Roundtable on the Centers of Excellence
On January 26, I sponsored a roundtable in Albany on New York State’s 5 Centers of Excellence (CoE): Bioinformatics in Buffalo; Environmental Systems in Syracuse; Nanoelectronics in Albany; Photonics and Microsystems in Rochester; and Wireless Internet & Information Technologies in Stony Brook. The event was co-sponsored by Assemblymember Ron Canestrari, chair of the Legislative Committee on Higher Education, and Assemblymember William Scarborough, chair of the Assembly Commission on Skills Development and Career Education. In 2002-03, the State awarded the Centers $250 million. Since that time, no additional appropriations have been made with one exception: a proposed additional $4 million allocation for the Center of Excellence in Syracuse to help expand its focus to include renewable and clean energy sources. Because there are no uniform mandated reporting requirements for the Centers, and because each one is in a different stage of development, progress is difficult to clearly ascertain. The few hours allotted for the Roundtable allowed us to barely scratch the surface in assessing the progress of these complex institutions. The State has made a substantial investment in the Centers of Excellence with the expectation that they will spur job creation and economic growth for years to come and I am continuing to pursue information so that accountability can be assured on an ongoing basis.

Visit to the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
On March 19, the Task Force visited the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY ESF) in Syracuse. Presentations and demonstrations provided a fascinating and educational experience. The day began with a welcome and overview by Dr. Cornelius Murphy, president, and included a presentation regarding the “Willow Project,” which focuses on the production of willow in New York State as a locally produced, renewable, cellulosic feedstock for bioproducts and bioenergy. Visit highlights included a discussion on the highly successful high school outreach efforts to motivate students to explore science and engineering careers, and a presentation on service learning where ESF students engage in a wide range of activities from water cleanup to problem solving for local communities and businesses.

Roundtable on the Role of the State’s Technology Development Organizations in Regional Economic Development
On May 24, I sponsored a roundtable in Albany on the Role of the State’s Technology Development Organizations (TDOs) in Regional Economic Development. Participants discussed issues regarding the ten regional TDOs’ contributions to the State’s economic development agenda and offered detailed observations regarding their roles and strategies. The many tasks that they perform include: development of an entrepreneurial climate in their communities; sponsorship of orphan technology initiatives; identification of specific patent clusters; seeking out seed funding to stimulate the creation of companies; conducting entrepreneurial management readiness activities in partnership with universities; helping companies/researchers access federal funds as well as private venture capital funds; acting as a bridge, mediating and translating between the two very different cultures of universities and businesses; and engaging in joint strategic planning with all community partners. Participants had several useful recommendations for the State to consider and I and my colleagues in the Assembly will continue to support the TDOs in their efforts. As part of this effort, I introduced Resolution K 2360 which was passed by the Assembly. It called upon Congress to restore funding for the federal Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program which was severely reduced (by almost two-thirds) in the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2004. Recently, the House of Representatives restored MEP funding to the FY 2003 level of $106 million. The Senate has not yet taken action on the restoration.

he competition among research institutions throughout the country for research and development (R&D) funds from federal, state and private sources is fierce, and with good reason. The end results of well-funded R&D are not limited to commercialized products, but include being poised to attract highly qualified and world-renowned researchers to colleges and universities, thereby enhancing the value and quality of students’ education and their job opportunities, as well as enhanced job creation and industry stability and expansion. New York State fares well in these endeavors, but there is substantial room for improvement.

The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) conducts an annual survey of academic and other research institutions and compiles and summarizes data on research and licensing activities, allowing for comparisons between New York and other states. The Survey does not include all of the R&D activity for all institutions in any given state since there are universities and colleges that did not respond to the survey.

According to the latest available survey for 2001, New York leads the nation in generating income from licensing, and is in 2nd place in total research expenditures from federal, industry and other* sources, but is fourth in attracting federal R&D dollars. New York lags far behind others, in 7th place, in attracting R&D funds from industry and is relatively weak in creating new businesses. A summary of the findings is presented below:

Total Research Expenditures from All Sources

• 1st ranked California - $3.59 billion
• 2nd ranked New York - $1.82 billion
• 3rd ranked Maryland - $1.79 billion

Federal Sources

• 1st ranked California - $2.56 billion
• 2nd ranked Maryland - $1.38 billion
• 3rd ranked Massachusetts - $1.35 billion
• 4th ranked New York - $1.24 billion

* Other sources are not specified in the AUTM report, but likely include such entities as state agencies, non-profit organizations, individual donors, and university and private foundations.

