14

Therefore, I urge you to give us more time to demonstrate that we can integrate effectively our mission related research and development activities into cooperative research and development projects within our existing funding arrangements. Please remember that we received the statutory authority to do CRADAS in November 1989. We moved rapidly to establish our Enhanced Technology Transfer Program, to develop our Model CRADA and to make modifications based upon our interactions with industry and academia, to modify the management and operating contracts for most of our laboratories, and to establish policy guidance for the implementation of the program. We have gone from essentially no CRADAs in April 1991, to nearly 300 today. We have accomplished this while also increasing our patent licensing, our use of personnel exchanges, and the use of other technology transfer mechanisms, such as cost-shared procurements, cooperative agreements, data exchange agreements, and work-for-others/use of facilities. I do not seek to minimize or ignore your criticisms or concerns--or those of other friends of the Department--but I would also like to have acknowledged the real progress we have made and are continuing to make. Let me now address the final area you raised.

III. Accountability

I agree that individuals as well as the agency should be accountable for their actions. Consequently, technology transfer is incorporated into the annual appraisal process for our laboratories. It is also being incorporated into the strategic planning process of our research and development programs. We are looking into ways of measuring success. I think that we can measure levels of activity, responsiveness, numbers of CRADAS, patent licenses,

15

software licenses, personnel exchanges, use of facilities, etc. In some cases the data is not easy to measure. For example, a short amount of technical assistance can save substantial amounts on current plant operations and make an industry more competitive. In other cases, experience in materials or solvent substitution can reduce life cycle costs and protect the environment.

I am reluctant to establish specific performance criteria for DOE's laboratories, or their directors or other personnel, that are dependent on the operation of the market place. The path of technology development is unpredictable. At one point in time, for example, 8 track tape decks and tapes seemed like an excellent technology and a good commercial opportunity. Other factors in the market place, outside of the control of the technology developers, resulted in cassettes and compact disks becoming the dominant technologies.

I believe that DOE, and our laboratories, should be judged by our openness to private sector collaboration and our evaluation of the credibility or potential of collaborative opportunities. I am not sure that market place performance should be part of the primary DOE or laboratory measurement of

success.

Let me also add that, while technology transfer is an important laboratory mission, it is not the sole mission of our laboratories, nor is technology transfer the entire focus of our research and development programs. We have national defense missions, basic science missions, applied science missions, and technology transfer missions. The challenge is not to decide between

16

doing a scientific mission or technology transfer, the challenge is to "design in" credible technology transfer opportunities and commercialization potential as part of the program and institutional planning process.

Let me now address the question of whether a laboratory director's employment should be continued based in part on technology transfer performance or whether laboratory directors or the Secretary of Energy should be selected based on criteria that include technology transfer experience. Our management and operating contractors have the responsibility for hiring their staff, including the laboratory directors. I am not sure how to translate such a legislated criteria into the contract provisions. It is both easier, and I believe more effective, to evaluate annually the laboratory's performance through a process that specifically addresses efforts and accomplishments associated with the technology transfer mission. Recognition of the importance of technology transfer and the commitment to pursue this activity using appropriately selected laboratory staff should be viewed as an important evaluation factor. With respect to the criteria for selection of the Secretary of Energy, I respectfully defer to the President and the members of

the Senate.

Your proposals as to accountability perhaps do not go far enough in one respect, however, in that they do not explicitly address the fact that DOE Headquarters and Field Office personnel, through the exercise of their responsibilities, affect the laboratory's performance. I believe, along with you, in personal responsibility and accountability. The Department has an obligation to provide its employees with current guidance, training, and

17

mechanisms for expeditiously making decisions involving exceptions to policy or establishing precedents. We also have the obligation to develop tools such as the Model CRADA and to implement new authorities, such as I mentioned earlier. We need to ensure that DOE policy is consistently applied. We need to provide sufficient resources to implement the federal responsibilities and to provide oversight of the contractor operations. There has been an explosion of activity as well as a steep start up learning curve. I believe that we are getting a better handle on what it takes to do our job as well as what the laboratories need to do theirs. I agree that the laboratories should be accountable for their performance, but they bear neither the successes nor the failures alone. Activities of the laboratories are part of the Department's Enhanced Technology Transfer Program and there is individual responsibility and accountability throughout this program.

With respect to your proposed report requirement, the Department already prepares an annual report as required by the NCTTA. In this report we address not only CRADAs, but also start-up companies, licensing, and other technology transfer activities. Before establishing yet another separate reporting requirement, I suggest that consideration be given to identifying areas in which the scope or level of reporting in the annual NCTTA report could be improved or expanded. I hope you agree that it is better to improve a current document than to add a new report that has to be prepared by the same group of dedicated and talented officials whose time should primarily be spent in further expanding and improving the program.

Conclusion

18

In closing, let me again emphasize that I believe we share both common goals and a common view of the importance of technology transfer. The Department has made significant and continuous progress in carrying out its technology transfer mission--especially since the passage of the NCTTA. I believe that we have made more progress, and become more effective, than some may realize. We have not yet solved all our problems. As I have tried to honestly present to you, in some areas we still have a long way to go. I urge that you reconsider the specific proposals you have asked me to comment on and continue the constructive dialogue with those remaining at the Department and the new leadership that is about to arrive.

This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer your questions.