ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 

Inherent Factors in 

Selection Process Are 

Likely to Limit 

Identification of Similar 

Research 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial 

Management, Government Information, and 

International Security, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 26, 2005 

GAO-05-759T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-759T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-759T, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal 

Financial Management, Government 

Information, and International Security, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

May 2005

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Inherent Factors in Selection Process Are 

Likely to Limit Identification of Similar 

Research 

The three completed ATP-funded projects GAO reviewed, which were 

approved for funding in 1990 and 1992, addressed research goals that were 

similar to those already funded by the private sector. GAO chose these 3 

projects from among the first 38 completed projects, each representing a 

different technology sector: computers, electronics, and biotechnology. 

These three technology sectors represent 26 of the 38 completed ATP 

projects, or 68 percent. The projects included an on-line handwriting 

recognition system, a system to increase the capacity of existing fiber optic 

cables for the telecommunications industry, and a process for turning 

collagen into fibers for human prostheses use. In the case of the handwriting 

recognition project, ATP provided $1.2 million to develop a system to 

recognize cursive handwriting for pen-based (i.e., without a keyboard) 

computer input. GAO identified several private firms that were conducting 

similar research on handwriting recognition at approximately the same time 

the ATP project was funded. In fact, this line of research began in the late 

1950s. In addition, GAO identified multiple patents, as early as 5 years prior 

to the start of the ATP project, in the field of handwriting recognition. GAO 

found similar results in the other two projects. 

Two inherent factors in ATP’s award selection process—the need to guard 

against conflicts of interest and the need to protect proprietary 

information—make it unlikely that ATP can avoid funding research already 

being pursued by the private sector in the same time period. These factors, 

which have not changed since 1990, make it difficult for ATP project 

reviewers to identify similar efforts in the private sector. For example, to 

guard against conflicts of interest, the program uses technical experts who 

are not directly involved with the proposed research. Their acquaintance 

with ongoing research is further limited by the private sector’s practice of 

not disclosing its research efforts or results so as to guard proprietary 

information. As a result, it may be impossible for the program to ensure that 

it is consistently not funding existing or planned research that would be 

conducted in the same time period in the absence of ATP financial 

assistance. 

GAO made no recommendations in its April 2000 report. 

The Advanced Technology 

Program (ATP) supports research 

that accelerates the development of

high-risk technologies with the 

potential for broad-based economic 

benefits for the nation. Under the 

program, administrators at the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology are to ensure that they 

do not fund research that would be 

conducted in the same period 

without ATP funding. Between 

1990 and September 2004, ATP 

funded 768 projects at a cost of 

about $2.3 billion. There is a 

continuing debate over whether the 

private sector has sufficient 

incentives to undertake research 

on high-risk, high-payoff emerging 

technologies without government 

support, such as ATP. 

This testimony discusses the 

results of GAO’s April 2000 report, 

Advanced Technology Program: 

Inherent Factors in the Selection 

Process Could Limit 

Identification of Similar Research 

(GAO/RCED-00-114) and provides

updated information. GAO 

determined (1) whether ATP had 

funded projects with research goals

that were similar to projects 

funded by the private sector and 

(2) if ATP did, whether its award 

selection process ensures that such 

research would not be funded in 

the future. 
Page 1 GAO-05-759T 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our past work,1

 as well as to 

provide some updated information, on the funding that the Advanced 

Technology Program (ATP) provides for private research. As you know, 

ATP was established in 1988 to support research that accelerates the 

development of high-risk technologies with the potential for broad-based 

economic benefits for the nation.2

 Under the provisions establishing ATP, 

program administrators at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) are to ensure that they are not funding existing or 

planned research that would be conducted in the same time period in the 

absence of ATP financial assistance. Between 1990 and September 2004, 

ATP funded 768 projects at a cost of about $2.3 billion in federal matching 

funds. 

Research can provide both private benefits, which accrue to the owners of 

the research results, and societal benefits, which accrue to society as a 

whole. In some instances, the private sector does not fund research that 

would be beneficial to society because doing so might not provide an 

adequate return on a firm’s investment. To address this situation, the 

federal government, through tax credits or direct public funding, supports 

research that has very broad societal benefits, such as basic research and 

research focused on developing technologies in areas such as public 

health and nutrition, energy conservation, and environmental protection. 

