Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) Observatory · 2016. 1. 5. · 2 Introduction KETs Observatory The European Commission (EC) has launched a project involving the set-up and implementation

Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) Observatory US Country Report: regional aspects of KETs deployment

27 March 2015 Marcel de Heide (TNO) Client: European Commission, Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry

1

Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................2

KETs Observatory ................................................................................................................................2

Regional uptake of KETs ......................................................................................................................2

General characteristics of the United States ...........................................................................................2

Regional governance structure ............................................................................................................ 10

Regional performance in KETs .............................................................................................................. 12

Regional case: California ...................................................................................................................... 15

References ............................................................................................................................................ 18

2

Introduction

KETs Observatory The European Commission (EC) has launched a project involving the set-up and implementation of a Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) Observatory for 2013-2015. The project is run by a consortium comprising IDEA Consult, TNO, CEA, ZEW, NIW, Ecorys UK Ltd and Fraunhofer as sub-contractors. The objective of the KETs Observatory is to provide EU, national and regional policymakers with information on the deployment of Key Enabling Technologies, as a basis for the development and implementation of dedicated industrial policies. It will offer insight on the trends and developments of the KETs related technology and products in the EU, with reference to other competing economies. Within the framework of this project, different indicators monitoring the deployment of Key Enabling Technologies are compiled. Indicators cover, amongst others, technology (e.g. technology uptake and deployment, measured with the help of patent data).

Regional uptake of KETs This document addresses the deployment of KETs in a regional context for the US. The first section provides a brief description of the country (i.e. economy, industry, innovation and supporting policy). The following section describes the United States' governance structure. Regional performance in KETs is described in the subsequent text. The last section provides a brief description of a relevant cluster around KETs (i.e. California case), and the policy supporting it.

General characteristics of the United States The US economy is one of the largest economies in the world, outperformed in absolute size only by the cumulative economy of the EU28 (see Figure 1). In the 2013 - 2014 ranking on competitiveness of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the US scores a 5th position (7th in 2012 - 2013).1 In the IMD 2014 ranking, the US scores first.2 Figure 2 and Panel 1 indicate an economic recovery after the 2008 crisis. But as stated by the OECD: “The recovery is more sluggish than after past recessions because the damage of the financial crisis has not been fully repaired, government spending has exerted an unusual drag and, finally, the long expected retirement of baby-boomers has depressed the labour supply. Hence, removing obstacles to growth comes with a certain degree of urgency. “ (OECD 2014a) Moreover, “an important driver for the economic recovery is the availability of abundant stocks of shale oil and gas, made accessible by new technologies, such as hydraulic fracturing. To illustrate this point: the United States is now the largest producer of natural gas in the world.” (OECD 2014a)

1 See www.weforum.org/gcr. 2 See http://www.imd.org/news/2014-World-Competitiveness.cfm

3

Figure 1: GDP for a selection of countries and the EU28 [Millions $, in PPP at current market prices] (Source: OECD 2014).

Figure 2: Real GDP growth rate - volume [% change on previous year] (Source: OECD 2014).

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Korea 1,038, 1,096, 1,174, 1,267, 1,306, 1,295, 1,393, 1,445, 1,469, 1,537,Japan 3,753, 3,889, 4,064, 4,264, 4,289, 4,081, 4,322, 4,386, 4,504, 4,624,China 5,634, 6,472, 7,518, 8,814, 9,848, 10,837 12,109 13,495 14,792 -United States 12,277 13,095 13,857 14,480 14,720 14,417 14,958 15,533 16,244 16,800EU (28 countries) 12,670 13,315 14,486 15,373 16,077 15,781 16,182 16,898 16,932 17,410

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013China 10.1 11.3 12.7 14.2 9.6 9.2 10.4 9.3Korea 4.6 4.0 5.2 5.1 2.3 0.3 6.3 3.7 2.0 3.0United States 3.8 3.4 2.7 1.8 -0.3 -2.8 2.5 1.8 2.8 1.9Japan 2.4 1.3 1.7 2.2 -1.0 -5.5 4.7 -0.5 1.4 1.5EU (28 countries) 2.6 2.2 3.4 3.2 0.4 -4.5 2.0 1.6 -0.4 0.1

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

4

Panel 1: Corporate profits [% of GDP] and Business investment [2006 Q1 as basis] (left) and Unemployment [% of total labour force] (right) in the US. 3

