Message

Office of Science & Technology Policy

202.456.6069, 202.456.6027 (fax)

mholland@ostp.eop.gov

Hi Mike,

I like giving you any SBIR related correspondence right now because I know that you are in the thick of the RBM Subcommittee effort and need relevant(?) information to help the study. I am forwarding my exchanges with Barton James at the SBA. His name was given to me by my congressional representative, Speaker Dennis Hastert who's office contacted the SBA to see if they could address my concerns with SBIR policy directly. Of course, they reviewed my concerns before making that referral to SBA. I was told to contact Speaker Hastert's office if I had any problems. I think I have run into a wall with the SBA but do not intend to contact Speaker Hastert's office about it yet.

I am writing to you about this because, from my point of view, the OSTP is doing a lot about this problem (as I review the progress on your web site) and I believe this info is helpful. Secondly, when I ran into the wall at SBA, I started to get the feeling that they had no idea that your RBM Subcommittee existed. To me, everything you are working on is relevant to the SBA. Speaker Hastert's referral basically lead to a dead end with the SBA. If you read the response from Maurice Swinton, it is a typical 'canned' policy statement answer that he can hide behind rather than address my concerns about SBIR directly.

I did, however, get that funny feeling that the SBA was clueless about the RBM Subcommittee. Maybe my concerns and remedies are too painful for the SBA to consider? Anyway, what have I got to lose? Only everything to gain for myself and hopefully others with the same frustrations.

I see that you have posted some of my e-mails to http://rbm.nih.gov/index.htm which is great. Parts of this e-mail might not be helpful publicly but maybe more for OSTP. Other than the following, most of the text near the bottom is stuff you already have.

In all honesty, I will probably report all of this to Speaker Hastert regardless because he is trying to make a big difference in my congressional district on this and I want to be a beneficiary of any positive results if any do occur. I also want to help him if I can because he seems to really care about seeing SBIR become more effective. I will wait a few weeks to report to him to see if SBA discontinues our dialogue with a brush off. Here is an upcoming luncheon he is having:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Illinois Coalition December 8th Luncheon to Feature Speaker Hastert

J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, will address leaders in Illinois' technology community at a luncheon on Monday, December 8th in downtown Chicago. A strong promoter of scientific research and technology commercialization, Speaker Hastert has championed many federal initiatives to fund university research, build the capability of national labs, and assist both corporate researchers and tech entrepreneurs in bringing new technologies to market.

Speaker Hastert, who serves on the Illinois Coalition board of directors, is expected to share his perspective on how technology can be an effective tool for creating high paying jobs in Illinois' technology sector. His congressional district includes Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the DeKalb campus of Northern Illinois University, and both large and small technology-driven companies.

The luncheon will be moderated by Samuel K. Skinner, former Chief of Staff at the White House and Secretary of Transportation. Also, he is the retired Chairman and CEO of USF Corporation, one of the nation's largest trucking, logistics, and supply chain management companies. Mr. Skinner is chairman of the Illinois Coalition.

To make your reservation, contact Trudy Nichol at 312-553-4340. Proceeds from this event will benefit the Illinois Coalition. Please reserve in advance, space is limited.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so, I have made you aware of my exchanges with the SBA to date. I don't want to believe that they aren't aware of the good efforts that OSTP is putting into this problem. This is just to make sure they aren't sleeping. The oldest correspondences are at the bottom of this e-mail.

Business-as-usual has to stop for innovation in scientific research in this country. The time is now. The social, economic, and national security reasons are all there.

Thanks for being a patient sounding board also.

Vic Pinks

*****************************************************************************************
Victor Pinks II, Ph.D vpinks@ildsimulation.com
Robert S. Wilson, Ph.D. rwilson@ildsimulation.com
The Institute of Liquid Dynamics Simulation
2610 Laurel Lane
Sycamore, Illinois 60178

Phone: 815-739-6785

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

"If the forces are correct...the protein WILL fold!" - Dr. Robert S. Wilson
*****************************************************************************************

Dr. Pinks-

Thank you for your feedback. I've passed along your comments to the appropriate people.

Thanks!

Bart

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Victor Pinks II [mailto:vicp@tbc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:51 PM
To: James, Barton C.
Cc: Anne E. Bradbury
Subject: RE:The Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee

Hello Bart,

I wanted to make sure that Mr. Swinton was aware of the enormous effort underway at this time at OSTP to address these issues. I think he should be informed if he is not already since it is focusing on SBIR policies and procedures. Here is a brief description:

Research Business Models Subcommittee

The Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Committee on Science, a chartered committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC, http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/NSTC_Home.html). The purpose of the Committee on Science is to advise and assist the NSTC, with emphasis on those federally supported efforts that develop new knowledge in the sciences mathematics, and engineering.