However, there is a continuing debate over whether the private sector has 

sufficient incentives to undertake research on high-risk, high-payoff 

emerging and enabling technologies without government support, such as 

ATP. 

In this context, in our prior work, we determined (1) whether, in the past, 

ATP had funded projects with research goals that were similar to projects 

funded by the private sector and (2) if we identified such cases, whether 

ATP’s award selection process ensures that such research would not be 

funded in the future. To determine whether ATP has funded projects 

similar to private sector projects, we chose 3 of the first 38 completed 

projects, each representing a different technology sector: biotechnology; 

electronics; and information, computers, and communications. These 

 1

GAO, Advanced Technology Program: Inherent Factors in Selection Process Could Limit 

Identification of Similar Research, GAO/RCED-00-114 (Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2000). 

2

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-418). 
Page 2 GAO-05-759T 

three technology sectors represent 26 of the 38, or 68 percent, of the ATP 

projects completed by 1999. We reviewed the ATP project files and held 

discussions with industry and academic experts, technical reviewers, and 

award recipients to assist in our examination of these projects. We also 

conducted patent searches on the technical areas associated with each of 

the three projects. Our objective was not to provide an evaluation of the 

quality of the research funded by ATP or the private sector, nor the impact 

these projects may or may not have had on their respective industries. To 

address the second objective, we reviewed ATP’s award selection process. 

We did not review the overall management of the program. We performed 

our initial work from October 1999 through April 2000, and developed 

updated information in May 2005, in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

The three completed ATP-funded projects, which were approved for 

funding in 1990 and 1992, addressed research goals that were similar to 

those already funded by the private sector. The projects included an online handwriting recognition system, a system to increase the capacity of 

existing fiber optic cables for the telecommunications industry, and a 

process for turning collagen into fibers for human prostheses use. In the 

case of the handwriting recognition project, ATP provided $1.2 million to 

develop a system to recognize cursive handwriting for pen-based (i.e., 

without a keyboard) computer input. We identified several private firms 

that were conducting similar research on handwriting recognition at 

approximately the same time the ATP project was funded. In fact, this line 

of research began in the late 1950s. In addition, we identified multiple 

patents, as early as 5 years prior to the start of the ATP project, in the field 

of handwriting recognition. We found similar results in the other two 

projects. 

Two inherent factors in ATP’s award selection process—the need to guard 

against conflicts of interest and the need to protect proprietary 

information—make it unlikely that ATP can avoid funding research 

already being pursued by the private sector in the same time period. These 

factors, which have not changed since 1990, make it difficult for ATP 

project reviewers to identify similar efforts in the private sector. For 

example, to guard against conflicts of interest, the program uses technical 

experts who are not directly involved with the proposed research. Their 

acquaintance with on-going research is further limited by the private 

sector’s practice of not disclosing its research efforts or results so as to 

guard proprietary information. As a result, it may be impossible for the 

program to ensure that it is consistently not funding existing or planned 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-759T 

research that would be conducted in the same time period in the absence 

of ATP financial assistance. 

ATP, which began funding projects in fiscal year 1990, was intended to 

fund high-risk research and development (R&D) projects with broad 

commercial and societal benefits that would not be undertaken by a single 

company or group of companies, either because the risk was too high or 

because the economic benefits of success would not accrue to the 

investors. ATP is viewed as a mechanism for fostering investment in areas 

in which societal returns would exceed private returns. ATP has addressed 

other opportunities to achieve broader societal goals, such as small 

business participation, as well as the establishment of joint ventures for 

high-risk technologies that would be difficult for any one company to 

justify because, for example, the benefits spread across the industry as a 

whole. Thus, ATP is seen by some as a means of addressing market failure 

in research areas that would otherwise not be funded, thereby facilitating 

the economic growth that comes from the commercialization and use of 

new technologies in the private sector. Advocates of the program believe 

that the government should serve as a catalyst for companies to cooperate 

and undertake important new work that would not have been possible in 

the same time period without federal participation. Critics of the program 

view ATP as industrial policy, or the means by which government rather 

than the marketplace picks winners and losers. 