According to the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014 (EC 2014a), the US exceeds the EU in the performance of its innovation systems (2nd position after South Korea, but before Japan). But the innovation performance of the EU has been improving at a higher rate than that of the US and Japan (according to their unweighted set of indicators addressing the performance of the Innovation system, see (EC 2014a)). The US however outperforms the EU on key indicators: • A much higher share of the US population has completed tertiary education (42% in the US compared to

28.5% in the EU in absolute terms). • The number of International co-publications and the quality of US scientific publications are also much

higher. • Scientific collaboration between the private and public sector is almost double of that in the EU. • US businesses spend about 40% more on R&D (1.82% of GDP in 2011 compared to 1.29% in the EU). • The US is also more successful in commercializing new technologies with 17% more license and patent

revenues compared to the EU. The relevant federal entities involved in legislation governing the US Innovation system are the US Congress (i.e. House of Representatives and the Senate) and the US President. Congress can actively develop legislation, and must pass all legislation. The US President can suggest legislation and can veto legislation from US Congress. The day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of 15 federal executive departments. The heads of the departments are chosen by the President and approved with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate. Within the individual federal departments, research and development is organised through departmental programmes and organisations, e.g., Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIHs), Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). There are also some interdepartmental programmes and organisations, e.g., the Federal Funded Research and Development Centres (FFRDCs), the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Program Office for the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMNPO). Regarding innovation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is the highest governmental body that advises the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs, including coordination of budget. Finding its origin in the space race with Russia, OSTP leads the inter-agency efforts to develop and implement science and technology policies. This includes budgets and participation with the private sector, state and local governments, as well as the science and higher education communities. This is conducted on both State and national levels and 3 Source: OECD Economic Outlook 95 database; US Bureau of Labour Statistics; Bureau of Economic Analysis.

5

internationally. OSTP participates in several White House Policy Coordinating Committees (PCC). The OSTP has approximately 45 staff members. It has four divisions: 1) Science, 2) Technology & Innovation, 3) Environment & Energy and 4) National Security & Internal Affairs. One of the present main focal areas of the Technology & Innovation Division is to “Develop Next Generation Manufacturing Technologies”. The most relevant department concerning R&D and Innovation in terms of budget is the Department of Defence (DoD; $132 billion, which is about 50% of all research and innovation budget of the 15 departments). The second largest research department is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS; $65 billion). Here, research is organised through the National Institutes of Health, which appropriates over 90% of the department’s budget. The third department important to US research is the Department of Energy (DoE; $26 billion). The fourth department addressing R&D expenditures is the Department of Agriculture (USDA; $5.3 billion). The last significant R&D related department is the Department of Commerce (Commerce Department; $3.3 billion). Next to these departments, two important non-departmental agencies are present in the US innovation system: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA; $11 billion) and the National Science Foundation (NSF; $7.2 billion). NASA uses research and innovation to further explore space, but also more industrial oriented research looking at aeronautics. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is of more importance to industrial pilot production activities. Although the main focus of NSF is on precompetitive research, attention is shifting more and more towards commercialisation and scale up activities. Several programmes and activities are oriented to facilitate the commercialisation of scientific breakthroughs. Also assistance to researchers and entrepreneurs concerning an increase of skills is systematically provided through programmes and general education policy (educate to innovate). About 5% of all NSF funding is allocated to commercialisation activities. Federal US R&D and innovation policy does not explicitly refer to the concept of Key Enabling Technologies. Thematic policy exists, but it is not the core of R&D and innovation support. The only exception is national security and defence related research prioritisation. The mKETs study (TNO 2014) indicates the following concerning the position of the US with respect to KETs: • Nanotechnology: The historical and present position of the US in this area is strong, even strengthened by

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).4 However, this strong position is threatened by increased competition from Russia, China, Korea and Japan.

• Industrial Biotechnology: Being the largest market of biotechnology products, the US is home to about 70% of all biotechnology research. Since 2012 IB is addressed by a dedicated policy entitled the National Bioeconomy Blueprint.5 This policy defines a strategy for supporting R&D in the field of medical therapies and devices, biofuels and next-generation biological manufacturing processes.

• Micro- and nano-electronics: The US Semiconductor industry has a global market share of 48%. Research Institutes like the industry driven Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI), Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) and the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) are global leaders.

