Trends in the Innovation Ecosystem

Can Past Successes Help Inform Future

Strategies Summary of Two Workshops
1st Edition Institute Of Medicine
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/trends-in-the-innovation-ecosystem-can-past-success
es-help-inform-future-strategies-summary-of-two-workshops-1st-edition-institute-of-m
edicine/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

How Modeling Can Inform Strategies to Improve

Population Health Workshop Summary 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/how-modeling-can-inform-strategies-
to-improve-population-health-workshop-summary-1st-edition-and-
medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Spread Scale and Sustainability in Population Health

Workshop Summary 1st Edition Institute Of Medicine

https://ebookmeta.com/product/spread-scale-and-sustainability-in-
population-health-workshop-summary-1st-edition-institute-of-
medicine/

Future Directions of Credentialing Research in Nursing

Workshop Summary 1st Edition Institute Of Medicine
Board On Health Sciences Policy Victoria Weisfeld
Margaret A Mccoy
https://ebookmeta.com/product/future-directions-of-credentialing-
research-in-nursing-workshop-summary-1st-edition-institute-of-
medicine-board-on-health-sciences-policy-victoria-weisfeld-
margaret-a-mccoy/

Assessing Progress on the Institute of Medicine Report

the Future of Nursing 1st Edition

https://ebookmeta.com/product/assessing-progress-on-the-
institute-of-medicine-report-the-future-of-nursing-1st-edition/
Evaluation Design for Complex Global Initiatives
Workshop Summary 1st Edition Institute Of Medicine

https://ebookmeta.com/product/evaluation-design-for-complex-
global-initiatives-workshop-summary-1st-edition-institute-of-
medicine/

Collaboration Between Health Care and Public Health

Workshop Summary 1st Edition Institute Of Medicine

https://ebookmeta.com/product/collaboration-between-health-care-
and-public-health-workshop-summary-1st-edition-institute-of-
medicine/

Recent Fertility Trends in Sub Saharan Africa Workshop

Summary 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/recent-fertility-trends-in-sub-
saharan-africa-workshop-summary-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Understanding Cybersecurity Management in FinTech:

Challenges, Strategies, and Trends (Future of Business
and Finance) Gurdip Kaur

https://ebookmeta.com/product/understanding-cybersecurity-
management-in-fintech-challenges-strategies-and-trends-future-of-
business-and-finance-gurdip-kaur/

Envisioning the Future of Health Professional Education

Workshop Summary 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/envisioning-the-future-of-health-
professional-education-workshop-summary-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street,
NW Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose
members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Grant No. OIA-0834015 between the

National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed

in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the sponsors who provided support for the
project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-29304-4

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-29304-9

Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the
National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313;
http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights

reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers of the Nation on Science, Engineering, and
Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-

perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science
and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone
is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964,

under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs,
encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National

Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of
appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National
Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and
vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org
 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR WORKSHOPS ON TRENDS IN
THE INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM

RICHARD N. ZARE [NAS] (chair), Marguerite Blake Wilbur

Professor, Stanford University
PAUL CITRON [NAE], (Retired, Vice President, Technology Policy
and Academic Relations, Medtronic, Inc.)
GORDON R. ENGLAND [NAE], President, E6 Partners LLC
C. D. MOTE, JR. [NAE] (ex-officio), President, National Academy of
Engineering
WILLIAM J. SPENCER [NAE], Chairman Emeritus, SEMATECH

Staff
KEVIN FINNERAN, Director
GURU MADHAVAN, Program Officer
MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Research Associate and Rapporteur
MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate

Consultant
STEVE OLSON, Consultant Writer and Rapporteur
 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC
POLICY

RICHARD N. ZARE [NAS] (chair), Marguerite Blake Wilbur

Professor, Stanford University
LINDA M. ABRIOLA [NAE], Dean of Engineering, Tufts University
SUSAN ATHEY [NAS], Professor, Graduate School of Business,
Stanford University
MOSES H.W. CHAN [NAS], Evan Pugh Professor of Physics,
Pennsylvania State University
RALPH J. CICERONE [NAS] (ex-officio), President, National
Academy of Sciences
PAUL CITRON [NAE], Vice President (Retired), Technology Policy
and Academic Relations, Medtronic, Inc.
DAVID DANIEL [NAE], President, The University of Texas at Dallas
GORDON R. ENGLAND [NAE], President, E6 Partners LLC
HARVEY V. FINEBERG [IOM] (ex-officio), President, Institute of
Medicine
DIANE E. GRIFFIN [IOM, NAS], Alfred and Jill Sommer Professor,
Chair in Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health
C. D. MOTE, JR., [NAE] (ex-officio), President, National Academy of
Engineering
PERCY A. PIERRE [NAE], Vice President and Professor Emeritus,
Michigan State University
E. ALBERT REECE [IOM], Vice President for Medical Affairs, Bowers
Distinguished Professor and Dean, School of Medicine, University
of Maryland Baltimore
MICHAEL S. TURNER [NAS], Rauner Distinguished Service
Professor, Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University
of Chicago
NANCY S. WEXLER [IOM], Higgins Professor of Neuropsychology,
Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University
PETER WOLYNES [NAS], D.R. Bullard-Welch Foundation Professor
of Chemistry, Center for Theoretical Biological Physics-BCR, Rice
 University

Staff
KEVIN FINNERAN, Director
TOM ARRISON, Senior Program Officer
GURU MADHAVAN, Program Officer
NEERAJ GORKHALY, Research Associate
MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Research Associate
RICHARD-DUANE CHAMBERS, Christine Mirzayan Science &
Technology Policy Graduate Fellow (until December 2012)
MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate
 Reviewer Acknowledgments

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen

for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance
with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review
Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide
candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making
its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the
report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The
review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to
protect the integrity of the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this
report: Michael G. Borrus, X/Seed Capital Management; Brian
Darmody, University of Maryland; James D. Plummer, Stanford
University; Leon Sandler, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
William J. Spencer, SEMATECH (retired); and Eli Yablonovitch,
University of California, Berkeley.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to
endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft
before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report
rests entirely with the rapporteurs and the institution.
 Contents

1 INTRODUCTION
2 THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS
3 DIFFERENCES AMONG TECHNOLOGIES
4 THE ROLES OF UNIVERSITIES
5 THE ROLE OF RESEARCH PARKS
6 PUBLIC POLICIES TO SUPPORT INNOVATION

APPENDIXES
A WORKSHOP AGENDAS
B SPEAKERS AT THE WORKSHOPS
C SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES
 1

Introduction

Innovation has long been a contributor to American economic and

societal progress, evident in a more than sevenfold increase in per
capita income since the 19th century, an additional three decades of
average lifespan, a revolution in the way we communicate and share
information, and the country’s position as the strongest military
power in the world.1 Without its historical leadership in innovation,
the United States would be a very different country than it is today.
Yet agreement on what innovation entails or how it can be
encouraged and facilitated is hard to find. Innovation often involves
scientific and engineering research, and both universities and
industry have essential roles to play. What happens at the
intersection of these activities and institutions determines how
productive the innovation ecosystem will be. But this system is in a
constant state of evolution, driven by such forces as the variable
pace of science and engineering, unexpected interactions among
disciplines, restructuring of industry in a global economy, and the
changing role of universities. If the innovation ecosystem is to thrive,
it is essential to understand and adapt to these powerful external
forces.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
(COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine decided to host a pair of
workshops entitled Trends in the Innovation Ecosystem: Can Past
Successes Help Inform Future Strategies? to discuss the challenges
involved in innovation pathways. Both workshops focused on the
interactions between research universities and industry and the
concept of innovation as a “culture” as opposed to an operational
method. With the intent of stimulating conversation both during and
after the workshops, the planning committee brought together
representatives of many of the facets of university-industry interface.
Recognizing that the views expressed were not exhaustive, the goal
was to gain a better understanding of what key factors contributed
to successful innovations in the past, how today’s environment might
necessitate changes in strategy, and what changes are likely to occur
in the future in the context of a global innovation ecosystem.
On February 26, 2013, the first workshop brought together the
members of COSEPUP and nine distinguished speakers from
industry, academia, and finance at PARC at Xerox in Palo Alto, CA, to
discuss obstacles to university-based innovation, and ways of
overcoming those obstacles, focusing on the university side of the
interface with industry in America. On May 20, 2013, COSEPUP held
a second workshop in Washington, DC, which focused solely on
research parks and was composed of two panels of experts on the
structure and function of research parks.2
The speakers repeatedly highlighted the concept of culture as key
to all aspects of innovation.3 Different sectors and technologies have
variations in culture that influence everything from how patents are
valued to the time it takes to develop a market-ready product. The
culture of universities and the role they play can dramatically
influence the innovation ecosystem of a region. At the meeting in
California, many of the academic participants actually “straddled” the
two worlds of academia and industry, and discussed the difficulties
they face in trying to start new companies while maintaining their
academic careers. Research parks must be carefully tuned to the
cultural needs of the people and industries using their resources to
be successful.
But many observers have expressed concern that innovation in the
United States is faltering as many centralized industrial research
laboratories have disappeared and as the manufacturing sector has
contracted. At the conclusion of the two workshops, questions still
remained as to how best to move forward (see Box 1-1).
 Box 1-1
Questions to Answer
• Is innovation getting harder?
• Is there a need to reexamine the intellectual property
arrangement for basic research results?
• How should the national benefits of private sector
enterprises be defined?
• How can the benefits of innovation in a region or country be
retained?
• Is it feasible or desirable for the United States to mirror other
countries’ policies on subsidizing industries through direct
financial support or regulatory collaboration?
• How will new immigration policies affect high-skill labor
markets and the innovation ecosystem?
• What is the appropriate role of federal and state regulations
and funding?