ATP provides funding through cooperative agreements—a type of 

financial assistance in which the federal government is substantially 

involved in project management. ATP offers these agreements through 

announced annual competitions. It provides multiyear funding to single 

companies and to industry-led joint ventures. The proposal review and 

selection process is a multistep process based on NIST regulations. In 

general, these steps include a preliminary screening, technical and 

business reviews, semifinalist identification, oral reviews, ranking, and 

final selection. At the beginning of each round of ATP competitions, NIST 

establishes Source Evaluation Boards (SEBs) to ensure that all proposals 

receive careful consideration. Each SEB is comprised of NIST technical 

experts as well as outside specialists with backgrounds in business and 

economics. ATP supplements the SEBs with outside technical reviewers, 

generally federal government experts in the specific industry of the 

proposal. Independent business experts are also hired on a consulting 

basis, including high-tech venture capitalists, people who teach strategic 

business planning, retired corporate executives from large and small hightech businesses, as well as economists and business development 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-759T 

specialists. All SEB members and outside reviewers must sign 

nondisclosure statements, agree to protect proprietary information, and 

certify that they have no conflicts of interest. 

As part of the proposal evaluation process, ATP uses the external 

reviewers to assess the technical and business merit of the proposed 

research. Each proposal is sponsored by both technical and business SEB 

members, whose roles include identifying reviewers, summarizing 

evaluative comments, and making recommendations to the SEB. The SEB 

evaluates the proposals, selects the semifinalists, conducts oral interviews 

with semifinalists, and ranks the semifinalists. A source selecting official 

makes the final award decisions based on the ranked list of proposals 

from the SEB. 

The three projects that we reviewed received funding through the ATP 

competitions announced in 1990 and 1992. In those years, the selection 

criteria included scientific and technical merit, potential broad-based 

benefits, technology transfer benefits, the proposing organization’s 

commitment level and organizational structure, and the qualifications and 

experience of the proposing organization’s staff. Each of the five selection 

criteria was weighted at 20 percent. Today, these same selection criteria 

are used but are grouped into two categories, each weighted at 50 percent. 

The “Scientific and Technical Merit” category addresses a variety of issues 

related to the technical plan and the relevant experience of the proposing 

organization. The second category, “Potential for Broad-Based Economic 

Benefits,” addresses the means to achieving an economic benefit and 

commercialization plans, as well as issues related to the proposer’s level of 

commitment, organizational structure, and management plan. Technical 

and business reviewers complete documentation, referred to as technical 

and business evaluation worksheets, that address various aspects of these 

criteria. 

The three completed projects that we reviewed addressed research goals 

that were similar to goals the private sector was addressing at about the 

same time. Each of the three projects was from a different sector of 

technology—computers, electronics, and biotechnology. The projects 

include (1) an on-line handwriting recognition system for computer input, 

(2) a system to increase the capacity of existing fiber optic cables for the 

telecommunications industry, and (3) a process for turning collagen into 

fibers for human prostheses use. 

Three ATP Projects 

Addressed Similar 

Research Goals to 

Projects in the Private 

Sector 
Page 5 GAO-05-759T 

Both the ATP project and several private sector projects had a similar 

research goal of developing an on-line system to recognize natural or 

cursive handwritten data without the use of a keyboard. This technology 

would make computers more useful where keyboard use is limited by 

physical problems or in situations where using a keyboard is not practical. 

On-line handwriting recognition means that the system recognizes 

handwritten data while the user writes. The primary technical problem in 

handwriting recognition is that writing styles vary greatly from person to 

person, depending upon whether the user is in a hurry, fatigued, or subject 

to a variety of other factors. While the technology for obtaining 

recognition of constrained careful writing or block print writing was 

commercially available, systems for cursive writing recognition were not 

commercially available because of the greater handwriting variability that 

was encountered. 

