**From:** Dr. Victor Pinks II \[mailto:vicp@tbc.net\]

**Sent:** Sunday, September 21, 2003 1:16 PM

**To:** NSTC_RBM

**Subject:** NSTC Research Business Models Comments

Hello,

Below is a correspondence that I sent on September 17, 2003. In a follow
up thought, I was wondering if a fast track exists that could, at least,
take a look at the software technology I am proposing. I mean, by a
credible panel of scientists with expertise in molecular dynamics who
have national security in mind. I am not an alarmist. I am reacting to a
sluggish federal innovation system in a manner that I hope will keep
this software technology from being overlooked too long when I believe
that the need for a simple quick evaluation by knowledgeable evaluators
is in the nations interest. Nothing else. I think a rush to
commercialization would be unwise until such an evaluation were
performed.

Sincerely,

Vic Pinks

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Victor Pinks II, Ph.D vpinks@ildsimulation.com

Robert S. Wilson, Ph.D. rwilson@ildsimulation.com

The Institute of Liquid Dynamics Simulation

2610 Laurel Lane

Sycamore, Illinois 60178

Cell Phone: 815-739-6785

Evening Phone: 815-895-6413

Web site: www.ildsimulation.com

MUNCC Supercomputer project web site: http://muncc.marmionacademy.org

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

\-\-\-\--Original Message\-\-\-\--

**From:** Dr. Victor Pinks II \[mailto:vicp@tbc.net\]

**Sent:** Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:29 PM

**To:** nstc_rbm@ostp.eop.gov

**Subject:** NSTC Research Business Models Comments

Hello,

Below I am offering a collection of my better thoughts and comments on
improving Research Business Models for the federal government. If my
personal experience is typical, then I believe that your request for
comments does not come a minute too soon. I am currently working with
Battelle and TRECC (www.trecc.org) to secure and SBIR grant. The
Battelle employees that are helping me echo emphatically that there are
system problems. Here is one thing that scares me a lot. I have some
very controversial research being considered, and no one with a credible
background in the early stages of the process are sufficiently
knowledgeable to know what to do with it. It\'s a good thing that I am
patriotic because I will wait until the system is in place to put this
through. It would be wrong commercializing it and tying it up as a trade
secret. I know that I could get foreign funding but I refuse to. I think
that our government fosters the growth of new ideas better than any
other in the world. There is, however, a problem bringing good research
to its fruition. One of the major problems is the technical illiteracy
of decision makers in the funding process. Another is the they way that
special interests disrupt the innovation process to the point of causing
a national security problem. The innovation process needs to be
federalized for national security. I would be happy to help efforts to
improve the system in any way if necessary.

In the spirit of helpfulness, I am submitting some information that I
had written a few years ago in response to a call for papers for a
National Innovation Summit on 11-29-99 sponsored by OSTP. The next two
paragraphs are excerpts from a paper (mentioned further below by
Levinson et. al.) that seem to still carry relevance even today. If I
could, I would nominate Terry Levinson to head up a National Innovation
System. I am including a pdf of this paper from that summit.

![](media/image1.wmf)

• **Create a foundation that will collect the best attributes of
multiple Federal agencies.**

An advocacy center for independent inventors needs to be created in a
single, centralized locale, rather than being distributed across a
number of agencies. Centralizing this function and broadening its
mission beyond just energy strengthens its profile and allows the more
efficient exchange among multiple disciplines, rather than limiting
consideration only to inventions that fit an agency's mission. Moreover,
a centralized organization can serve as a focal point to filter out
inventions that are not technically valid (for example, they may violate
the laws of physics) \-- not dismissing any submittal perfunctorily, but
giving each its just due. In addition, a centralized organization
provides a less expensive means to deliver customized, tailored
resources to both inventors and corporate America. Indeed, the core
mission of such a centralized organization is to serve as a matchmaker
between independent inventors and corporate America where their ideas
would be placed. We recommend that this centralized organization be
operated as a foundation for two reasons. First, a centralized
foundation can attract the "best and brightest" of staff that would be
contributed by participating agencies. Second, a foundation allows the
contribution of private sector money to supplement the seed money
provided by the Federal Government.