• In the other KETs, the US plays a less prominent role. In the field of Photonics, the US has limited presence, leaving leadership to Asia and Europe. This is similar for Advanced Materials and Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. A recent government supported industrial initiative has been launched to raise awareness of the importance of photonics.6 Also NIST announced the establishment of a new centre for advanced materials.7 This initiative is part of the President’s Materials Genome Initiative.8

4 See www.nano.gov. 5 See www.whitehouse.gov. 6 The National Photonics Initiative (NPI) has been launched to raise awareness of photonics, increase national coordination, and drive funding and investment in areas critical to US competitiveness and security. The initiative is led by the APS, IEEE Photonics Society, LIA, OSA, and SPIE, and draws on wide support from US businesses, government, and academia. See http://www.lightourfuture.org/. 7 See http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/201306_admatcor_announce.cfm. 8 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi.

6

In order to further illustrate the level of deployment of KETs within the US innovation system, we compare its market share in the total production of patents for the different KETs with that of other countries.9 Results indicate that the US has a slightly decreasing share of patents for all KETs. In NT and IB the US is still leading in the world, exceeding all of its competitors. Figure 3: Market share in patent activities of different countries in total production of patents in a certain KET area of all countries in the sample [in %] (Source: KETs Observatory)

9 The indicator on market share is compiled within the framework of the KETs Observatory. It indicates the relevance of a country in the respective technology market, and is calculated by dividing the number of patent applications of a certain country by the total number of patent applications in the respective KET area. Note that this indicator is strongly influenced by the size of a country as larger countries are more likely to produce more patents than small countries.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mar

ket s

hare

in to

tal p

aten

t act

iviti

es (i

n %

)

Year

Advanced Manufacturing Technologies

China

EU28

France

Germany

Japan

Rep. of Korea

United Kingdom

United States

7

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mar

ket s

hare

in to

tal p

aten

t act

iviti

es (i

n %

)

Year

Advanced materials

China

EU28

France

Germany

Japan

Rep, of Korea

United Kingdom

United States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mar

ket s

hare

in to

tal p

aten

t act

iviti

es (i

n %

)

Year

Photonics

China

EU28

France

Germany

Japan

Rep, of Korea

United Kingdom

United States

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mar

ket s

hare

in to

tal p

aten

t act

iviti

es (i

n %

)

Years

Micro- and Nanoelectronics

China

EU28

France

Germany

Japan

Rep, of Korea

United Kingdom

United States

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mar

ket s

hare

in to

tal p

aten

t act

iviti

es (i

n %

)

Year

Industrial Biotechnology

China

EU28

France

Germany

Japan

Rep, of Korea

United Kingdom

United States

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mar

ket s

hare

in to

tal p

aten

t act

iviti

es (i

n %

)

Year

Nanotechnology

ChinaEU28FranceGermanyJapanRep, of KoreaUnited KingdomUnited States

10

Regional governance structure The US consists of 50 states and a federal district (i.e. Washington, D.C.). They are all represented in the federal Congress (i.e. the Senate (the upper house) and the House of Representatives (the lower house)). Each state is represented by two Senators, while Representative seats are awarded to each state in proportion to their total population. An overview of the 50 states and their economic size is given in Table 1. Table 1: GDP by State in the US. (Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last updated: June 11, 2014).

Millions of dollars Percent of U.S. total

2010 2011 2012 2013* 2010 2011 2012 2013*

United States 14.862.637 15.431.583 16.141.152 16.701.415 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

California 1.953.411 2.030.468 2.125.717 2.202.678 13,1 13,2 13,2 13,2

Texas 1.248.511 1.357.298 1.463.021 1.532.623 8,4 8,8 9,1 9,2

New York 1.198.004 1.231.470 1.280.737 1.310.712 8,1 8,0 7,9 7,9

Florida 728.604 736.347 769.007 800.492 4,9 4,8 4,8 4,8

Illinois 652.681 676.911 704.138 720.692 4,4 4,4 4,4 4,3

Pennsylvania 590.830 609.952 629.851 644.915 4,0 4,0 3,9 3,9

Ohio 494.695 519.082 548.526 565.272 3,3 3,4 3,4 3,4

New Jersey 497.733 504.078 528.788 543.071 3,4 3,3 3,3 3,3

North Carolina 420.876 429.793 452.358 471.365 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8

Georgia 410.902 421.564 438.324 454.532 2,8 2,7 2,7 2,7

Virginia 421.325 430.103 445.090 452.585 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,7

Massachusetts 399.603 413.716 431.937 446.323 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7

Michigan 387.730 400.924 416.769 432.573 2,6 2,6 2,6 2,6

Washington 360.680 370.359 390.918 408.049 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,4