The ATP project we reviewed sought to develop an on-line natural 

handwriting recognition system that was user-independent and able to 

translate natural or cursive handwriting. Communication Intelligence 

Corporation (CIC) was the award recipient. CIC used its ATP funding of 

$1.2 million from 1991 to 1993 to build its own algorithms and models for 

developing its handwriting recognition system.3

 During the project, CIC 

created a database that includes thousands of cursive handwriting samples 

and developed new recognition algorithms. Some of this technology has 

been incorporated into a registered software product that has the ability to 

recognize cursive writing in limited circumstances. 

According to the experts we interviewed, as well as literature and patent 

searches, several companies were attempting to achieve a similar goal of 

handwriting recognition through their research around the same time that 

the ATP project received funding. Some of the key players in the private 

sector conducting research on cursive handwriting recognition included 

Paragraph International (in collaboration with Apple Computer) and 

Lexicus (which later became a division of Motorola). For example, Apple 

licensed a cursive handwriting recognition system from a Soviet company, 

Paragraph International, according to articles published in computer 

magazines in October 1991. According to these sources, this technology 

provided Apple with a foundation for recognizing printed, cursive, or 

block handwritten text. 

 3

Algorithm here refers to the mathematical procedures involved in recognizing writing as it 

is being written on a computer device. 

ATP Project on 

Handwriting Recognition 
Page 6 GAO-05-759T 

Another indication of research with a similar goal appeared in the October 

1990 edition of PC Week, which reported that “handwriting recognition is 

an emerging technology that promises increased productivity both for 

current microcomputer owners and for a new breed of users armed with 

hand-held ‘pen-based’ computers.” Similarly a technical journal article 

indicated that there was renewed interest in the 1980s in this field of online handwriting recognition, from its advent in the 1960s, because of more 

accurate electronic tablets, more compact and powerful computers, and 

better recognition algorithms.4

Moreover, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) 

database, over 450 patents were issued on handwriting recognition 

software, concepts, and related products from 1985 through 1999,5

indicating that research of a similar goal was being conducted around the 

time of the ATP project. Given the fact that it can take many years 

between the time a research project takes place and the time that an 

outcome is realized, this time period for a patent search allowed us to 

determine whether there was research ongoing during the time of the ATP 

project. The dates of the patents actually occurred sometime after the 

research was conducted. And, as we reported in a prior report,6

 the time 

between the point when a patent application is filed until the date when a 

patent is issued, or the application is abandoned, ranged from 19.8 months 

to 21 months, adding additional time to when the research was done. 

Another ATP project we reviewed, which proposed to develop a system to 

increase the capacity of existing fiber optic cables for the 

telecommunications industry, also had a similar goal to that of research in 

the private sector. At the same time, firms in the private sector were 

attempting to increase the number of light signals that can be transmitted 

through a single strand of fiber optic cable using a technology called 

wavelength division multiplexing (WDM).7

 In the 1980s, telephone 

 4

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, “The State of the Art in 

On-Line Handwriting Recognition” (Aug. 1990), vol. 12, no. 8. 

5

A patent is a grant given by a government to an inventor of the right to exclude others for a 

limited time (usually 20 years) from making, using, or selling his or her invention. 

6

GAO, Intellectual Property: Comparison of Patent Examination Statistics for Fiscal 

Years 1994-1995, GAO/RCED-97-58 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 13, 1997). 

7

A fiber optic cable consists of many extremely thin strands of glass or plastic, each 

capable of transmitting light signals. Wavelength division multiplexing transmits separate 

light signals through a single optical fiber strand at different wavelengths. 

ATP Project on Capacity 

Expansion of Fiber Optic 

Cables 
Page 7 GAO-05-759T 

companies laid fiber optic cables across the United States and other 

countries to create an information system that could carry significantly 

more data than the copper wires they replaced. Tremendous increases in 

cable traffic, primarily from the Internet, have crowded these cables. WDM 

technology was aimed at providing a cost-effective alternative to the 

expensive option of installing additional fiber optic cables. 

Accuwave Corporation (Accuwave) was the ATP award recipient. 