This summary of the presentations and discussions from the

workshops organizes the discussion thematically. Chapter 2
examines the general principles that underlie university-based
innovation, including the importance of people, culture, and
experience as discussed during the February workshop. Chapter 3
considers the differences among industrial sectors and among
technologies to explore the factors that contribute to successful
innovation. Chapter 4 looks specifically at the roles of universities in
preparing students, transferring technology to industry, and enabling
faculty members to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Chapter 5
discusses the role of research parks, the variation that exists in their
structures, and the importance of localization and adaptability to
parks specifically and innovation in general. Chapter 6 asks how
public policies in such areas as regulation, taxation, research
funding, and immigration could reinvigorate university-based
innovation in the United States.
 The report has been prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a
factual summary of what occurred at the workshops. The planning
committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the
workshops. The views contained in the report are those of individual
workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of
all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National
Research Council.

___________________
1 Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Future (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006).
2 A list of the speakers from the workshops can be found in Appendix B.
3 According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary culture is “the integrated pattern of
human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and
transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.”
 2

The Elements of Success

Many things must come together for innovation to succeed. During

the two workshops hosted by the Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), participants identified a
few general themes multiple times (see Box 2-1).

Box 2-1
Major Themes of Workshop Speakers
• The knowledge and experience of individuals are the primary
drivers of innovation.
• Science and technology expertise alone is not enough to
ensure innovation; the skills of finance, business
development, production, and management are useful.
• Innovation is stimulated by the movement and interaction of
individuals from different sectors.
• The culture of a region and its institutions shapes the nature
of these interactions.
• Openness to new ideas and a tolerance for failure are
important.
• Culture is not easily changed, and creating clones of Silicon
Valley might be the wrong strategy.
• Innovation is a contact sport and might be facilitated by a
concentration of talent that increases the rate of interaction.
• General principles do not explain everything. Significant
differences exist among institutions, regions, industries, and
sectors.
 Various speakers emphasized the importance of three critical
factors: culture, people, and experience. The remainder of this
chapter provides some highlights on these topics from the speakers
at the California workshop.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PEOPLE

Innovation is almost never an isolated occurrence. It tends to take

place in an environment characterized by personal interactions, an
entrepreneurial spirit, a variety of supporting institutions, adequate
funding, and the vibrant development and exchange of ideas. Many
analysts have used the metaphor of an ecosystem to describe such
an environment, but the speakers at the California workshop tended
to speak instead of a culture that fosters innovation.
Culture includes the expectations that people hold about how they
and others will interact. For example, David Mowery, Milton W. Terrill
Professor of Business at the Walter A. Haas School of Business,
University of California, Berkeley, observed that the U.S. university
system is unusual among industrialized countries in having a long
history of interaction with industry. Furthermore, the flow of ideas
and people occurs in two directions, not just one. Many of the
innovative activities within universities rely on input from industry of
both ideas and people. As an example, Mowery cited work done at
Berkeley on a major component of the Unix operating system that
relied on people from Bell Laboratories spending time on the
campus. Similarly, Mowery reported that a vigorous scientific
instrument complex has grown up around the University of
California, Santa Barbara, because of the two-way flow of individuals
and ideas back and forth between the university and businesses.
Such interactions have been very rare in western Europe or Japan,
though they may become more common in China as the university
sector there develops.
An aspect of the ecosystem and of the culture in Silicon Valley that
was examined extensively at the workshop is the venture capital
industry. Venture capital grew from a tiny industry in the 1960s to a
peak in the year 2000, after which it has undergone major changes.
Prior to the 1960s, entrepreneurs tended to approach individuals,
families, and privately owned companies with an interest in science
and technology as a source of funds for innovation. Since then, they
have more frequently turned to venture capitalists for early-stage
investments. Many venture capital firms cluster around Stanford and
the other universities in the Bay Area, where they have quick access
to the faculty members and students who have ideas to
commercialize. These venture capitalists are themselves
intermediaries between limited partners who provide the capital and
the innovators who use that capital to create, develop, produce, and
market new products and services.
Physical proximity between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs
is often critical. Steven Quake, Professor of Bioengineering at
Stanford and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute, explained that one of the companies he helped found grew
from a boat ride with a college friend who wanted to leave his
position in a large company and become an entrepreneur. Though
they had great difficulty raising money because of a slump in
venture capital funding for biotechnology, they eventually were
connected with an angel investor by the technology transfer office at
the California Institute of Technology. That initial investment led to
future investments and, as the venture capital market for
biotechnology recovered, “the VCs were calling us,” said Quake.
However, other companies that Quake helped found have different
roots. In one case, venture capitalists who had read his scientific
papers contacted him about the ideas they contained. The investors
in this case brought in a chief executive officer to provide expertise
in running the company. In another case, a large company funded a
startup to the point where a decision could be made about whether
or not to acquire the company, which is becoming a popular model
in the pharmaceutical industry, according to Quake.
Since the bursting of the dot-com bubble in the year 2000, the
venture capital industry has gone in new directions, according to
Michael Borrus, Founding/Managing General Partner at X/Seed
Capital Management. For example, venture capitalists have made
poor returns on investments in hardware since then, and they have
reduced their investments accordingly. As a result, a crunch has
emerged in the funding of hardware development, raising the
question of how America can maintain its leadership position in
hardware when other governments are willing to nurture their
hardware industries. (Chapter 4 looks at shifts in investment
priorities in greater detail.)
Venture capital also has reacted to changes in the distribution of
success. For example, John Hennessy, the President of Stanford
University, pointed out that the information technology industry has
become more bimodal in its success rates, with a smaller percentage
of companies succeeding. In the past, perhaps 70 percent of the
spinoffs from Stanford in the information technology sector got to
the breakeven point, he said. Today the percentage is much smaller
-- perhaps 30 percent. Investors seem to be searching for the
occasional company that produces very large returns, even if small
investments are lost in the majority of startups. “If you get a Google
or Facebook, you pay off the last four funds with one company,”
Hennessy said. He also noted that, as venture capital firms have
matured, an angel investor network has developed in Silicon Valley
that devotes time, energy, and capital to small companies.
Borrus described his small venture capital company as an example
of some of the trends affecting the industry. His first investment fund
was divided roughly equally among three sectors: the life sciences;
energy and resources; and information technology, which includes
both hardware and predictive analytics (i.e., what has come to be
known as “big data”). A more recent and larger fund is devoted
almost exclusively to information technology, despite Borrus’s
interest in technology across the board. But ecosystems that support
the commercialization of innovations that require long timeframes
and large amounts of capital in areas such as the life sciences and
energy are in “disarray,” he said.
X/Seed is typically the first institutional investor in the
technologies it supports, though other funds and angel investors also
may be involved. But many of the companies in which it invests
eventually need larger pools of follow-on capital from larger venture
funds or other sources. In some fields, including energy and the life
sciences, sources of follow-on capital have largely dried up. “There
aren’t very many life science venture funds that have raised capital
in the last 18 months,” Borrus said. And without follow-on investors,
the company in which he invests can become stranded.
The venture capital industry is based on the idea of profiting from
risk. But it also points to one more aspect of culture that was
discussed by several participants at the workshop: the willingness to
accept failure. In many other countries, acceptance of failure is
much more limited, which constrains the ability to invest in risky
ideas.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE

Technology transfer is a misnomer, said Hennessy. Technologies

generally are not transferred from one institution to another, such as
from a university to a company. Rather, people are transferred, and
those people bring ideas and experience with them or the ability to
innovate if provided with the opportunity to do so. For example,
some of the greatest success stories of Silicon Valley involved the
transfer of people from Stanford, said Hennessy, including William
Hewlitt and David Packard (the founders of Hewlitt-Packard), Jerry
Yang and David Filo (the founders of Yahoo!), and Larry Page and
Sergey Brin (the founders of Google). Other successful innovators
who have contributed to the success of Silicon Valley have come
from the University of California, Berkeley, from the University of
California, San Francisco, and from companies and other institutions
throughout the Bay Area.
The transfer of technology often takes place through the creation
of small startup companies that attract talented and experienced
innovators. Small companies can turn an invention into a working
prototype, build customer interest, and take a technology to scale or
be acquired by a larger company that can do so, Hennessy
observed. In that way, they function as a bridge between academia
and industry. Transferring technology directly to a large company
tends to be much more difficult. When a new product starts
generating profits for a large company, it may change the bottom
line for that company very little. Also, a fundamentally new
technology may threaten an existing product line or business. Large
companies even may kill an internal development project that
threatens an existing business only to see that business undermined
by a small startup company anyway.

THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPERIENCE

A final element of success that workshop participants discussed is

experience. Among the great advantages of Silicon Valley are the
number and experience of its entrepreneurs, said Borrus. For more
than 40 years, entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley have been learning
how to build high-growth companies, often with venture-backed
funding. They have had experience not only with university research
but with research and development in companies, from which many
innovative ideas emerge. People know how to start and run small
businesses, which is a very different experience than being part of a
large company. Many people have connections with both universities
and with industry, and these dual affiliations are a prominent part of
the Silicon Valley culture that can be difficult to replicate elsewhere.
People also are willing to move among institutions and sectors,
thereby bringing their experience to new endeavors.
University faculty may be smart and creative, Hennessy said, but
many have no idea of what it means to deliver a product to the
world, how to set up and run a company, how to handle sales and
marketing, and so on. Engineers with a new invention tend to see
the glass as half full, but they often need help convincing potential
investors that the glass is not in fact half empty, Yi Cui, Associate
Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at
Stanford University, agreed. They need to learn management skills
or hire people with those skills to be successful. In such cases, a
small company may need to learn how to work with a large
company, especially in areas such as energy that require large
investments. That is one key to Silicon’s valley success, said
Hennessy -- each successful company creates a group of skilled and
experienced people who then can train the next generation of
successful entrepreneurs.
As Mowery pointed out, managerial talent may be less mobile
geographically than capital or labor. “Part of what you develop as a
venture capitalist is a good Rolodex of people within 50 miles, and
that talent is a very important part of what VCs are bringing to these
new firms, especially new firms founded by relatively inexperienced
entrepreneurs in their first spinouts.” Small companies may even
move from other countries to take advantage of the managerial
expertise in the United States.
 3

Differences Among Technologies

A prominent topic of discussion at the workshop in Silicon Valley

was the differences among technological fields. Frequently discussed
points are highlighted in Box 3-1.

Box 3-1
Differences across Sectors and Technologies
• Innovation can be understood better when in its particular
context. Very few generalizations can be made that apply
equally to software, computer hardware, medical devices,
pharmaceuticals, energy production equipment, etc.
• The time cycle of bringing a product to market benefits some
areas of innovation and impairs others.
• One common weakness of universities is a reluctance to
make hard decisions about shutting down unproductive
projects.
• There is existing and increasing concern about the
biomedical sector.
• Regulation has a significant influence on innovation.
• Venture capital undergoes dramatic fluctuations by field.
• Open research – particularly at the precompetitive level –
has been valuable and generally preferable for some sectors.

Innovators in information technology, biotechnology, and energy

technologies, which were the three sectors discussed in detail at the
California workshop, face very different circumstances with regard to
such factors as financial demands, time to product, and intellectual
property protection. These differences call for nuanced policy
approaches, as described in the final chapter of this workshop
summary.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

David Hodges, professor of electrical engineering and computer

sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, described two
university-based information technology projects as examples of
innovations that have produced large returns in the past. The first
involves a program called SPICE, for Simulation Program with
Integrated Circuit Emphasis, which was inaugurated by Hodges’
doctoral adviser Donald Pederson in the 1970s. SPICE is an
electronic circuit simulator that is used to design circuits and
examine their behavior. “It was a huge success and had a high
impact,” said Hodges, and 40 years later it is still the preferred tool
for its purpose.
The project was based on complete openness, said Hodges. It had
no patents or non-disclosure agreements, and its copyright
agreement said that others were free to use the program so long as
they acknowledged its source. As a result of the project’s openness,
industry initially was not much interested in SPICE, but the program
was adopted by Hewlett-Packard and Tektronix for use in the design
of chips for their own instruments. Faculty members, students,
interns, and company personnel participated in the project, and they
brought their experience with the program to subsequent endeavors
in academia, industry, and government.
The second technology Hodges described was Reduced Instruction
Set Computing (RISC), a term coined by David Patterson at Berkeley,
who was one of the developers of the technology. This technology,
too, was developed on an open basis, with the developers at
Berkeley inviting representatives of computer companies to come
talk about the technology so long as the conversations were not
secret or proprietary. According to Hodges, participants at those
meetings would say, “Wow, I learned so much from those other
guys’ questions.” Today, cell phones and many other devices have
RISC chips, and many successful companies have emerged from the
development of the technology.
“I’m advocating for the model where you say, ‘Let’s have the
maximum free exchange of ideas,’” Hodges concluded. “There are
lots of ways for innovation to occur, and universities are in a unique
position to create [an open] environment. . . .You would have a far
inferior research environment if you shut down the free exchange of
ideas.”

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES

In contrast to the information technology sector, which remains a

hotbed of innovation, the innovation model in the life sciences is
“deeply broken,” according to Hennessy. Information technologies
are generally well along the path to commercialization once a
company is spun off to develop that technology. The question then
becomes whether the company can build a team to get the
technology to market while the window is open for that technology.
(Another question is whether, as Hennessy put it, the “dogs will eat
the dogfood”—in other words, will the technology be used by the
people at whom it is aimed?) With the life sciences, however, many
innovations have not yet been developed to the point that they work
reliably when startup companies are formed. Both Edward Penhoet,
co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Chiron, and William
Rutter, co-founder of Chiron and professor emeritus at the University
of California, San Francisco, pointed out that as a result, the
development those companies are doing is too often at a
fundamental level. Startup companies need to focus on getting a
product out the door so they can get a second product out the door,
Hennessy said. They cannot afford to devote their resources to
research.
Development also tends to be much more expensive and take
longer in the life sciences than in other fields. The money needed to
fund a startup information technology company can be barely
enough to rent laboratory space for a biotechnology company. And
the development of a product can take longer than venture
capitalists or other sources of support may be willing to wait.
Several participants pointed out that because of these obstacles to
innovation, the biotechnology and medical technology fields have
been emphasizing short-term incremental improvements in products
rather than major innovations. Yet major innovations are needed to
support the investments required to develop products in these field.
In addition, medical technologies suffer because the markets for
such products are smaller than for pharmaceuticals but the costs
and time needed to bring such products to market also are
increasing.
Great diversity also exists within individual fields of technology,
and this diversity sometimes can be leveraged to foster innovation.
For example, Rutter described his involvement in Synergenics, which
essentially consists of eight different, linked biotechnology
companies that are pursuing a variety of long-term and short-term
projects. Each of the companies is independent and has its own
intellectual property, but they also engage in a great deal of
interchange so that they can benefit from each other. Facilities and
even personnel can be shared while executive overhead is
minimized. Having more than one company within an overarching
structure also makes it easier both to start a new company and to
shut down an existing one.

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

A technological sector with different attributes on many of these

measures than either information technologies or biotechnologies is
energy technology—and specifically battery technology was
discussed at the workshop.
When Yi Cui began doing research on batteries in 2005, interest in
the topic was at a low ebb. But Cui perceived a need for better
batteries, and he believed that he could bring his expertise in
nanomaterials to problems in the battery field. For his first few years
at Stanford, he had trouble interesting others in battery technology
and getting grants for research on energy storage. But starting in
2008, attitudes began to change, and batteries became a hot
technology. Though his university colleagues advised Cui to get
tenure first, he became interested in commercializing the
technologies he was researching. He began talking with venture
capitalists and eventually co-founded the company Amprius, which
has been working to build batteries that use nanowires to yield
greatly expanded capacity and recharging capabilities.
Battery technologies face some of the same problems as
technologies in the life sciences, Cui observed. For example, most
venture capitalists would like to see a return within four years or
less, if possible. But many battery technologies take substantially
longer than that amount of time to develop, which increases the
difficulty of securing venture capital or other sources of support.
Battery technologies also can be expensive to develop, which can
lead innovators to look for ways to stretch available funding. For
example, Cui pointed out that the money that it takes to support a
startup company in the United States for two days can support a
comparable company in China for a month. He also pointed out that
refusing to make these investments can be immensely shortsighted
because of the huge returns some innovations can produce. As an
example, he pointed to a study released in 2012 estimating that
companies formed by Stanford entrepreneurs generate world
revenues of $2.7 trillion annually and have created 5.4 million jobs
since the 1930s.4

IS INNOVATION GETTING HARDER?