The goals of the Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee are to facilitate a coordinated effort across Federal agencies to address important policy implications arising from the changing nature of scientific research, and examine the effects of these changes on business models for the conduct of scientific research sponsored by the Federal government. The membership of the Subcommittee includes representatives from fifteen Federal departments and agencies that support or are engaged in research activities.

For the latest information on the progress of this subcommittee go to: http://rbm.nih.gov/index.htm

Thank you,

Vic Pinks

Phone: 815-739-6785

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

"If the forces are correct...the protein WILL fold!" - Dr. Robert S. Wilson
*****************************************************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Victor Pinks II [mailto:vicp@tbc.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:48 PM
To: James, Barton C.
Cc: Anne E. Bradbury
Subject: RE: referral from Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office

From the position of the individual researcher and concerned scientist, it is difficult to know if I really got anywhere when I get deflected back to a policy page. If

Mr. Swinton is a scientist, then I feel better. If not, then I am still concerned because, as it stands, the SBIR system is not quick enough to address ideas that should be on a 'fast track'. As I mentioned, I know the mandates and rules. I am past that. However, I now, have a clear conscience to proceed with my own commercial interest. I am talking with a company that is partly foreign owned (fortunately in large part by the British). The positive effect that our software technology will have on accelerating drug discovery for consumers of our product should be watched by the US government for it's possible security impact.

Anyway, thanks for helping me get to this point. I will report our exchanges back to Speaker Hastert as his offices requested I do when they made the referral.

Dr. Pinks,

Thank you for your email correspondence regarding your concerns with the selection of SBIR topics and the SBIR solicitation policies of the Federal agencies participating in the program. I have passed your concerns along to the director the SBIR/STTR program, Maurice Swinton, and he asked that I relay the following information to you.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) promotes innovation, commercialization of the products of federally sponsored research and development, and transfer of technology by small high technology firms. It does this largely through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.

Under the SBIR program, ten Federal agencies having extramural research and development budgets of more than $100 million annually set aside 2.5 percent of such requirements for competitive award to small businesses. The STTR program is similar to the SBIR program with limited exceptions. Five Federal agencies having extramural research and development budgets of more than $1 billion annually set-aside .30 percent of such requirements for competitive award to small businesses that collaborate with non-profit research institutions.

In both programs, awards and solicitation topics are selected by the participating agencies. The SBA has government-wide responsibility for policy formulation, coordination, monitoring, and reporting, but.. This Agency has no role in awarding or funding of contracts or grants, nor the selection of the solicitation topics. The SBA's SBIR and STTR Policy Directives provide solicitation guidelines and procedures to the participating agencies as well as procedures for selecting research topics. To view the SBA's SBIR Policy Directive, please visit the website http://www.sba.gov/sbir/indexsbir-sttr.html.

You also mentioned difficulty in finding a suitable collaborative partner to team with you that could facilitate in your research effort. There are various tools available on the websites at the participating agencies that can assist you in this endeavor. The SBA's Technology Resources Network (Tech-Net) is an Internet based searchable database system that allows the public to use keywords to search SBIR and STTR awards. I would encourage you to visit the SBA's website at www.sba.gov/sbir to access the Tech-Net database system and also to explore some of the other research assistance tools available on the websites at the participating SBIR and STTR agencies.

We also encourage you to contact the SBIR Program Managers at the various participating agencies to discuss their SBIR topic selection and solicitation processes to help you gain a better understanding of their methodologies and policies.

Although I am not a policy expert, I have been reviewing in my head some refinements and clarifications to the SBIR Remedies proposed in my e-mail sent to you on Fri 10/31/03 12:05 AM. I will list the originals as version 1 below and make revisions as version 2 (in red) with some explanation. I won't go on forever on this subject but simply hope to communicate the essential ideas which arose out of frustration with the SBIR system from an innovator's perspective. My goal is to be helpful and consider national interests first.

I will re-list the original remedies (version 1) with revisions, then a summary of version 2 at the bottom with one final thought about supercomputing and national interests.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SBIR Remedies - Version 1

> Require by law that all SBIR granting agencies forward all unsolicited research inquiries to the SBA for qualification, categorization, and possible re-distribution to an appropriate federal SBIR research granting agency.(version 1)

> Require by law that all SBIR granting agencies create an unsolicited research category that is prominently advertised and whose submissions are automatically duplicated in summary copy to the SBA. (version 2)(this keeps the bulk of the work at the SBIR granting agency where the science is but keeps the SBA in the loop on contemporary science to have a good feel for important changes and emphasis. Some agencies have an unsolicited research category but it is not obvious to innovators. They can be guided away from their area of expertise only to fulfill the solicitation requirements. This is not soliciting the most innovative science).
Here are some of the benefits:
- SBIR granting agencies will try harder to keep unsolicited research and fit them into their paradigm. (version 1)

