Science Trust Fund Urged

WASHINGTON—A proposal to use the commercial fruits of federally funded research to finance new projects may get a hearing this fall in Congress. Although its passage is unlikely, the idea is seen as an innovative approach to funding R&D at a time when there is little room in the federal budget for new research programs. A bill (S. 1302) introduced May 29 by Sen. James Exon (D-Neb.) would create a technology trust fund with royalties from the sale of products that originated in federally funded research. It would require institutions and individuals receiving federal grants and contracts to give to the trust a small portion of any profits derived from the research. In introducing the bill, Exon suggested that the government receive royalties of 2 to 5 percent from sales of a product or process. “This minimal percentage will not discourage research efforts,” he said. A broader proposal for a science trust fund is being developed by the National Coalition for Science and Technology, a Washington-based lobbying group. The coalition has suggested that the fund be based in part on a direct federal appropriation, that it have the authority to auction off the most commercially attractive inventions, and that states and private companies contribute money in exchange for access to products developed from research supported by the fund. The fund would be an independent cor poration with a governing body appointed by the president. In contrast, the trust fund created by Exon’s bill would be administered by the National Science Foundation, through an advisory committee chaired by the secretary of commerce. NSF officials seem unimpressed with the idea. “We haven’t put much effort into tracking it,” admitted one NSF staffer. “Such a proposal would be politically and procedurally hard to move through Congress because it involves the revenue committees and it poses an administrative nightmare. On a bill like this you need some political heavyweights, and so far I haven’t heard about any of the major science players taking an interest.” A staffer for one of those players, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate Commerce and Science Committee, admitted that “more work needs to be done” on the idea but added that “we’re definitely interested.” Whatever mechanism is devised for its operations, such a fund is unlikely to generate more than a tiny portion of the billions of dollars now being spent by the government on research. Ten years after it was formed, for example, the federal Center for the Utilization of Federal Technologies last year took in $5 million from 300 licensing agreements with private companies who hope to cash in on federally funded research. “It takes two or three years to find a licensee once a scientist applies for a patent,” explained David Mowry, director of the center, which is part of the National Bureau of Standards. “Then it’s three more years to get the product on the market. It took us several years to break even, after beating the bushes for attractive ideas. Lest year we signed 51 agreements, after doing 42 the year before. This year we expect to sign 60.” Mowry, a chemist who obtained 92 patents during a long career at Monsanto, said a more accurate measure of the value of a patent is the $195 million that the 51 licensees have pledged to spend in the next five years to develop and market the ideas generated by the federal scientists, all of whom work in the civilian sector. Even so, he said that a science trust fund was unlikely to contain “more than a few tens of millions of dollars, even after several years. There just isn’t that much money that flows” from such agreements. Mark Bowen, press secretary for Exon, defended the idea as “a way to finance R&D on a continuing basis without burdening the taxpayers of this country.” Mervis is on the staff of THE SCIENTIST.

Science Trust Fund Urged

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of