Workshop participants also discussed the intriguing debate

currently under way about whether innovation is becoming more
difficult. Mowery pointed out that a body of primarily economic
research contends that it is. Inventors are producing their most
important contributions to knowledge at an advancing age across
different fields of research, which points to the increasing need to
amass a large body of knowledge and experience to make a
significant innovative contribution. The number of authors on
research papers and contributors to patents also is growing,
suggesting that innovation requires larger and more complex
undertakings than in the past. Meanwhile, key indicators, such as
the number of new drugs or new chemical entities being produced,
are trending downward. Even Moore’s law—that the power of
computer chips doubles approximately every eighteen months—is
running up against physical limitations, and the pharmaceutical
industry is beginning to speak of Eroom’s law (Moore spelled
backwards), given that the absolute number of innovations and
return on investments in that industry appear to be declining over
time.
One important aspect of innovation is that economists and policy
makers cannot measure the output, Mowery said. They can only
measure the inputs—in terms of funding or investigators, for
example—and try to infer an output. But influential economists have
been arguing that a given set of inputs will produce fewer outputs in
the future (though Mowery said he had “no idea how they know
this”). This issue might be a good topic for COSEPUP or some other
group at the National Academies to investigate, he suggested.
Workshop participants also discussed other fundamental and long-
term impacts of technology. One possibility is that new technologies
are displacing employment in the United States, although this
concern also has surfaced periodically in the past (about every 25
years, Mowery noted). Treating unemployment at an aggregate level
also glosses over the underlying dynamics. For example, Mowery
pointed out that additive manufacturing—or as it is sometimes
called, 3D printing—could create a demand for workers with skills
that U.S. schools are not producing. In addition, private sector
employment has recovered from the recession that started in 2008
at about the same pace as after previous recessions, but public
sector employment has lagged.
Technology also may be having an impact on the growing
economic inequality in industrialized countries, Mowery said. Again, a
workshop on the links between innovation, unemployment, and
inequality could explore how these factors are conceptualized,
measured, and interconnected.
___________________
4 Charles E. Eesley and William F. Miller. 2012. Stanford University’s Economic Impact via
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Available at
http://engineering.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Stanford_Alumni_Innovation_Survey_Rep
ort_102 412_1.pdf.
 4

The Roles of Universities

Universities are important sources of many of the new ideas in

science and technology that contribute to innovation in the United
States. By producing new knowledge and exposing students to that
knowledge, they not only generate new ideas but prepare
knowledgeable, inventive, and motivated graduates who can carry
those ideas into businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and
governments. In addition, faculty members sometimes play a direct
role by consulting with existing companies or even starting their own
companies. A majority of the first workshop was devoted to
considering the role of universities in the innovation ecosystem.
Some of the common themes are cited in Box 4-1.

Box 4-1
The Role of the University
• The culture of a university influences its success in producing
innovation and can influence the culture of a region.
• A university does not merely prepare young people for the
wide variety of roles in an innovative economy; its higher
mission is to “discover and invent the future.”
• The technology transfer policies of universities may be in
need of rigorous review and assessment.
• Universities might benefit from examining the rules
governing the amount of time faculty can devote to outside
activity.
 • Faculty members and students can have conflicts of interest
and conflicts of commitment that need to be understood and
properly managed.

THE PREPARATION OF STUDENTS

The most important product of universities, said several workshop

participants, is educated students. These students include not just
the founders of new companies but the employees and customers of
those companies. The first few hires for a startup are critical, said
Hennessy, but the next one hundred or one thousand people a
company hires are also important for its success.
Universities should not be farm teams for industry, Hennessy said;
they should not be engaged in designing the next product for a
company’s line. Instead, they should seek the discontinuous
innovations that create or transform an industry while teaching their
students how to think critically and creatively. The job of a university
is to “discover and invent the future,” Hennessy said—in part
through research, in part through education, and in part through
active efforts to move university-derived ideas into industry.
Investments by governments at all levels are essential if
universities are to fulfill these missions. Eli Yablonovitch, director of
the NSF Center for Energy Efficient Electronics Science at Berkeley,
once calculated how much the government had invested in his
education and concluded that the total was close to a million dollars.
Furthermore, even after graduating, he had access to good jobs and
good organizations where he was able to develop his expertise. “The
human capital aspect is gigantic,” he said.

THE TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY TO INDUSTRY

Many universities have created offices to foster the transfer and

licensing of technologies developed by faculty members and
students to industry. These offices can establish beneficial
relationships with individuals and organizations outside universities.
As Borrus said, “If you build a relationship there, it’s like any other
walk of life, you can get things done.”
Several speakers at the workshop also discussed problems with
these offices and ways in which they could function more effectively.
Mowery pointed out that technology transfer offices often have
competing mandates. The university president sets one set of goals,
licensing officers are evaluated on a different set of criteria, and
state legislators mandate yet another set of objectives. Many
participants pointed out that this reflects the fact that universities
have multiple objectives that they want to achieve through
technology licensing, including regional development, revenue
generation, and recruiting and retaining faculty (for example, by
supporting faculty spinoff companies), and these objectives are
rarely prioritized. At the same time, technology licensing offices
often are evaluated solely by the amount of revenue they generate,
which creates the wrong incentives and can disrupt the academic
environment and culture, thus suppressing interactions with industry
rather than fostering them.
The revenue generated from technology licensing tends to be
featured in publications from a university and talks by
administrators, but almost all the data on licensing revenues consist
of gross revenues. The net returns are much smaller after operating
expenses and other liabilities are subtracted, said Mowery. With a
few exceptions, such as Stanford, the net licensing revenues are
much smaller than the amount of industry-sponsored research at a
university. This creates a tension between using licensing policy to
maximize revenue and using licensing policy to develop broader
relationships with industry.
Mowery pointed toward “an astonishing lack of experimentation”
by universities of different ways of organizing their relationships with
industry. As an example of such experimentation, he pointed to the
University of California system, where faculty members have the
option of not working with the technology licensing office. Instead of
patenting an invention, they can put it in the public domain and seek
benefits from exchanges with people who want to discuss an
innovation and make a product based on that idea. This does not
work in all fields of technology, and administrators may lament
potential losses of revenue, but in some areas it is a valuable
alternative to technology licensing.
Many universities have tried to emulate the licensing successes of
Stanford when in fact they are very different kinds of institutions,
said Mowery. The heterogeneity of U.S. higher education has always
been one of its strengths and creates opportunities for
experimentation. In addition, collaboration among different types of
colleges and universities offers the potential to increase benefits and
reduce costs.
Even at universities that have had great successes with technology
licensing, the returns can be deceptive. The current chairman of
COSEPUP, Richard Zare, the Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor in
Natural Science at Stanford, said that he had looked at the greatest
returns to Stanford from licensing. The greatest single return came
from patents that Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer were granted on
the recombinant DNA techniques they pioneered. The second
biggest return came from the School of Music for the invention of
technologies used in the Yamaha synthesizer. The third largest return
was for licensing of the Stanford logo.
Zare insisted that Stanford graduates return much more to the
university than does its licensing. “It’s not Hewlett-Packard but
Hewlett and Packard individually and their families who have given
money back to Stanford.” As Hennessy said, the philanthropy from
Hewlett and Packard to Stanford dwarfed any licensing fee that
could have been charged for the discoveries they used to start their
company.
Some workshop participants made the case that technology
licensing offices can be counterproductive if they cause negotiations
to be so complex that agreements are scuttled. They also pointed to
the negative consequences of a belief widespread among state
legislators that licensing offices could produce abundant resources
for universities, which then could displace government funding. Even
senior university officials and technology licensing officers sometimes
have a “somewhat naïve view” that all areas of technology have the
potential to create successes that in the past have occurred in just a
few particular circumstances. In fact, the objectives of technology
licensing offices are much broader. These offices can forge
connections with industry, help faculty members move their ideas
beyond the walls of the university, and support regional and national
economies.
Participants also mentioned other ways some universities
accelerate the transfer of technology to industry where commercially
promising ideas or technologies can be developed, either within
academic or commercial settings, such as incubators, accelerators,
or proof-of-concept centers. These institutions can have different
characteristics depending on the technology they are fostering. For
example, the biotechnology sector requires expensive access to
laboratories, equipment, and staff, while the information technology
sector may require much smaller investments. Hennessy described
one approach Stanford has pursued to support student-driven
innovations for three to six months to see if they can be developed
to the point where they would attract commercial interest or the
interest of a venture capital firm or angel investor. It remains an
interesting educational experience for the students with a very
minimal investment, Hennessy observed. For example, he mentioned
a group of students who were working on a way for students to pay
each other money using their phones. The students got money to
spend three months working on the project, and they lived in a
house together and spent 12 hours a day working to see what the
technology could do. It cost $5,000 to support the students, and
they had an educational experience that resulted in a potential
business opportunity.
The biggest problem with incubators, according to Hennessy, is
that they need to be shut down if they are not producing results,
and shutting them down can be difficult. “You give them a hard
deadline and say, go out and get funding by this deadline or you are
out.” The history of incubators at universities is not promising,
because they often require that university staff members shut down
projects led by faculty members. “You could do it and make it work,
but it would take tough love,” said Hennessy. One possibility
suggested by Zare would be to have the industrial part of an
incubator report directly to the administration of a university and be
judged over a five-year time frame rather than on a year-to-year
basis. Another possibility, suggested at the second workshop on
research parks, would be for an industrial park to be part of a
university-government entity that could take equity in early start-up
companies.