Accuwave used its ATP funding of approximately $2 million from March 

1993 through March 1995 to develop a wavelength division multiplexing 

system that would substantially increase the number of signals that could 

be transmitted through a single optical fiber strand, using the concept of 

volume holography. Volume holography uses holograms to direct multiple 

light signals simultaneously through a single fiber strand. Accuwave was 

able to make improvements on these issues but not enough to fully 

develop and market a successful WDM system for the telecommunications 

market. In 1996, a competitor beat Accuwave to the market. After the 

completion of the ATP project, Accuwave filed for bankruptcy protection 

due to its inability to successfully commercialize a wavelength division 

multiplexing system. 

Other private firms were involved in research with a similar goal of 

increasing the capacity of fiber optic cable at about the same time as 

Accuwave was conducting its research. Conceptual research on such 

systems dates back to the early 1980s, but development and 

commercialization did not flourish until the mid- to late-1990s. Bell Labs 

(now Lucent Technologies), Nortel Networks, and Ciena Corporation, 

among others, were considered some of the major competitors in the 

industry. In the early 1990s, these firms were attempting to develop WDM 

technology using different methods and materials. For example, Ciena 

Corporation developed a system that incorporated fiber-Bragg gratings, 

which are filters embedded directly onto fiber optic cable that help to 

separate multiple light signals through a single fiber strand. 

We also found an indication of WDM-related research through a review of 

issued patents. According to PTO’s database, over 2,000 patents were 

issued related to wavelength division multiplexing components, systems, 

and concepts from 1985 through 1999. The patents issued ranged from 10 

patents in 1985 to 493 in 1999. 

 
Page 8 GAO-05-759T 

Both the ATP project and private sector projects we identified in the tissue 

engineering field had similar broad research goals of developing biological 

equivalents for defective tissues and organs utilizing diverse technical 

approaches. ATP’s project proposed procedures for extracting, storing, 

spinning, and weaving collagen (the main constituent of connective tissue 

and bones) into fibers suitable for human prostheses that could induce the 

body’s cells to regenerate lost tissue. Tissue Engineering, Inc., received 

ATP’s award of about $2 million for use over the years 1993 through 1996. 

The company’s long-term and yet unrealized goal is to transplant these 

prostheses into humans, after which the collagen framework, or scaffold, 

would induce the growth and function of normal body cells within it, 

eventually remodeling lost human tissue and replacing the scaffold. 

Within the very innovative field of tissue engineering, however, many 

competitors were attempting to achieve similar broad research goals. 

Organogenesis, the Collagen Corporation, Integra LifeSciences, Advanced 

Tissue Sciences, Genzyme Tissue, Osiris Therapeutics, Matrix 

Pharmaceuticals, and ReGen Biologics are key players in the market to 

develop structures that could replace or regenerate cells, tissues, and 

organs such as skin, teeth, orthopedic structures, cartilage, and valves. A 

number of these companies have subsequently received ATP awards. In 

addition, universities and medical schools have researchers investigating 

the many possibilities to engineer human tissues, and eventually complex 

organs, such as the liver, pancreas, and heart. According to one expert, 

there is a great deal of competition within the field of tissue engineering. 

Although the Tissue Engineering, Inc. research focused on the use of 

collagen as the basis for these structures, other companies were pursuing 

a variety of technical approaches for addressing the goal of developing 

biological equivalents for defective tissues and organs. In addition to 

research in collagen, other companies and researchers have also been 

attempting to create human tissues and organs from other biological 

materials, synthetics, and hybrid products, which are both biologic and 

synthetic. For example, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT) developed an artificial skin product using collagen and 

a natural polymer. Several companies have since developed comparable 

products. In 1986, researchers from MIT and a hospital in Massachusetts 

began inserting cells into scaffolds created of biodegradable polymer. As 

the cells multiply, tissues form. The magazine BusinessWeek reported this 

concept as “an elegantly simple concept that underlies most engineered 

ATP Project on 

Regenerating Tissues and 

Organs 
Page 9 GAO-05-759T 

tissue.”8 Two competitors, Integra LifeSciences and Organogenesis, 

reported that they were also doing work on the use of collagen in various 

applications. Although their technical approaches were different than the 

ATP project, the broad research goals were similar. 

