Federal government research hub development initiative

I didn't know NASA originally planned for a big electronics hub in Boston's Kendall Square, as MIT's Draper Laboratory was an original developer of various electronics systems for the Apollo space program.  The hub opened, but was closed three years later ("‘Cambridge, we have a problem’: The true story of NASA’s center in Kendall Square," Boston Globe).  

A new building for the Volpe Center.

One of the deaccessioned buildings was transferred to the US Department of Transportation for the development of a transportation research center now known as the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center ("New Volpe Transportation Center opens as part of $750 million deal between MIT and feds," Globe).

It's hard to say if the NASA center had stayed would it have fostered the development of spinoff businesses, because after the Apollo program, NASA's space program has shrunk.  But the Volpe Center hasn't fostered spinoff businesses either.  

OTOH, Boston has blossomed as a center for biotechnology.  See "Casebook illustration of agglomeration economies: Kendall Square and biotech."

For some insight into how different research operations have  significantly different rates and capacities for the development of spinoff businesses, see "How the closure of a Pfizer research center in Ann Arbor, Michigan led to the development of a more robust and independent biotech sector." 

Also see writings on innovation districts and quarters more generally.

Federal scientific and technology research.  Michael Lewis has a good book, The Fifth Risk, on the investment by the federal government in the development of science and technology, like weather prediction systems and the work of federal laboratories.  Decades ago, I worked for a group focused on chemistry research and development, and a number of federal government labs sponsored by the Department of Energy were members.  

USDA has a number of research labs.  The Department of Commerce has National Institute of Standards and Technology in Montgomery County, and the Department of Health and Human Services has the National Institutes of Health in Montgomery County and the CDC in Atlanta.  The Department of Transportation supports research centers across the country as well.  The National Science Foundation funds research of all types, etc.  Medical research is funded by a number of agencies and some cities have become biotech centers as a result.  NASA funds research labs too, like at Caltech and the Goddard Research Center, also in Montgomery County.

The Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency is famous for its support of the development of various technologies, including what became "the Internet."  DARPA has spawned ARPA-H, focused on health.  The Department of Defense as a customer of technology firms has also spurred economic development.

Federal laboratories too have different success rates for spurring the development and adoption of new technologies and business opportunities.  Overall, the military has the most spinoffs ("The East-West Divide | DC area regional economic development: anchors and where they are placed matter + airports | But military spending matters the most.")

New federal research hub seeding efforts.  Recognizing the benefits of federally-funded and initiated research to the economic development of the nation, the Biden Administration is funding the development of research hubs across the nation ("31 communities tapped as innovation hub finalists," Route 50).  From the article:

In a move aimed at expanding the tech sector’s economic development engine to more parts of the country, the Biden administration on Monday named 31 communities as innovation hubs that will work to advance a range of technologies, including autonomous systems, quantum computing, biomedicine and green energy. 

With tens of millions in federal funding, the selected consortiums—made up of state and local governments, educational institutions, businesses and community groups in 32 states and Puerto Rico—now have an opportunity to turn themselves into global players in advanced technology. 

“We're doing this from coast to coast, in the heartland, red states and blue states, small towns, cities of all sizes,” President Joe Biden said at a press conference.

The funding for the hubs comes from last year’s $54.2 billion CHIPS Act. Most of that capital went toward subsidies to encourage companies to increase the production of U.S.-manufactured semiconductors. The legislation also called for spending $10 billion to create 20 Regional Innovation and Technology Hubs over the next five years that would research, develop and commercialize a wide range of advanced technologies. The 31 proposals will compete in the coming years to be named one of hubs. 

However, because Congress has only formally approved spending the first $500 million of the money, only a few of the innovation hub proposals are sure to get funding in the next year. 

Already there are winners and losers ("Michigan doesn't make cut for list of new federal tech hubs," Detroit Free Press, "Minnesota's newly designated med-tech hub eligible for millions in federal funding ," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Baltimore selected as federal tech hub for artificial intelligence and biotechnology," Baltimore Sun).

This is important to do, and spreading around the largesse is good.  But it's hard to successfully develop spinoff technologies and businesses, it's a very long process, and it's easier when you have something to start with already, as the Pfizer/Ann Arbor entry makes clear.

Pittsburgh is a great example.  Richard Florida's book The Rise of the Creative Class is partly about the then "failure" of Pittsburgh to retain start up businesses as they grew and developed, because the ecosystem to support such businesses as they grew just wasn't there.  