THE ROLES OF FACULTY MEMBERS

Faculty members transfer technology directly to industry when

they help start new companies or consult with existing companies.5
For example, Yablonovitch described the four companies he helped
start beginning in 2000. Yablonovitch remained a professor at
Berkeley even as he was forming his companies. He said that his job
was to conceive of a valid business idea and then hire the technical
team. The team ran the company, while he served on the boards of
the company. This approach has worked well in the past, he said,
though it may not be the right model for all sectors.
Yablonovitch said that he has always favored business ideas that
have a strong scientific component. This can be problematic, he
admitted, in that society wants its needs to be fulfilled. Researchers,
in contrast, are often interested in ideas that are different, elegant,
or clever, but “society didn’t ask for that. There’s a bit of conflict
there, and sometimes you end up being too far ahead or not
focusing on basics, where there is money to be made just doing the
basics.”
His first company, Ethertronics, was established to pursue new
designs for cell phone antennas. Initially the company secured a
patent on a promising design, but the patent turned out to be less
useful than anticipated. For four years the company worked on new
ideas with few returns until a “deeper understanding of Maxwell’s
equations” led to a radically new antenna concept that increased
efficiencies from approximately 33 percent to 50 percent. At the time
of the workshop, the company had shipped 700 million antennas,
most of which are still in operating phones, meaning that about one-
tenth of humanity is using the technology. But the company has not
been as profitable as might be expected, because it has relatively
few customers, and the customers are able to dictate the price they
will pay for the antennas. “It’s certainly a technical success and has
impacted society, but it hasn’t made that much money.”
Luxtera, which is a pioneering company in silicon photonics,
originated when a venture capitalist came to Yablonovitch and
expressed interest in starting a photonics company. Though
Yablonovitch was worried that the technology was not yet developed
enough for commercialization, he started the company and began
developing a silicon chip that included optical components as well as
semiconductor components. The initial product was a cable that
converts electronic signals to photonic signals, which travel along a
fiber optic strand until they are converted back into electronic signals
on the other end of the cable. The cable is much faster than a USB
cable and has attracted the attention of people who run
supercomputers and large data centers.
A major issue in this case, said Yablonovitch, is that many
companies have become involved in this area, and each has taken a
slightly different approach to the technology. At this point it is
difficult to say which approach is best. Luxtera therefore could
become known as the company that pioneered the technology, but
another company might end up making more money from the
technology.
A third company, developed with a mathematician at the
University of California, Los Angeles, creates the patterns for
photolithography to manufacture sub-wavelength features on silicon
wafers. These patterns are not at all intuitive, because when light
shines through them it creates a quite different pattern on the
substrate. The business model was therefore to provide the patterns
to semiconductor manufacturers that wanted to build semiconductor
chips. Furthermore, because the patterns are not unique, as typically
happens with mathematical problems involving inverse
transformations, the patterns can be engineered to be insensitive to
errors in depth of field, easier to manufacture, and so on.
The technology was successful, and it ended up being particularly
useful for chips that contain repetitive elements, such as memory
chips. However, this company also had relatively few customers,
which meant that it had relatively little power to set prices.
Eventually, the part of the company making the inverse patterns was
sold to another company.
Finally, Yablonovitch’s fourth company, AltaDevices, has broken the
world record for solar-cell efficiency, taking it from 25.1 percent to
28.8 percent efficiency. The technology is based on the idea that a
solar cell achieves its highest efficiency when it emits a small
amount of light, which was “very counterintuitive,” said Yablonovitch.
Today the cells are being used in applications like space satellites,
and an inexpensive way of producing the cells could lead to a much
broader range of applications.
However, solar cell technologies also have run into problems
because of the large government subsidies that other countries, and
especially China, have devoted to this area. Interest-free loans,
production subsidies, and other governmental investments have
driven the price of conventional solar cells down to a level where
they cannot be profitably manufactured without subsidies. As a
result, said Yablonovitch, “all the competing technologies are losing
their shirts. . . . No matter how good your technology is, you can’t
deal with a heavily subsidized competitor.” In addition, ill-advised
overinvestment by U.S. venture capitalists in the first decade of the
century have scared current investors away from the field.
Today, China is overproducing the world’s needs for solar cells by a
factor of two, said Yablonovitch, and the subsidies appear likely to
continue for years. “Even if you have good technology and you are
successful technically, the market conditions have changed.” Other
countries seem to be willing to make investments in the field even
though they know they will lose money. But they hope eventually to
gain a powerful market position. As a result, in the future innovators
may need to go to Asia to secure investment funds, just as they
once came to the venture capitalists clustered around Stanford to
seek funding. And will the federal government continue to invest
money in research if the companies based on that research end up
going offshore, Yablonovitch asked. “These are very vexing issues
for which I don’t have answers.”
 Traditionally, faculty members have been allowed one day a week
for work on outside projects. Workshop participants discussed
whether these guidelines should be modified to give university
innovators more time to work on commercializing an idea. However,
Hennessy warned against 50-50 splits. It would be better for a
professor to take a leave from the university to work on an outside
project, possibly while spending a limited amount of time
maintaining ties with a university. However, leaves typically have to
be accompanied by a time limit, since otherwise they can drag on for
technologies that are proving difficult or time consuming to develop.
If people decide that they need to stay with a company once a time
limit is reached, they can break their ties with the university, and if
they are successful, they may be able to rejoin the faculty later. “I’m
fairly flexible with respect to that,” said Hennessy.
Mowery said that he is skeptical about efforts to use institutional
resources to turn faculty into entrepreneurs. Faculty should certainty
not be discouraged from engaging in innovation activities and should
be supported when they do, but evaluating faculty on the basis of
these activities is not a good idea, he said. An evaluation based on
patents obtained, for example, would certainty generate more
patenting, but “patenting is not necessarily a way of either
supporting technology transfer or of reducing the operating
expenses of a technology transfer office.” Many faculty members
would not be good industrial managers. In fact, access to outside
managerial talent is an important contribution that venture
capitalists bring to the interface. “Trying to fit faculty who may or
may not be square into square boxes is very much to be avoided.”

___________________
5 It should be noted that, although the participants did not discuss it explicitly,
throughout their discussions they implicitly acknowledged that the freedom given to
individual faculty members to explore, coupled with a culture in which failure is at least
occasionally acceptable, is a striking component of the U.S. research and innovation
system.
 5

The Role of Research Parks

Over the course of the discussions that occurred at the first

workshop in February, many participants and COSEPUP members
noted that it is important to consider regional and institutional
cultures. Specifically, they observed that universities and private
companies have very different cultures and that a major challenge is
to understand and deal with the differences. One way to bridge the
gap is to create intermediary institutions—research parks—that are a
hybrid of university and company cultures.
To investigate these multifaceted enterprises further, COSEPUP
determined that an additional, smaller set of discussions should be
held in Washington, DC, with experts experienced in many aspects
of research park creation, promotion, management, and utilization.
This chapter focuses on the discussion from those panels, with some
of the more frequently mentioned topics listed in Box 5-1.

Box 5-1
The Role of the Research Parks
• Research parks are important institutions for filling in some
of the gaps between research institutions and industry.
• Research parks help regions turn their investment in
education into good jobs and economic productivity.
• Significant variety exists among research parks.
• Research parks need external support.
• Formation of research parks has continued at rapid pace and
has spread quickly internationally.
• Research parks are not necessary to develop research
capacity. However, they can stimulate the economy by
 enhancing research capacity enough to support higher-value
activities and attract business investment.
• Research parks benefit from evolving and responding to
competition.
• Scale matters.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PARTS OF THE SYSTEM

Research parks are numerous and vary in composition and

operation. Charles Wessner, the associate director of Board on
Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) at the National
Academy of Sciences, quoted Professor Al Link’s observation that “If
you’ve seen one research park, you’ve seen one research park.”
Nevertheless, Wessner noted that during the more than 20 years
STEP has been studying research parks a common mission has
emerged: they help regions turn their investment in education into
good jobs and economic productivity.
The first parks were created in the 1950s by universities that saw
a need for a middle ground where researchers with commercially
promising ideas could work with business and financial experts to
develop ideas into products. Research parks have proliferated since.
Universities have been the most prevalent sponsors, but national
labs and state governments have also launched parks. Eileen Walker,
the executive director of the Association of University Research
Parks, explained that the growth in the number of parks has actually
accelerated in the past decade, and parks have also become
common in Europe and Asia. Worldwide, there are now over 460
research parks with a total of more than 380,000 employees.
Walker pointed to three primary objectives for research parks: to
“create an environment that encourages innovation,” “offer industry
access for faculty and students,” and “serve as a landing pad for
industry recruitment.” Each park, however, must adapt to local and
regional strengths and goals.
 The representatives of the parks who participated in the workshop
provided ample evidence that this is true. On one end of the
spectrum, John Hardin, the executive director of the North Carolina
Board of Science and Technology, explained that Research Triangle
Park has 170 companies with 40,000 employees. At the other
extreme, Lewis Branscomb, co-founder of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA), pointed out that JILA is actually a
virtual organization with no employees. Instead, it provides a place
where hundreds of researchers who work for the University of
Colorado at Boulder or the National Institute of Standards and
Technology can work side by side or together.