Maryland 316.164 326.237 336.481 342.382 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1

Indiana 283.289 292.032 306.838 317.102 1,9 1,9 1,9 1,9

Minnesota 272.244 285.669 298.272 312.081 1,8 1,9 1,9 1,9

Colorado 256.628 266.243 278.551 294.443 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,8

Tennessee 253.987 264.940 280.485 287.633 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7

Wisconsin 254.242 263.076 272.086 282.486 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7

Arizona 247.752 258.187 271.503 279.024 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7

Missouri 257.924 259.894 269.356 276.345 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7

Louisiana 232.879 242.666 251.369 253.576 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,5

Connecticut 233.781 235.121 242.930 249.251 1,6 1,5 1,5 1,5

Oregon 190.800 199.488 210.242 219.590 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3

Alabama 175.734 181.848 189.542 193.566 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2

South Carolina 163.836 171.546 177.985 183.561 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1

Kentucky 166.344 172.517 177.967 183.373 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1

Oklahoma 154.062 165.424 171.432 182.086 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1

Iowa 141.814 148.997 156.606 165.767 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Kansas 126.347 135.336 138.958 144.062 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9

Utah 119.249 125.754 134.483 141.240 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9

Nevada 120.579 123.365 128.896 132.024 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8

Arkansas 111.355 115.582 118.993 124.218 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,7

District of Columbia 106.615 110.702 111.870 113.362 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7

Nebraska 91.131 98.237 103.062 109.614 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7

Mississippi 94.649 96.224 101.549 105.163 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6

New Mexico 83.798 87.334 89.188 92.245 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6

Hawaii 67.285 69.755 72.512 75.235 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5

West Virginia 66.111 69.463 69.711 73.970 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4

New Hampshire 62.622 64.122 66.111 67.848 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

11

Delaware 57.628 58.612 60.650 62.703 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

Idaho 55.427 56.956 58.231 62.247 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

Alaska 53.251 58.581 59.643 59.355 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

North Dakota 35.482 40.508 49.509 56.329 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,3

Maine 51.470 51.756 53.235 54.755 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,3

Rhode Island 49.265 49.921 51.566 53.184 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3

South Dakota 38.940 42.453 43.758 46.732 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3

Wyoming 40.274 43.178 41.839 45.432 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3

Montana 37.520 40.250 42.140 44.040 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3

Vermont 26.570 27.545 28.422 29.509 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2

Each state has its own government, consisting of an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The state governor and legislature are the primary policy actors in the 50 states. In addition, state research policy may involve science and technology programme administrators, state administrators of federal research programmes, university administrators, and private non-profit organisations such as industry and professional associations. Research and innovation policy is even delegated to the local governments, from the 50 States, to 900 metropolitan and micropolitan areas, to over 3000 counties, boroughs, and parishes; and more than 25000 cities and towns. Some states have more centralised structures involving science councils and administrators, whereas other states distribute these functions across multiple organisations. Elected officials on policy design and planning, along with science and technology programme administrators, usually have primary responsibility for implementation, along with state administrators of federal research programmes, and university administrators. Industry and professional associations often serve in an advocacy capacity. Like on the federal level, policy is made operational through departments, agencies, boards and commissions, coordinated through the Governor’s Cabinet. As on the federal level, research, development and innovation is often institutionalised by ad hoc, project based political boards and commissions. The federal and state governments are fundamentally different and in the analysis of the US innovation system these two entities should be discussed separately. R&D expenditures by the 50 states are limited to about $1.3 billion annually (2009). With regard to the total of $158 billion public R&D expenditures in the US, this accounts for less than 1% of the total governmental expenditure in the US. However, federal innovation projects often include a mechanism to co-finance State initiatives. While federal level primarily focuses on supporting academic research and is limited on development, state level funding is more focused on development and support of innovation (commercialisation). Some coordination between the states is organised by the National Governors Association (NGA, with an annual budget of about $14 million). Their mission to enhance innovation policy on a state level is made operational by research and education. This bipartisan organisation of the nation's governors promotes visionary state leadership, shares best practices and speaks with a collective voice on national policy. Through the NGA, governors identify priority issues and deal collectively with matters of public policy and governance at the state and national levels. Not all of the 50 states have an extensive R&D policy. States that include a strong focus on R&D (based on levels of R&D expenditure, see Figure ) are California (11%), New York (10%), Ohio (9%), Pennsylvania (8%), Florida (5%), Maine (4%), Indiana (4%), North Carolina (4%), Texas (4%) and Utah (3%). In practice only 10 states account for over 50% of the cumulative R&D expenditures of all states.