But over time that ecosystem developed ("Carnegie Mellon, Region, To Share Benefits of $62.7M Build Back Better Grant," CMU press release, "Pittsburgh’s tech clusters: Oakland, Lawrenceville, Strip District … and O’Hara," Pittsburgh Business Journal), just as the venture capital base in Michigan developed to the point where it could support the development of biotechnology businesses in Ann Arbor, and now Pittsburgh is much more competitive in developing and retaining startups.

From the PBJ:

Pittsburgh has emerged as a center of technology research and development, particularly with respect to the autonomy industry, but the region’s strength in the field of life sciences and medical technology is equally impressive. 

The University of Pittsburgh is one of the top five in National Institutes of Health funding and the region is ripe with talent and an ecosystem of successful public and privately held companies in the field. 

Just as robotics firms have clustered in certain locations, so too have leading companies in the biotech and related medical technology industries. Oakland, Lawrenceville and the Strip District are well known hot beds of innovation activity, but there’s another that's sometimes overlooked: O’Hara Township.

Not only is O’Hara Township where RIDC’s first development project resides — RIDC O’Hara — it’s one of the first planned light industrial parks in the country, and it’s seen the launch of multiple prominent tech startups. And after more than 60 years, it continues to be home to a thriving life sciences cluster, including companies involved in cutting edge research and the production of life saving products. 

Among O’Hara’s attributes, which have been attractive to tech and life science companies alike, include: 

• Proximity to the universities in Oakland and other tech companies in Lawrenceville and the Strip District, which are only a few minutes’ drive away. 
• Free parking and considerably lower costs for space than in the denser city neighborhoods. 
• Easy access to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, making it a commuting destination for a large portion of the region’s workforce. 

Boston is another example, anchored by MIT and Harvard.

As I wrote in the Ann Arbor article, some universities are better than others at spinoff business and technology development, and it is worth figuring out those characteristics and conditions, in order to foster more speedy success elsewhere.

... the reality is that there are six to seven universities that seem to spin off successful start ups at a scale far beyond the rest:

• MIT and Harvard in Boston
• Stanford University in Palo Alto/Silicon Valley
• University of California San Diego
• University of California San Francisco
• maybe the University of Washington in Seattle (Microsoft located there because that's where its founders lived before leaving for college, Amazon started up in Seattle because of the entrepreneurial culture created by Microsoft, and over time UW has gotten more involved in that ecosystem)
• University of Texas Austin contributed to the development of an IT cluster in Texas, but key events like the creation of Texas Instruments had little to do with Austin ("The launch and evolution of a technology‐based economy: The case of Austin Texas," Growth and Change, 50:2, 2019).

There are probably some I've missed.

OTOH, there is also the story of Kariko Katalin at the University of Pennsylvania.  She was dissed by administrators for decades but persevered, developing the mRNA technologies that led to the successful development of covid vaccines.  She just won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, after a career of hardship ("A Penn official once told Katalin Karikó she was ‘not of faculty quality.’ Her work there just won a Nobel Prize.," Philadelphia Inquirer).

Clusters can be relative.  I used to believe that only the leading clusters had advantages, that secondary locations had no chance.

Now I don't believe that. There is a place for secondary or peripheral locations. They won't be Cambridge, but they can still be significant centers with opportunities for growth, especially locally.

But you really have to work it:

-- "Naturally occurring innovation districts | Technology districts and the tech sector," 2014
-- "Better leveraging higher education institutions in cities and counties: Greensboro; Spokane; Mesa; Phoenix; Montgomery County, Maryland; Washington, DC," 2016

(Reprinted.)  Learning from Europe: Knowledge locations in cities.  In 2013, I wrote about Helsinki, "Helsinki as an example of creative industries driving urban revitalization programs," for the Europe in Baltimore project conducted by the Washington Chapter of the European Union National Institutes of Culture.

Design is a key element of Helsinki's identity and economy.  And while writing the article, I learned a lot which has influenced my thinking ever since, about cultural planning, cultural production, systematic planning of new districts, specifically Arabianranta, where the Aalto University is now located, assigning cultural planners to districts, libraries, and more.

An article on Arabianranta, 

"Developing creative quarters in cities: policy lessons from 'Art and design city' Arabianranta, Helsinki," Van Tuijl, Carvalho, and Van Haaren, Urban Research & Practice 6(2):211-218 · June 2013

introduced me to a new line of thinking about "creative quarters," which we might call Arts Districts 2.0.

The research was part of a larger project which resulted in the book Creating Knowledge Locations in Cities: Innovation and Integration Challenges.  (This is a pdf of the book.)

Note that Brookings Institution has a similar program, Innovation Districts, but I like the writings from Europe better.