TYPES OF RESEARCH PARKS

The significant variation among research parks was described by

representatives from a number of the parks themselves.
Research Triangle Park (RTP), founded in 1959, was among the
first and is perhaps the world’s best known research park. Hardin
told COSEPUP that it was a “highly ambitious ‘big bet’ that served as
a catalyst for assembling and aligning the knowledge resources and
business climate attributes to create opportunities for the people of
North Carolina.” Cited as one of the best gambles taken by a state,
according to Hardin, it was intended to link Duke University in
Durham, North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and utilize a local airport
in an originally low-population, primarily farmland region. As
Branscomb noted, while RTP might not be known for cutting edge
innovations, its regional economic impact cannot be overstated.
Known primarily for its success in attracting large companies such
as IBM, RTP has actually drawn a much more diverse clientele. Over
60 percent of RTP’s 170 companies have fewer than 25 employees.
The vast majority of companies (about 82 percent) are involved in
scientific industries, with the preponderance of those in the life
sciences.
Research parks in general work primarily with established
companies, but some also include incubator programs designed to
help entrepreneurs launch new companies. RTP, for example, has six
start-up incubators, but this is a relatively small part of the
operation. There are also SBIR and STTR matching grant programs
across the state of North Carolina, as well as other, sector-specific
networking and mentoring programs. Even with all of these supports
in place, Hardin admitted that, for small new companies, “it is easier
to fail than to succeed.”
Indeed, in the past decade RTP has seen a slowdown in
employment growth. As a state, North Carolina has seen a fall in per
capita income as compared to the U.S. average. To address these
concerns, the North Carolina Department of Commerce is
undertaking a revitalization effort for RTP, said Hardin. This plan—
which involves development of support infrastructure like service
industry and public transportation within RTP as well as changes to
local zoning laws—highlighted the fact that research parks must
provide both hard infrastructure of transportation and
communications and soft infrastructure of education and cultural
amenities.
The situation in Maryland is slightly different. “Research parks are
where academic culture meets corporate culture,” said Brian
Darmody, the Associate Vice President for Research and Economic
Development and the Director of Corporate Relations for University
of Maryland (UMD) and the Special Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Technology Development for the University System of Maryland,
although he described his position as the “Director of University-
Corporate Happiness.” Because of the unique position of all the
different players in and around the University of Maryland, Darmody
stressed the opportunities research parks there provide to both
entrepreneurs and local federal agencies.
One of the major functions of research parks that Darmody
mentioned was helping universities overcome innovation barriers by
explaining and navigating compliance regulations. He noted that
entrepreneurs tend to be non-compliant people, which is why they
are innovators. One example he gave was if a project needed
classified research that must be done off campus: a research park
could provide the space. In addition, to work with industry,
university entrepreneurs must branch across departmental barriers
because industry representatives want to work with only one office.
This actually has a benefit for the research community on campus by
“breaking down silos” that form between fields.
In addition to these standard industry-university relations, UMD
research parks also provide and receive unique opportunities from
the high density of local federal facilities. The University of Maryland
has many nearby federal institutions, including National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental
Prediction, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s
Goddard Space Flight Center, the Department of Defense funded
Center for Advanced Study of Language, and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
One example of the symbiotic federal relationship that he pointed
to was the FDA’s international training program in food safety held at
the research park. He explained that because of the global nature of
the market, the best way to ensure food safety is to encourage other
countries to adopt FDA standards via lab-based training. However,
the federal nature of the FDA’s lab restricts foreigners from attending
the campus. The UMD Park provides a geographically proximal
middle ground where the training can be done by FDA staff using
the appropriate equipment, with the added benefit of stimulating the
local economy through hotel and travel accommodations.
The interactions with the federal agencies are not one-way streets,
and UMD has benefited from federal programs such as the National
Science Foundation’s Innovation Corps programs, which aim to move
new ideas out of the lab and into practice.
Federal laboratories have also set up research parks. In 1998,
Sandia National Laboratory turned to the National Academy of
Sciences to help it plan a new research park. Jackie Kerby Moore,
Executive Director of Sandia Science and Technology Park (SS&TP),
explained that the original vision was to create “a place that would
serve as a partnership tool for Sandia by providing direct access to
industry science and technology to further the labs’ mission.”
Initially, Kerby Moore explained, SS&TP’s purpose was to serve
Sandia by bringing new ideas to the lab and marketing products
developed by researchers at the lab, as well as providing individuals
access to some otherwise inaccessible parts of the lab. It is now an
internationally recognized, master-planned system, and while Sandia
does not own any of the land on which the park is housed, it is in
charge of the daily management, executive overview, and vision.
The park has received many awards over the years, including the
Outstanding Research Park of the Year from the Association of
University Research Parks, the Outstanding State and Local
Economic Development from the Federal Laboratory Consortium, the
Technology-Led Economic Development Award from the U.S.
Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration,
and the Partnership Award from the International Economic
Development Council.
Kerby Moore cited a couple of specific success stories that
developed from SS&TP. EMCORE, a company that produces solar
photovoltaic cells, moved to New Mexico from New Jersey after
working with the park and licensing technologies from the labs. The
CEO is a former Sandia employee with a background in photovoltaic
cell research. The company recently opened a 17-acre solar farm in
the park. TEAM Technologies, which was already based in the park,
wanted to expand its operations. It licensed “Stingray,” an
improvised explosive device detection technology, from Sandia and
has manufactured and shipped over 7,000 units to Afghanistan.
The park has also allowed Sandia to move some user facilities
such as the Computer Science Research Institute, the Cyber
Engineering Research Laboratory, and the Center for Integrated
Nanotechnologies off campus, opening them up to even more users.
Kerby Moore explained that Sandia is very interested in creating
an “incubator-like space” or a proof of concept program. Originally,
this was not part of the design of the park because the need was not
seen as pressing. The University of New Mexico (UNM) already had
an incubator. But UNM had very little land, whereas SS&TP had
plenty. The two institutions started to work collaboratively to foster
new companies. Kerby Moore clarified that SS&TP is continuing to
explore new ways to increase technology transfer income.
 Sandia National Labs is not the only national laboratory that has
set up a research park. Kerby Moore and Wessner named multiple
facilities such as NASA’s Research Park at NASA Ames, Oak Ridge
Science & Technology Park at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and
the Livermore Valley Open Campus, which is associated with
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Sandia National
Laboratories California site.6
Perhaps the most unusual research park arrangement was
discussed by Lewis Branscomb. The Joint Institute for Laboratory
Astrophysics (JILA) in Colorado is actually only an agreement
between the University of Colorado at Boulder and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to share a common
geographic location and set of expertise. JILA has no employees, but
researchers from both the university and NIST work at the institute.
The university owns the land and the facilities, but NIST rents half;
NIST provides the instrumentation and funds research staff. Most of
the research grants, however, come through the university
researchers. The park is guided by a group of JILA fellows who strive
to ensure that the collaboration is mutually beneficial. Branscomb
stated that this was not a particularly difficult task because both
partners are highly motivated to perform excellent research.
Eileen Walker provided examples of other successful research
parks that had developed their own modes of operation. The
Cummings Research Park in Huntsville, Alabama, has 285 companies
with 25,000 employees on an 11 million square foot park. The focus
is mainly on aeronautics, due to its association with NASA’s Marshall
space flight center and United States Army’s Redstone Arsenal, but
some biotechnology firms are also present. Clemson University’s
International Center for Automotive Research was started when
BMW asked the university to develop a program and facilities for
automotive research. More traditionally, both Purdue University and
the University of Wisconsin, Madison, have research parks that were
developed to capitalize on their traditional research strengths—
engineering for Purdue and biotechnology for Wisconsin.
 Wessner also provided some examples of research parks with
which STEP had interacted. In particular, he described the Tech
Valley Cluster in Albany, New York, a joint investment by the state of
New York and IBM in the College of Nanoscale Sciences and
Engineering of State University of New York, Albany. The intended
goal is to develop a full workforce pathway in the nanoscale sciences
and technologies. Wessner reminded the workshop attendees that,
when thinking about parks from a university perspective, the
investment is to benefit everyone; “It is important for academia to
remember that it is not just investing in the university alone: you
need to invest in the whole network. And to the extent that you can
work through those shared facilities, and perhaps more importantly,
common purpose, you can do better.”
Many of the participants identified networking and cultural
exchange as major benefits of research parks and described
programs designed to facilitate mentoring, informal networking, and
the movement of personnel.
Kerby Moore described SS&TP’s Entrepreneurial Program, which
gives leave to Sandia employees for up to two years to start or
expand companies and guarantees their jobs upon return. Sandia is
also starting a retiree mentoring program at the request of some
former employees who wish to stay involved and provide guidance
to new companies.
Such formal systems, however, are not always necessary. Paul
Citron, a member of COSEPUP and former Vice President for
Technology Policy and Academic Relations of Medtronic, Inc., and
Lewis Branscomb mentioned high-innovation cities such as San
Diego and San Francisco where a culture of communication and
interaction took shape without institutional help. Branscomb pointed
out that “the ability of a community to take risks is crucial to
innovation.” The success of the innovation system in San Diego
illustrates that research parks are not essential to develop capacity,
but it provides an example of the type of innovation environment
that research parks can try to create. In general, the key to much of
the success of the U.S. innovation system is the willingness to accept
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Paula swam all day in uninterrupted bliss, for her longed for wish had come true, she at
last had a friend, and what a friend! Dora understood her inmost thoughts and
experiences, and was able to share everything with her. Paula, who all her life had looked
for a friend in vain, found the reality even more lovely than anything she had imagined.
Dora was too adorable a being for anyone to just invent. She, like her bosom friend,
regretted ever having to go to bed, and hated losing any of the precious time still left.