In addition to our discussions with experts and literature searches, patent 

research shows that there was activity related to the field of tissue 

engineering prior to and during the ATP project. According to a search 

done on the PTO website, at least 370 patents were issued related to cell 

culturing, scaffolding or matrix development, and tissue engineering from 

1985 through 1999. Experts have also indicated that there are several 

patents related to the field, with a considerable amount of overlap in the 

technologies described in those patents. 

Two factors in ATP’s award selection process could result in ATP’s 

funding research similar to research that the private sector would fund in 

the same time period. These two factors are inherent in the review process 

and limit the information the reviewers have on similar private sector 

research efforts. Due to conflict-of-interest concerns, technical reviewers 

are precluded from being directly involved with the proposed research, 

making them less likely to know about all the research in an area. Also, the 

information available about private sector research is limited because of 

the private sector practice of not disclosing research results. Until a patent 

is issued, a private sector firm generally publishes very few details about 

the research to protect proprietary information. Therefore, it is difficult for 

the reviewers to identify other cutting-edge research. 

ATP selection officials rely on outside technical reviewers to evaluate a 

proposal’s scientific and technical merit. All reviewers must certify that 

they have no conflicts of interest. To minimize possible conflicts of 

interest, the technical reviewers are generally federal government 

employees who are experts in the specific technology of the research 

proposal but are not directly involved with the proposed research area. 

Although this approach helps to guard against conflict of interest, it has 

inherent limitations on the program’s ability to identify similar research 

efforts. The technical reviewers rely on their own knowledge of research 

underway in the private sector. One of the technical reviewers we 

 8

“Biotech Bodies,” BusinessWeek, July 27, 1998. 

ATP’s Award Selection 

Process Is Unlikely to 

Avoid Funding Similar 

Research 

ATP’s Conflict-of-Interest 

Provision Limits Its Ability 

to Identify Similar 

Research 
Page 10 GAO-05-759T 

interviewed said that he did not personally know of other companies that 

were doing similar work. However, he believed that it was unlikely that 

there were not dozens of others working on the same issue. 

Proprietary Information Limits ATP’s Ability to Identify Similar Research 

ATP reviewers are significantly limited in their ability to identify similar 

research efforts by an inherent lack of information on private sector 

research. Although ATP officials use several sources, such as colleagues, 

conferences and symposia, and current technical literature, to try to 

identify research efforts conducted by the private sector and the federal 

government, this information is often proprietary. Most of the private 

sector and university experts we consulted agreed that it can be very 

difficult to identify the specific research that private sector firms are 

conducting, especially considering the competitive nature of most 

industries. The early release of information on a company’s research could 

be costly to the firm. If a competing firm could determine the nature and 

progress of another company’s research, it could help the competitor to 

develop and commercialize an identical or higher-quality product before 

the other firm. At the very least, the early release of research information 

by a firm can give competitors an idea as to the focus of the firm’s 

strategic plan. Thus, many firms are very careful about releasing detailed 

information related to research and development activities they are 

conducting. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the process ATP follows to select projects 

for funding is limited in its ability to identify similar research efforts in the 

private sector. Our retrospective look at the three ATP research projects 

showed that their goals were similar to research goals already being 

funded by the private sector. Examining the process that ATP uses to 

select projects, we found two inherent factors—the need to guard against 

conflicts of interest and the need to protect proprietary information—that 

limit ATP’s ability to identify similar research efforts in the private sector. 

These two factors have not changed since the beginning of the program. 

We recognize the valid need to guard against conflicts of interest and to 

protect proprietary information; thus, we did not recommend any changes 

to the award selection process. However, we believe that it may be 

impossible for the program to ensure that it is consistently not funding 

existing or planned research that would be conducted in the same time 

period in the absence of ATP financial assistance. 
Page 11 GAO-05-759T 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at 202-512-6246. Diane Raynes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and 

Jessica Evans made key contributions to this statement. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgements 

(360595) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER