direct control of the DoE.

A high-level task force urges comprehensive reforms for the management of the 10 national laboratories controlled by the US Department of Energy (DoE). The task force suggests that corporatization of the national labs will permit them to function like industrial corporations and remove the control of DoE over these labs. It recommends repealing of the legislation that restricts lab operations.

The world's most powerful particle accelerator has begun warm-up stretches for its 2012 run. On 14 March, beams of protons again began to circulate in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [...]

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was originally set up in 1952 as a rival to the Los Alamos National Laboratory to conduct research in nuclear weapons and thermonuclear fusion. However, LLNL's weapons research now accounts for less than 30% of its research programmes. The laboratory has branched into almost every kind of applied science, environmental science and even contributes to the Human Genome Project. Much of its expansion can be traced to the efforts of a small part of its operation, the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program, which nurtures the small, speculative projects in the interests of curiosity-driven research.

The University of California (UC) is recruiting allies for what could be a bruising competition to manage three prominent national laboratories. Last week the UC's governing regents gave President Robert [...]

The dozens of aging nuclear facilities and untold tons of chemical and radioactive wastes within the confines of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) network of laboratories have posed a management [...]

The UK prevented the privatization of government-owned laboratories and research organizations. The decision was an outcome of a 1983 evaluation of government laboratories to determine the feasibility of privatization. Scientists and researchers of the British Geological Survey and Medical Research Council also expressed their approval of the government's decision. Furthermore, the government's decision was aided by the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy which necessitated government access on scientific research and advice.