Rolf's studies in the matter of charades had taken on such a serious character, that he
could frequently be seen running up and down the garden paths with hands folded behind
his back. At such times, little Hun had to be kept out of his way, because Rolf had several
times actually run into the small boy and thrown him down.

Rolf enjoyed preparing his intricate charades for Mr. Titus, who was not only interested,
but apparently found great pleasure in Rolf's scholarly turn of mind. The learned man, by
being able to guess the most obscure historical names on the spot, urged the boy to
greater and more constant efforts, and besides awakened the lad's zeal for Latin by
composing rhymed charades in that language.

These were written down and were meant to be studied most carefully. Rolf read these
regularly to Jul and his father, but neither could ever guess them. His father had forgotten
his Latin too much for such work, while Jul was of the opinion that such useless exertions
were not healthy in the holidays. He had to keep his mental vigor undiminished till he took
up his own work at school again.

Rolf, on the contrary, puzzled and searched for the sense by looking through his Latin
dictionary and did not give up till he at last found the solution. This he would triumphantly
reveal to his father and Jul, and finally to Mr. Titus in the evening. The friendly man always
showed himself almost more pleased at Rolf's success, than the boy was himself, helping
him in that way to great progress in his Latin studies. He began these studies quite early in
the morning, and it seemed as if he could not imbibe enough knowledge.

Little Hun also passed very happy days. Whatever time and however often he came to
Dora and demanded her attention, she never pushed him aside nor ran away, but in the
most kindly manner entertained him, as if she herself found great pleasure in his company.
Mrs. Birkenfeld had begged Aunt Ninette to let Dora be free all morning and evening, and
let her sew in the afternoons, when the whole family was gathered under the apple tree.
Dora here realized that sewing shirts was a most pleasant occupation when one worked in
nice surroundings.

In that way, Hun had Dora to himself many hours of the day, when no one had time to
interfere. Dora had made a new riddle for her little friend, too, so he need not repeat his
old one of the nutcracker forever. He was determined to dish up charades to everybody,
and his triumph was complete, when no one in the house could solve it. Running
persistently from one to another, he was glad they could not say as before, "Go away, Hun,
and don't keep on repeating your stupid old charade." Every time they made a mistake, he
leaped for joy, and he and Dora pledged each other not to give anyone a clue.

"My first makes everybody cry!

My second some, then we deny
Ourselves to take the whole when it appears,
Because it nearly always does bring tears."

All had tried in vain to solve it.

Jul said it was "misdeed." Everybody cries when Miss Hanenwinkel comes to make them
work; and at the deeds, she makes them do some cry. And when a misdeed is
perpetrated, many denials result, especially when the twins are the criminals, in which
case, tears are always the end.

But Hun joyfully hopped about, crying, "You are wrong, you are wrong, Jul!"

Miss Hanenwinkel said, "It is music lesson. Music makes everybody cry. In the lesson,
many cry and many denials have to be made during the lessons."

"Wrong, wrong," cried the small boy, delighted.

"It is schoolroom," asserted Rolf.

"Aha, Rolf, you guessed wrong," Hun cried triumphantly.

"Couldn't it be bedtime?" said the mother. "All children cry in bed some time or other,
some cry when the time comes, and all deny bedtime has come."

"Mamma can't guess it, either; mamma doesn't know," jubilated the little fellow, leaping
about.

"It might be leave-taking," said the father. "Leave-taking makes everybody cry, taking
some children away makes some cry and at Dora's leave-taking, everybody is sorry."

"Papa can't guess it either, papa can't guess it!" rejoiced the small boy, jumping merrily
around the room, for it gave him the keenest pleasure that even his father had missed it.
The happy possessor of the great secret could still dash from one member of the family to
another and puzzle them all.

Rolf was much put out, that Hun's foolish charade should attract so much attention without
ever getting solved.

Relentlessly the days passed on.

"My dear Ninette," Uncle Titus said at breakfast one day, "we have only one more week,
but I think we ought to add two more weeks to our stay, for I feel so well here. My dizzy
spells have completely left me, and there is new vigor in my limbs."

"One can easily see that, dear Titus," replied his wife, delighted. "You look at least ten
years younger than when we came."

"It seems to me, our new mode of life suits you also, dear, for I have not heard you
complain for a long time now."

"That is true. Everything seems all changed somehow," answered Aunt Ninette. "The noise
the children make is not a bit bad, when one knows them all, and I am glad we did not
move from here. I even begin to miss it, when I do not hear their merry voices, and things
do not seem quite right, when there is no noise in the garden."

"That's exactly the way I feel," agreed Uncle Titus. "I enjoy the lively boy so much, when
he comes running to me every night. He can hardly control his eagerness to tell me what
he has composed, and when I set him my task, he drinks in every word I say. It is pure
pleasure to have such a boy to talk to."
"My dear Titus, how enthusiastic you are! That makes you seem younger than I have ever
known you. We had better stay here as long as we can afford it," the aunt concluded.
"Even our doctor could never have predicted such an improvement from our journey. It is
just wonderful."

Immediately after this conversation, Dora rushed over to her friends, spreading the happy
news. The prospect of her near departure had been a perfect nightmare to the child, and
she felt like dying rather than living so far away from all the intimate friends she loved so
dearly. Dora anticipated a broken heart on the day of their separation. As soon as the
children heard about their playmate's lengthened stay, they crushed Dora from sheer
transport and noisily expressed their happiness.

That same evening, when the children had gone to bed and Miss Hanenwinkel had retired,
Mr. and Mrs. Birkenfeld, according to their daily custom, sat together on the sofa, talking
over their common problems. They mentioned the fact that their neighbors were
lengthening their stay, and after expressing her joy, the mother concluded with these
words:

"I actually dread the day when we shall lose the child, and it is not very far off. It is
impossible to say what a blessing Dora has been to our household, and it is evident at
every step. I keep on discovering new traces of her good influence all the time. I don't
quite know why the child attracts me so much. All I can say is that a world of memories
stirs in me, whenever I look into her eyes. I don't pretend to understand it."

"My dearest wife, you think this every time you grow fond of a person," Mr. Birkenfeld
interposed. "I can remember quite well that you thought we must have stood in some
incomprehensible relationship long ago, when you just knew me a short time."

"However that may be, you bad, sarcastic husband," she retorted, "I suppose the solid
reasons this time are enough. You can't deny that Dora is very dear and charming. I love
her, and I know how many of the pleasant changes in our household are due to her. Paula
goes about like a ray of sunshine, there is not a trace left of her moodishness and bad
humor. Jul takes off his riding boots himself without disturbing the whole household, and
Rolf is so eager at his studies, that he does not waste a minute of the day. Lili has
developed a diligence and ability for music that surprises everybody, while Hun is always
pleasantly occupied, and looks so merry, that it is a joy to see him."

"Can the fact that the twins have not perpetrated any evil deeds lately be due to Dora,
too?" asked Mr. Birkenfeld.

"Doubtless," the wife answered. "Dora has somehow awakened Lili's enthusiasm for music,
and the lively child is putting all her energies into playing now. Willi does the same, and in
that way the two are kept out of mischief."

"Dora is really a curious being. Too bad she is leaving us," said Mr. Birkenfeld, quite
regretfully.

"I regret it so much, too," his wife continued, "and I keep on wondering how we could keep
them here a little longer."

"We can't," replied the husband, "for we don't know them well enough. We must let them
go, but if they come back another year, something might be done about it."

Mrs. Birkenfeld sighed as she thought of the long winter and the uncertainty of their
return.
The days passed by quickly, and the last week of Dora's stay had come. They were to
leave on Monday, and the Sunday before a supper party was to take place, though
everyone felt far from festive. Rolf alone was making eager preparations, which consisted
in hanging up several charades, made transparent by multicolored lights, in the garden
house in honor of his kind patron.

Dora sat down to lunch with the children on Saturday, and not much appetite was
displayed by anybody. When the mother was helping them to their soup, several voices
said, "Please, very little;" "Only a tiny bit for me;" "Not much for me;" "Better none for me
at all." "None for me at all, please."

"I'd like to know if you all deny yourselves, because the grief of the near parting is so
intense, or is it that the onion soup does not suit you?"

"Onion soup, oh, onion soup! Now I know the answer to Hun's charade," cried Rolf,
delighted at the victory, for he had hardly been able to bear the humiliation of not
guessing it before.

The solution proved correct.

Little Hun, who sat mournfully on his chair, said, "Oh, papa, if only you had not said that
we deny ourselves this onion soup! Then nobody would ever have guessed my charade.
Oh, all is over now!"

But Dora, who sat beside him, had consolation as always for the little one. She whispered
in his ear, "It is not all over, Hun. This afternoon, I'll guide your hand and you can write
your charade in my album. I'll give it to lots of people in Karlsruhe who know nothing
about it."

That proved a comfort to the little boy, and he finished his lunch without a scene.
Afterwards, all gathered under the apple tree as usual, except that the children were far
from happy, as it was to be the last time that Dora would sit amongst them. Tomorrow she
had to help her aunt with packing, and would only be over in the evening with both her
relatives.