Industry Sources

• 1st ranked : 5 California universities received $252 million
• 2nd ranked : 4 Maryland universities received $196 million
• 3rd ranked: 5 North Carolina universities received $166 million
• 7th ranked: 6 New York universities received $86 million

Other Sources

• 1st ranked California - $779 million
• 2nd ranked New York - $495 million
• 3rd ranked Michigan - $387 million

License Income Received from Patents

• 1st ranked New York universities received $214 million
• 2nd ranked California universities received $120 million
• 3rd ranked Massachusetts universities received $114 million

Start-up Businesses

• 1st ranked California - 64 start-ups
• 2nd ranked Massachusetts - 58 start-ups
• 3rd ranked North Carolina - 38 start-ups
• 5th ranked New York - 25 start-ups

second noteworthy report is from the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators. The data is designed to provide a broad base of quantitative information about U.S. science, engineering and technology. The information provided below offers a glimpse at how New York compares to other states.

The first table uses an indicator that measures the extent to which a state’s workforce is employed in high-technology industries. State economies with a high value for this indicator are probably well-positioned to take advantage of new technological advances because they have a relatively larger pool of experienced high-technology workers. Although in raw numbers New York State ranks high, its high-tech employment ranking as a percent of all employment lags behind.

Employment in High-Technology Establishments
as Share of Total Employment (2000)

he next indicator measures the portion of business establishments that are classified as high-technology industries, identified as those having at least twice the employment proportion of the all-industries average, both in R&D and in all technology occupations. As can be seen by the last column in the following table, we need to expand the State’s portion of high-tech businesses compared to all businesses in order to be in a stronger position in this globally competitive high-tech economy.

High-Technology Businesses As a Share of
All Business Establishments (2000)

he third table represents findings about venture capital, an important source of funding for start-up companies. This indicator was designed to show the relative magnitude of venture capital investments in a state, after adjusting for the size of a state’s economy. It is expressed as dollars of venture capital disbursed per $1,000 of the gross state product (GSP). The table shows that while the State ranks 4th in dollar amount, when viewed as a percentage of the gross state product, its ranking falls to 16th.

Venture Capital Disbursed per $1,000
of Gross State Product (2001)

	Assemblyman Magnarelli speaks on the floor of the Assembly to urge support of legisltion he sponsored to create jobs for New Yorkers.

I was proud to be part of the Speaker’s 2004 economic development agenda as presented in the Assembly’s Jobs Plan, New York @ Work, and was prime sponsor on the following bills which were submitted either as part of the Jobs Plan or as Task Force legislation.

• A 7987A would create in the New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR) a program to match federal grants awarded to New York universities for technology development. The bill was passed in the Assembly and then recalled from the Senate to incorporate changes requested by NYSTAR. The amended bill passed in the Assembly, but has not been acted on in the Senate.*
• A 10478A would create the Research and Development Fiscal Accountability Act of 2004. This legislation would implement a system of periodic review of New York State’s R&D investments in order to evaluate the performance and return on the tax dollars of the citizens of New York. The bill was reported out of committee, but has not come to the floor for a vote.*
• A 10482A would create the Manufacturing Competitive Grants Program to stimulate research, applied technology, and manufacturing in New York State. It would aid small manufacturers in developing new products and adopting innovative production technologies, thus improving their competitiveness. This bill was passed in the Assembly, but has not been acted on in the Senate.*
• A 1957 would authorize NYSTAR to sponsor a Statewide Patent Fair promoting technology developed at New York’s public and private colleges and universities. This legislation was introduced and passed by the Assembly in 2003 and passed again in 2004, but has not been acted on in the Senate.*
• A 8408 would require entities applying for or receiving certain State economic development grants to commit to first considering New York companies as primary suppliers of services or products necessary to implement the project for which State funds are awarded. This legislation was introduced and passed by the Assembly in 2003, and again in 2004, but has not been acted on in the Senate.*
• A 6347 would create the university technology commercialization tax credit. The purpose of this bill is to provide tax credits to individuals and other legal entities for investing in the commercialization of technologies that come out of the research institutions within New York State. The bill has not been reported out of committee.*
• K 2360 – Resolution memorializing the United States Congress to continue financial support for the federal Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. The Resolution was adopted by the Assembly.

* Last action reported as of the date that this Newsletter went to print.