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

**Sent:** Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:29 PM

**To:** NSTC_RBM

**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.

• **C**

PATHWAY1.pdf (30

KB)

**eate 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
sub mitted 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 Udell4,

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 straightline

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
coauthored

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 quandry 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 consenses. 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 concensus.

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

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