Paula's eyes were filled with tears and she could not speak. Lili expressed her grief by
wriggling nervously around, but at last she burst out passionately, "Oh, mamma, I don't
want to play the piano any more when Dora goes. It will be so tiresome then, for Miss
Hanenwinkel will just say that I am dreadfully lazy. I won't care for anything any more;
nothing will be fun then."

"Oh, dear!" sighed Jul. "We are nearing hard and dangerous times as soon as the twins
find life tiresome again. I can really see no reason for Dora to depart," he continued. "It
would do her a lot of good to stay till winter time. Why doesn't she? Her uncle and aunt
can go back to their peaceful home in Karlsruhe alone."

The mother at once replied that she would beg for such a permission another year. For the
present, they had to be resigned to this separation which she herself was dreading, too.

Little Hun alone was more immediately concerned with the present than with the unknown
future and remained content. Pulling Dora's apron, he kept begging, "Please get your book
for me, Dora. I want to write now."

The girl went to the house to fetch her album and asked all her dear friends to write a little
verse in it for her, according to the good old custom. Her album looked far from elegant. It
was very old, the pages were yellowed by age and the ink was faded. Here and there little
bunches of discolored flowers, with hardly any petals, were pasted in. All the songs and
verses were written by a child's hand, having belonged to Dora's mother in her youth.
Several funny little drawings enlivened the pages, and one of a little house and a tiny man
near a fountain especially attracted Hun's attention.

After turning several more pages, he said with a knowing air, "Mamma has that, too!"

Then pulling out a narrow slip of paper, he declared, "This belongs to Lili, whom I have to
bring back from America."

Jul burst out laughing. "What wonderful tales are you inventing for Dora now, young Hun?"

The mother, after a rapid glance at her youngest child, looked at the paper. Suddenly tears
rushed to her eyes, and dear old memories of past days rose vividly before her, especially
the merry face of her beloved Lili. She was completely overcome, for it brought back all
her childhood days, the image of her own sweet mother, long years ago laid in the grave,
and all the vanished years of her youth, gone so irrevocably.

As soon as she saw the paper, she recognized it as the second half of the little verse she
and Lili had composed together. Unable to read aloud from sheer emotion, she handed to
her husband the paper joined to her own half, which she drew out of the notebook where
she had kept it, ever since it had been found a few weeks before. The children whispered
to each other and with suspense, watched their father as he joined the two slips of
yellowish gray paper, which together formed a sheet of writing paper of the usual size.
They were written by the same childish hand, and the sense was now quite clear.

After looking the sheet over a little, the father read aloud as follows:

"Our hands lay clasped

In firmest tie,
We hoped together,
To live and to die.
But one has to stay,
The other must go.
Our hearts are heavy
With mutual woe.
We cut apart
This tiny song
And hope to join it
Before very long.
Once more united
Joyfully we'll cry:
'We can live again
In close friendship's tie.
We'll never take leave of each other again
And ne'ermore endure such deep, bitter pain.'"

The mother had grasped Dora's hand. "Where did you get that little paper, darling?" she
asked with great emotion.

"It is my mother's album, and that paper was always in it," answered Dora, surprised.
"Oh, Dora, you are my beloved Lili's child!" exclaimed the mother. "Now I understand why
I always thought of the past when I looked at you."

Greatly agitated, she embraced the little girl.

The children felt excited, too, but seeing their mother so profoundly moved, they
controlled their emotions and remained silently in their seats, their glances fastened on
Dora and the mother.

Little Hun at last broke the silence: "Won't I have to go to America now, mamma?" he
asked, visibly relieved at the prospect of being able to stay at home, for after giving his
rash promise he had felt a little scared at the thought of going to America alone.

"No, you won't have to go. We shall all stay here," replied the mother, turning towards the
children with Dora's hand in hers. "Dora is Lili's little girl, whom you wanted to find."

DORA AND PAULA RETURNED TO THE GARDEN

ARM IN ARM SINGING GAILY.

"Oh, mamma!" cried Paula with unusual vivacity, "Dora and I will continue everything you
began with Lili. Then we'll also be able to say like you:"

"Once more united—

Joyfully we'll cry:
'We can live again,
In former friendship's tie.
We'll never take leave of each other again
And ne'ermore endure such deep, bitter pain.'"
"Yes, and we, too—" "and I—" "Yes, and we, too—" "I want it, too!" cried Rolf, the twins
and little Hun. Even Jul joined in with his deep bass voice.

But the mother had already seized the father's arm and had disappeared with him under
the trees.

"Yes, of course, I am satisfied, I am perfectly satisfied," repeated the father several times
to a question his wife was asking. Then they separated, and the mother went to the little
neighboring cottage, where she asked at once for Aunt Ninette. She related to Mrs.
Ehrenreich that she had just discovered, to her great joy, that Dora was the child of the
best and dearest friend of her youth, whom she had mourned for many years. She knew
that her friend had died, but hoped to hear more details about her life and Dora's
circumstances.

Mrs. Birkenfeld, as well as Aunt Ninette, had been reluctant till now to mention this last
very delicate subject. Mrs. Birkenfeld could not find out as much about Lili as she had
hoped, for Aunt Ninette had never known her. Her brother, who had lived in America for
several years, had met and married Lili in that country, and after returning to Hamburg,
had lost her soon after Dora's birth.

Mrs. Birkenfeld told Aunt Ninette how much gratitude she owed to Lili's family for all the
happiness she had enjoyed at their house. The acquaintance with Lili had, in fact, shaped
her whole future, and she wished to repay this debt. With this, she came to the chief
object of her visit, namely, the request to be allowed to adopt Dora and raise her just like
one of her own children.

No opposition was made to this, as Mrs. Birkenfeld had feared might be the case. On the
contrary, Aunt Ninette was only too glad that Dora, who had been left practically destitute,
should have found such generous friends. Sheer necessity would have obliged the child to
begin earning her livelihood at once as a seamstress, which was a dreary outlook for the
future. As she and her husband had not the means to furnish Dora with a higher
education, the new prospect was most welcome, and she was quite sure her husband
would not oppose it either.

Mrs. Birkenfeld, after heartily pressing Aunt Ninette's hand, hastened away, in order to tell
everybody the glad news. Her heart thrilled at the thought of her children's joy, for she
knew how fond they were of Dora.

They were still gathered under the apple tree, and all eyes were turned towards her in
suspense, for they were sure that she was planning some pleasant surprise, possibly even
a visit from Dora at their house.

When the mother told them that Dora would actually belong to the family from this time
on, and would be their sister always, such cries of transport and delight broke forth that
they penetrated into the furthest recesses of the garden. Uncle Titus stepped out of his
summer house, and smiling happily at their merry exclamations, said to himself, "Too bad
we have to go so soon."

Aunt Ninette, standing at her open window, looked down into the garden and listened with
delight to the children's outbreaks. She even quietly murmured to herself, "We'll miss it,
when we can't hear them any more."

The children felt in such a festive mood, that they planned the most elaborate celebrations
for the coming evening, and decided to have a feast such as the garden had never seen
before.
Dora entered her little chamber for the last time that night as in a dream. Tomorrow she
was to become a permanent inmate of the big house, and the merry children whom she
had at first watched with such longing were to be her brothers and sisters. The beautiful
garden for which she had also pined was to be her playground, and she was to have a
father and mother again who would carefully and lovingly watch over her. She would share
the children's pleasures as well as their studies, for Lili had announced to her solemnly
that she was to have real music lessons from now on. This made her especially happy.

All these thoughts flooded Dora's heart, and filled her with such happiness that she felt
unable to bear it. Her father in Heaven was probably looking down at her and rejoicing
with her. When she stood at the open window and looked up at her beloved stars, which
gleamed so brightly, she remembered the dark hours when she had looked at them sadly
and had forgotten then that her dear God in Heaven was guiding her. Dora fell on her
knees and thanked the good God from the bottom of her heart for His kind providence,
resolving from that hour, never to forget her father's favorite verse. Whatever life should
bring, whatever anxiety would oppress her in the future, she resolved to say confidently:

"'Yet God keeps watch above us

And doeth all things well.'"

Uncle Titus and Aunt Ninette engaged their rooms again for the next summer and were
already actually looking forward to their return. Uncle Titus even went so far as to extract
a promise from Mrs. Kurd never to let her rooms during the summer to anybody else. He
had felt so wonderfully well in her cottage, that he left it with many regrets and meant to
come back.

On Monday morning, the whole family was gathered around the packed travelling carriage,
and a hearty leave-taking took place on all sides. Rolf at the last moment, led Uncle Titus
apart, and asked him eagerly if he might send a charade to Karlsruhe now and then. To
this, Uncle Titus gave the most friendly assurance that this would please him greatly, and
he promised to send the answers promptly.

Sly little Hun, who had heard the conversation, also declared at once, "I'll send mine, too!"
Never doubting but that Mr. Titus's joy would be still greater then. He also thought to
himself that the people of Karlsruhe would never in their lives guess his original charade,
which gave him great satisfaction.

Dora and Paula returned to the garden, arm in arm, singing gaily:

"We'll never take leave of each other again."

 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DORA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.