• **Establish a robust and timely value-added evaluation system.**

A value-added evaluation system would weigh each invention on its own
merits, by comparing each new idea to current practice within its
respective discipline and judging its chances for commercial success.
This approach contrasts sharply with other methods that toss all
inventions submitted into a single "bucket," then rank order them, and
fund only the top few. This does not mean that the value-added
evaluation system that we propose will not be selective \-- after all,
budgets and staff resources are limited \-- just that each invention
submitted will be evaluated fairly relative to its respective
discipline. Furthermore, the turnaround time to evaluate a submitted
invention must be reduced to a timeframe more acceptable to inventors.
The earlier manifestation of the DOE's Inventions and Innovation Program
would often take more than 2 years to complete an evaluation; the goal
was to reduce that time to 18 months. If the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office can reduce its pendency time to 1 year, then an evaluation system
should be able to complete an evaluation is less than that time. The
SBIR 3 Program at DOE uses peer reviews to complete evaluations in less
than 6 months. The peer review process in the Inventions and Innovation
Program does it in 3 months. According to Gerald Udell, head of the
Wal-Mart Innovation Network, his evaluations of products designed to be
sold at Wal-Mart take 3 weeks. There must be some middle ground to allow
for a customized evaluation in a reasonably short period of time.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
What follows is an ongoing correspondence between myself and Levinson.
Also my overview of the papers previously submitted to the National
Innovation Summit held by OSTP on 11-29-99 - comments submitted to Dr.
Neal Lane. I have an electronic copy of most of the submitted papers if
anyone would like them.
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Subject: RE: National Innovation System Sent: 12/14/19 2:53 PM Received:
12/16/99 11:32 PM From: Levinson, Terry M., tlevinson@anl.gov To:
\'Victor Pinks II\', vicp@tbcnet.com

Dr. Pinks, I cannot tell you how much both Tom Snyder and I appreciate
the e-mail message that you sent us today. The fact that our thoughts
resonated with your experience means that we are truly on track. The
next step, however, is the difficult one\--getting anyone to listen.

For your information, the reason for my passion on the subject is that
until 3 1/2 years ago I managed the original manifestation of the
Inventions and Innovation Program at DOE. I know first hand the problems
that independent inventors face, and the current manifestation of the
program hasn\'t a clue as to what they need. Since my retirement from
DOE, I have tried to sell this program to other places where it could
fit, but to no avail. Inventors have no champion. They are viewed as
weirdoes. People looked at me as if I were unclean when I said that I
had worked with inventors. Every state wants economic development as
long as the ideas come from straight-line thinkers who don\'t keep
asking questions. Enough complaining. You can see why I wrote what I
wrote.

The paper from the National Council on Entrepreneurship is the closest
in thought to ours. All inventors, however, may not be entrepreneurs;
all entrepreneurs may not be inventors. Both areas of expertise require
different skills, and it is rare to find all the necessary skills in one
person. The thought in their paper, with which I totally agree, is that
the commercialization track record of SBIR companies should be taken
into account when SBIR awards are made. DOE has been doing this for many
years, but not all agencies do.

As far as the Summit is concerned, I did attend the entire 1 1/2 days. I
managed to get presidents of two inventor organizations invited so we
were able to make a strong case for the perspective in the ANL paper. No
one in attendance was ever asked if he or she had even read the papers,
but I made the point whenever I spoke in the breakout sessions that I
had co-authored one of them. When the reports from the breakout sessions
were given on the second day to the entire 200 people or so who
attended, the message from my two plants and myself came through: We
need inventors!

My next step is to try to have a more active role in what the final
report of the Summit has to say. I\'m touching base with my contacts and
hope to be able to be involved. We\'ll just have to wait and see whether
I\'m able to be successful.

Thank you again for caring.

Terry M. Levinson Argonne National Laboratory 955 L\'Enfant Plaza North
Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20024 (202) 488-2472 voice (202) 488-2413 fax
tlevinson@anl.gov

\-\-\-\--Original Message\-\-\-\--

From: Victor Pinks II \[mailto:vicp@tbcnet.com\] Sent: Thursday,
December 16, 1999 2:17 AM To: Terry M. Levinson; Thomas C. Snyder
Subject: re: National Innovation System

Hello,

I wanted to give you some unsolicited feedback regarding your white
paper submitted to the recent OSTP Innovation Summit. I was unable to
attend, however, I made some effort to offer input by sending e-mail
directly to Dr. Neal Lane reflecting upon my experiences as an
independent research start-up. The bottom line is that your paper, in my
opinion, offered the most realistic approach to the innovation quandary
this nation is experiencing.

I have included the e-mail relevant to your proposal below. I support
your efforts and would like to know if you did attend and/or have any
perspective with regards to the success of the summit.

I appreciate any feedback.

Sincerely,

Vic Pinks

Next begins my letter to Dr. Lane

\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...

Subject: Summary on Call for Papers re: National Innovation System Sent:
11/27/99 7:03 AM To: Dr. Neal Lane, innovationsummit@rand.org Robert
Wilson, rwilso1239@aol.com

Dear Dr. Lane, I wish you the greatest success with the upcoming
innovation summit Nov 30 & Dec 1st. I have taken time to review all of
the downloadable white papers at the Innovation Summit web site and
would like to give you my point of view as a small research start-up. I
do this in the spirit of national concern and hope for all innovators
that issues will be explored in a selfless manner. The greatness of the
United States can be seen in the way we look at ourselves and our
problems. Eventually the direction we are to take will come into focus
as we bravely tackle the tough questions with vigorous exchange and hope
for sustained freedom and prosperity. I am offering my point of view as
a single entrepreneur who has experienced the indifference of the
national labs, the frustration of the universities and the self-serving
interests of the venture capitalists. This is not a general
characterization of these institutions but rather my single experience
in a system unequipped to carry out it\'s well-intentioned plans to
foster innovation in the interest of the nation. Still, I am very
hopeful and encouraged more now than ever. I hope that more independent
innovators have responded to the call for papers than were represented
on the web site. As I see it, there are three types of proposals:

First (the majority) are the institutions promoting policies from a
self-interest perspective only. You can expect everyone to approach the
problem in this manner, however, others try to expand to the general
problem of innovation reform. These papers offer opinions that can seem
self-serving at times but do contribute to some consensus. I presume
that they will become more valuable once the overall format of
innovation change is agreed upon.