- SBIR granting agencies will try harder to keep unsolicited research and fit it into their paradigm because they will be accountable for their research choices, both solicited and unsolicited. (version 2) (this is a goal)

- SBIR granting agencies will be accountable for their choices of solicited research. (version 1) (eliminate this line)

- SBIR granting agencies may change internal protocols to address and use unsolicited research if it means losing possible SBIR monies. (version 1)

- SBIR granting agencies must change internal protocols to address and use unsolicited research as an indication of the measure of their commitment to fulfill their congressional SBIR program requirement mandates. (version 2) (this is to simply give a measurable requirement to the SBIR granting agencies where there are possible budgetary consequences for those who do not heed the congressional mandate. There could be some protocol changes that are standard across the board. There needs to be an unbiased measure of some sort for the good of the nation). (this is a requirement)

- This policy will prevent SBIR granting agencies from protectionism (i.e., burying unsolicited research by labeling it as unqualified). (version 1)

- This policy will prevent SBIR granting agencies from inadvertent protectionism (i.e., burying unsolicited research by labeling it as unqualified) (version 2)(expected result) Protectionism might be symptomatic of the system.

- This policy will help the SBA to stay contemporary with the dynamic landscape of innovative research in an ever increasing technological world - including technological threats from foreign governments.(no change)(expected result)

- The SBA's actions will increase the perceived value of the innovator. (version 1)

- The SBA's actions will help align the perceived value of the innovator with the real value of the innovator in the national innovation process. (version 2)(expected result) (This is again, a paradigm change but a necessary one that acknowledges how modern technological advances, most notably the internet and increasing desktop computer speed, have empowered the individual innovator to compete effectively and often more efficiently in many ways not possible by larger organizations).

- The SBIR granting agencies will be motivated to change their practices to include more contemporary research so as not to lose pace with the world. This can be an effective policy decision tool..(no change)(expected result)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- start of version 2 remedy

SBA's Proposed SBIR Innovation Remedy - Version 2 (SUMMARIZED)

Require by law that all SBIR granting agencies create an unsolicited research category that is prominently advertised and whose submissions are automatically duplicated in summary copy to the SBA.

SBIR granting agencies will try harder to keep unsolicited research and fit it into their paradigm because they will be accountable for their research choices, both solicited and unsolicited.

Measurable Requirement:

SBIR granting agencies must change internal protocols to address and use unsolicited research as an indication of the measure of their commitment to fulfill their congressional SBIR program requirement mandates.

Expected Results:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- end of version 2 remedy

Supercomputing and National interests -

If you recall, I am addressing this area of research because it is my area of personal research focus. Of course you should expect that I might have my own agenda, however, something had to be my vehicle for experiencing the frustration that lead to my contacting you in the first place. I don't know how to give you meaningful feedback except from my own experiences. I don't think it is right to apologize for that. Anyway here is my concern:

This past week a symposium at NIH was held. The title being:

Digital Biology: The Emerging Paradigm
November 6-7, 2003
Natcher Conference Center
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Here is an excerpt from The Scientist ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031111/02 ): "At one session, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, who recently outlined specific computing initiatives in the NIH "roadmap," suggested that "brute force" computation is not the right approach for biomedical research and that there must be a strong emphasis on mathematical models. One critical component of future computing infrastructure, he said, will be improved access to the proper algorithms and an investment in tools that deliver better data points."

Dr. Zerhouni's comment that "brute force" computation is not the right approach, is just one more recent example of my concern with supercomputing research today. Specifically:

Thanks again for taking time to read this. I hope it is helpful in some way.

I assure that Anne, SBA's program folks, and myself are looking into this. We hope to have a update for you in the near future.

I was wondering if the response that you are referring to below might still be in progress. If so, that is fine.

In my detailed e-mail on Fri 10/31/03 12:05 AM. In that e-mail I stated, "our software technology is so fundamentally important to supercomputing that we are willing to forego commercial funding offers to allow the government a chance to first examine it for national security relevance. I would be glad to present it to someone with no expectations on our part except to simply clear our conscience before proceeding to inevitable commercialization. If it were not that it is of such a controversial nature, my concerns with national security would not have been mentioned. But technology has advanced and so I had no choice but to mention it. " I brought this up because I am getting some strong commercial inquiries and yet I have had no chance to even mention this to anyone in the government. There should be a fast track for this kind of thing so that I can proceed in a commercial direction with a clear conscience. This is certainly no ploy for government recognition - there is plenty of commercial interest already for our software technology.

I do not require a response immediately, but would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt or acknowledgement that someone is looking at these concerns. Please let me know either way.