12

Figure 4: Overview of the individual State R&D expenditures (%) in 2009 of total US State expenditures $1.3 billion (NSF, 2013).

Regional performance in KETs For the assessment of the regional deployment of KETs, we analysed 2000 - 2011 patent data for all US (NUTS2 level) regions (i.e. states). For each KET we selected the top five regions based on the total number of patents for the period (see Figure ). The data are obtained from the KETs Observatory, and it is based on EP patent applications, using the inventor's location and applying fractional counting.10 Based on the assessment we conclude that: • California is the most prominent region with respect to patenting in KETs. This is in line with its economic

performance (as expressed in size of GDP). • There is a decrease in the number of KETs-based patents over the period analysed. The development in

time of these indicators suggests a pattern similar to that for the GDP growth rate (i.e. with a double dip). Decrease of the latest years (2010 and beyond) can be explained by the fact that not all patents are awarded for these years yet.

• Patenting activity is especially high for California for MNE and IB. Most likely this is caused by activities within the Silicon Valley region.

10 See www.ketsobservatory.eu.

13

Figure 5: Number of patent applications in AMT (top-5 NUTS2 regions, 2000-2011) (Source: KETs Observatory / ZEW 2014).

Figure 6: Number of patent applications in AM (top-5 NUTS2 regions, 2000-2011) (Source: KETs Observatory / ZEW 2014).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011CALIFORNIA 305 300 275 301 357 320 318 245 212 215 226 239MASSACHUSETTS 84 87 83 106 111 94 91 83 72 54 80 99NEWYORK 86 101 84 104 127 134 91 82 69 89 79 86PENNSYLVANIA 56 66 67 60 74 66 56 52 53 41 34 55TEXAS 94 94 102 106 132 100 125 132 119 105 117 108

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

14

Figure 7: Number of patent applications in PHOT (top-5 NUTS2 regions, 2000-2011) (Source: KETs Observatory / ZEW 2014).

Figure 8: Number of patent applications in MNE (top-5 NUTS2 regions, 2000-2011) (Source: KETs Observatory / ZEW 2014).


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

15

Figure 9: Number of patent applications in NT (top-5 NUTS2 regions, 2000-2011) (Source: KETs Observatory / ZEW 2014).

Figure 10: Number of patent applications in IB (top-5 NUTS2 regions, 2000-2011) (Source: KETs Observatory / ZEW 2014).

Regional case: California R&D and innovation policy is very different across the US states, defined by the specific and individual strengths and industrial demand of the states. This is illustrated with the case of California, where policy initiatives are focused on for example quantitative biomedical research (QB3), telecommunication and information technology (Calit2), information technology and research in the interest of society (CITRIS), Nanosystems (CNSI).