The second type are papers presenting new policies of national interest
that could improve any system of innovation. For example, new
statistical methods for evaluations (see American Statistical
Association paper) or economic models for research funding decisions
(see the Vonortas paper).

The last type take a big picture approach to the problem and offer a new
plan for innovation reform. In my opinion, there was only one paper that
fell into this category: \"Pathways to Innovation\" by Terry M. Levinson
and Thomas C. Snyder (Argonne National Laboratory).

Over the majority of papers there was also some consensus.
Specifically, 1) except for security reasons, that the United States
must not take on a protectionist position with regard to the free
exchange of science and technology for its\' own good. It is better to
become a stronger source of innovation to protect our position of world
strength and enhance our global influence. 2) All agree that the patent
laws must change to allow rapid commercialization while protecting all
parties. Current laws are strangling the innovation process in it\'s
sprouting stage. Innovation reform without patent law reform is doomed
to fail. 3) All agree that the individual innovator and entrepreneur
need help. As Levinson and Snyder assert, there is a way to make it work
without operating like technical welfare.

In closing, I feel that the paper \"Pathways to Innovation\" by Terry M.
Levinson and Thomas C. Snyder (Argonne National Laboratory) offers an
important option. It proposes an organization independent of the
universities, federal labs and commercial business.

Papers like JBX Technologies reflect the same frustration that I
experienced with a national laboratory.

The First-to-file vs. First-to-invent arguments of Josh Lerner (Harvard)
are not a solution but rather an unnecessary step backwards in patent
law and innovation reform. Universities and national labs are not
motivated to change and have difficulty looking through the eyes of the
entrepreneur. Good science begins and ends with the individual
scientist. No matter what federal lab, university, corporate office, or
garage coat rack they use. To refer to qualified independent innovators
as \"weekend hobbyists\" is an unconstructive and cynical approach to a
serious national research funding problem.

It was quoted that in his recent editorial in \"Science\" (Vol. 285, No.
27, August 1999, p 1353), Philip H. Abelson asserts that \"the
innovation index provides evidence that the United States may be living
off assets that have not been adequately renewed. Further evidence that
the individual innovator must become empowered by the federal
government.

The Association of American Universities propose \"first do no harm in a
system that has been highly successful\". I agree that the university
and federal laboratory system should be a source of basic research and
knowledge generation. The Cohen paper expands on an important concern
that the privatization of information flowing out of universities into
deepening ties with industry also poses hazards. Universities and
national labs would like to keep the status quo for fear of funding
shifts away from their interests. Again, there is little motivation to
assist the entrepreneur as reflected by the poor performance of the
majority of Technology Transfer programs in place.

The corporate world has enjoyed the free flow of SBIR and ATP innovation
monies away from start-ups. They have taken advantage of grant renewal
loopholes by creating annual funding budgets. Again, monies diverted
away from innovation and start-ups. The National Commission on
Entrepreneurship proposes that firms who win multiple SBIR grants should
be required to provide data on past commercialization successes to break
this cycle.

Finally, the \"Pathways to Innovation\" by Terry M. Levinson and Thomas
C. Snyder (Argonne National Laboratory) plan seems to offer promise. I
also believe that such an organization should empower the individual
innovator with federal dollars which various agencies must compete for.
It will not threaten the infrastructure of universities, national labs,
industry, or state and local organizations. It will eliminate their
\'sense of entitlement\' to federal dollars and create a healthy climate
of competition in a National Innovation System. As each innovator
carries a federal \'bounty\' to be captured by the competing agencies,
motivations will change. These institutions will find ways best suited
for them to attract this federal money because good science still begins
and ends the individual scientist and inventor.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Sincerely,

Vic Pinks

End of letter to Dr. Lane

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Victor Pinks II, Ph.D. vicp@tbcnet.com Robert S. Wilson, Ph.D.

The Institute of Liquid Dynamics Simulation

2610 Laurel Lane Sycamore, IL. 60178 phone/fax (815)895-6413

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Victor Pinks II, Ph.D vpinks@ildsimulation.com

Robert S. Wilson, Ph.D. rwilson@ildsimulation.com

The Institute of Liquid Dynamics Simulation

2610 Laurel Lane Sycamore, Illinois 60178

Cell Phone: 815-739-6785 Evening Phone: 815-895-6413

Web site: www.ildsimulation.com MUNCC Supercomputer project web site:
http://muncc.marmionacademy.org
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*