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

16

The aforementioned initiatives result from the implementation of the Governor Gray Davis Institutes for Science and Innovation. The institutes address the specific strengths of the Californian innovation system, as identified by California Council on Science and Technology (CCST).11 The institutes are designed such that joint public and private investment will promote cutting-edge basic research and education that is deemed essential for the Californian economy, given the increasingly competitive, international economy. All the institutes have the same mission: to build multidisciplinary research teams that address large-scale societal problems.12 The California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research (QB3) is a partnership between UCSF, UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz that was established to bring together the powerful quantitative tools of the physical sciences, engineering and mathematics to tackle complex biological problems.13 The Institute provides access to multi-department and multi-disciplinary laboratories and other shared scientific resources for more than 100 scientists.14 The California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2) is a $400 million academic research institution jointly run by the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Calit2 was established in 2000 as a multidisciplinary research institution addressing wireless telecommunications technologies, phototonics, nanotechnology and micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and cyber space “[…] in order to digitally transform applications in culture, health, energy, and the environment.”15 Calit2 has collaborated with more than 250 industry names on sponsored research, technology licensing, and spinoffs based on Calit2 inventions (including Broadcom, Cisco Systems, Hitachi, and Google Earth). The State of California provided a $100 million grant to Calit2 to support the design and construction of both campus buildings and facilities. Calit2 also receives support from other funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, CalTrans, and the UC Discovery Program. The Centre for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) is an institute operated by the State of California “[…] to facilitate the real-world application of technological research […] to 'shorten the pipeline' between world-class laboratory research and the creation of start-ups, larger companies, and whole industries”16 CITRIS was founded in 2001, partnering academicians at UC Santa Cruz, UC Merced, UC Davis, and UC Berkeley with industrial researchers. Examples of projects include the launch of 100 floating sensors into the Sacramento River for the Floating Sensor Network project. The Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta’s channel system supports California's agricultural industry and provides drinking water for 22 million Californians. The Floating Sensor Network project is a collaborative effort between the Centre for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), Berkeley Lab and its National Energy Research Scientific Computing Centre (NERSC), and UC Berkeley’s Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Electrical Engineering. The project will collect data to help researchers and scientists better understand how water flows from the Delta to pumping stations and the San Francisco Bay. CITRIS has spawned 51 start-up companies since the institute was established in 2001, and the annual investment of $4-5M from the University of California Office of the President leverages $80-$95M in outside research funding. The California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) is an integrated research centre operating jointly at UCLA and UC Santa Barbara whose mission is “[…] to foster interdisciplinary collaborations for discoveries in nanosystems 11 Based on an annual assessment (CCST 2011) of the Californian innovation system in by the Innovation California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). CCST is a nonpartisan, impartial, not-for-profit corporation established in 1988 with the objective (i) to offer expert advice to the state government and (ii) to recommend solutions to science and technology-related policy issues. 12 See Committee on jobs, economic development and the economy of the California State Assembly (http://ajed.assembly.ca.gov/researchanddevelopmentdrivesinnovation). 13 See http://qb3.org/. 14 The centre houses the Surbeck Advanced Imaging Laboratory which includes a 7T GE whole body scanner and a 3T research scanner, µCT, microscopy, computational and other facilities. To illustrate its economic impact: in 2013 the total funds raised equalled $143.5M (total private funds raised: $123.4M, total public funds raised: $20.5M), 57 new patents filed, and 76 new jobs were created. 15 See http://www.calit2.net/. 16 See http://citris-uc.org/.

17

and nanotechnology; train the next generation of scientists, educators and technology leaders; and facilitate partnerships with industry.”17 It was established in 2000 with $100 million from the state of California and an additional $250 million in federal research grants and industry funding. Its scientists (in the areas of biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, mathematics, computational science and engineering) benefit from an integrated laboratory culture enabling them to conduct dynamic research at the nanoscale, leading to significant breakthroughs in the areas of health, energy, environment and information technology. Important to mention is this perspective is also the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).18 Created in 2004, the agency allocates money in grants, funded by bonds, over a ten-year period to institutions and scientists throughout California that focus on advancing stem cell research and regenerative medicine. The mission of CIRM is to support and advance stem cell research and regenerative medicine under the highest ethical and medical standards for the discovery and development of cures, therapies, diagnostics and research technologies to relieve human suffering from chronic disease injury. Also relevant to mention is the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI).19 EBI is an organisation dedicated to developing new sources of energy and reducing the impact of energy consumption. It was created in 2007 to apply advanced knowledge of biology to the challenges of responsible, sustainable energy production and use. Its main goal is to develop next-generation biofuels. Funded by BP, which has agreed to contribute $500 million over a 10-year-period, with $350 million slated for academic research, EBI is a joint initiative between the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the energy company. It is the largest public-private venture of its kind. The institute’s main research areas are: (i) feedstock development (work on plant sources of biofuel); (ii) biomass depolymerisation (breaking down the plant cell wall to enable sugar, or energy, extraction); (iii) biofuel production; (iv) the environmental, social, and economic impact of bioenergy development; (v) fossil fuel bioprocessing (using microbial processes to help make oil recovery “greener” and to shrink its carbon footprint).

17 See http://www1.cnsi.ucla.edu/index. 18 See https://www.cirm.ca.gov/. 19 See http://www.energybiosciencesinstitute.org/.

18

References California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) (2011), INNOVATE 2 INNOVATION; An Assessment of California's Innovation Ecosystem. OECD (2014a), OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2014, OECD Publishing.. OECD (2014b), “United States”, in OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2014 Issue 1, OECD Publishing. EC (2014a), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014. EC (2014b), Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2014. ECSIP (2013), Study on the international market distortion in the area of KETs. TNO (2013), mKETs-PL working document, Country report US.

Documents

Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) Observatory · 2016. 1. 5. · 2 Introduction KETs Observatory The European Commission (EC) has launched a project involving the set-up and implementation