Questions and Answers
                                 on the
                    NIST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
                       with Particular Emphasis on
                        the New ATP Program Areas


What is the significance of this announcement of focused program areas? Does
this represent a change of policy for the ATP?

     ATP programs define key technology areas that become the focus of a
     multiyear, coordinated effort by the ATP and industry to overcome
     the major technical barriers in each program area.

     In the four ATP competitions completed to date, project proposals
     were accepted and considered from any area of technology.  This
     strategy was the most effective approach when the ATP was a
     relatively small pilot program.

     As the ATP expands to a full-scale effort, we need a strategy that
     retains the emphasis on leadership by the private sector, while
     realizing the greatest possible benefits for the nation's economy.
     The ATP works with the private sector to define key technology
     areas with strong potential for economic benefit, and then focuses
     resources on those areas through special ATP competitions open only
     to projects relevant to a particular program.

Does this mean the ATP is abandoning the idea of general competitions open to
all areas of technology?

     No, in fact we are conducting one such general competition now.
     But a significant share of our funding will be concentrated on
     program-oriented competitions.

How many different programs were considered by the ATP?

     The current set of programs was based on over 550 individual
     proposals, mostly from private industry.  Many of the suggested
     program areas overlapped, of course.  The five current programs
     were developed by combining elements of about 150 different
     suggestions, further refining the final proposal through a series
     of 12 public workshops, and consulting with experts from industry,
     academia, and other federal agencies.  The final program proposals
     were put together by ATP program managers.

What are the major areas of emphasis in these programs?

     There is a strong focus in these programs on information and
     manufacturing technologies, reflecting the large number of program
     suggestions from industry and the importance of these technologies
     throughout our economy.

What were the decisions based on?

     Each program proposal is evaluated against four basic criteria:

       >  the potential benefit to the U.S. economy,
       >  the strength of the technology ideas proposed by industry,
       >  the strength of the industry commitment to the program, and
       >  the opportunity for the ATP to make a significant difference.

     In addition to meeting these criteria, a candidate program area
     must present well-developed plans for both the R&D program and the
     future business development of the technology after the ATP program
     is finished.

How many different programs is the ATP prepared to undertake at the same
time?

     This depends entirely on the level of funding for the ATP.  The
     Clinton Administration has proposed that the ATP be scaled up over
     the next three years to about $750 million per year.  At that
     level, the ATP would expect to run about 20-24 programs
     simultaneously.

     Since ATP programs have a definite length -- they are not
     open-ended -- at any given time some programs would be in
     mid-course, some would be starting up, and some would be winding
     down.

What about other technologies that don't fit these programs?

     The development and initiation of new program areas will be a
     continuous process.  However, the future progress of technology can
     never be forecast with precision.  That's  why the ATP will
     continue to hold at least one general competition each year open to
     projects that don't fall under a current program area.

Does industry have a role in charting the course of these programs?

     Yes.   ATP research directions always have been driven by
     industry's priorities, as evidenced by the project proposals
     submitted during competitions.

     Program-specific competitions restrict proposers to those projects
     appropriate to the program area, of course, but the programs
     themselves originate in suggestions from industry.  Because
     industry has a critical role in defining programs and in planning
     and executing research projects, and must cost-share all projects,
     the ATP is market-oriented -- administered in a "bottom-up" rather
     than "top-down" process.

Will the ATP fund research at the companies and organizations that originally
suggested these five programs?

     That depends on whether or not they submit project proposals and on
     how those proposals fare in the competition.  Program-specific
     competitions under the ATP follow the same procedures as general
     competitions, including thorough technical and business reviews of
     the proposals, and ranking against specific selection criteria.
     Companies that originally suggested the programs still must submit
     specific project proposals if they wish to be considered for an
     award.  They will receive no preferential treatment.

What about programs that were suggested but are not included in this
announcement?

     The five programs announced today are the best-developed, most
     promising programs at this time. Others are still in development,
     including possible programs in construction, environmental
     technologies, chemicals, electronics, manufacturing, biotechnology,
     materials, and information technology.  We continue to solicit
     "white papers" from industry proposing other program areas. We
     envision program development as a continuous process and are
     working toward an additional set of programs that we hope to
     announce in November 1994.

Why do ATP-funded companies get sole intellectual-property rights to
technologies developed with taxpayer assistance?

     Bear in mind that the basic ATP mission is not technology
     development per se, but rather economic growth -- to work for the
     nation's economic growth and the international competitiveness of
     its industry by investing directly in innovative technologies with
     strong commercial potential.

     The ATP does not fund product development.  It backs promising but
     high-risk, enabling technologies that can form the basis for new
     and improved products, manufacturing processes, and services.  It
     accelerates technologies that, because they are risky, are unlikely
     to be developed in time to compete in rapidly changing world
     markets without such a partnership of industry and government.

     The selection criteria used to pick ATP projects include the
     potential of the technology to bring broad economic benefits to a
     significant portion of industry -- not just a single company.
     Companies are encouraged to share non- proprietary results and are
     expected to share results at workshops to be held periodically for
     each program, but NIST also encourages them to protect intellectual
     property developed under ATP projects because that increases their
     incentive to further pursue the technology and develop new
     products, processes, or services after the completion of the R&D.

Some of these program areas seem to involve a great deal of technical risk,
such as Component-Based Software, but others, such as Information
Infrastructure for Healthcare, seem to involve much less risk.  Why?

     All of these programs involve significant technical risks overall,
     otherwise there would be no need for the ATP to get involved.
     There may be differences between programs that involve only a
     handful of components, all of which are quite risky, and programs
     that involve a large number of diverse components that may not be
     so risky individually.  In the latter case, the issue is that the
     aggregate technical risk of pulling together all the individual
     components necessary for complete success is quite high, even if
     some components, on their own, are not particularly chancy.

Aren't you duplicating research that already is being pursued by other
federal agencies such as NIH or ARPA?

     The program development process includes close cooperation with
     research managers in other federal agencies to avoid just such a
     duplication of effort. Some ATP programs -- Tools for DNA
     Diagnostics, for example -- complement work under way at other
     agencies but have a distinctly different emphasis from any current
     or planned activities.

     In fact, a number of program suggestion white papers were forwarded
     to other agencies, such as ARPA, DOE, NIH, NASA, and the Department
     of Transportation, because they were closely related to
     mission-oriented research at those agencies.  Where there are
     complementary R&D programs being supported by both the ATP and
     other government agencies, the ATP works closely with those
     agencies to plan and execute its programs.  Agencies throughout the
     government have been very helpful to the ATP in this process.

What do you expect to be the short- and long-term effects of these
programs on employment?

     Economists broadly agree that technology is a key driver for
     economic growth, which in turn is vital in generating jobs for the
     economy.  The ATP is expected to generate hundreds of thousands of
     jobs in the long-term, once the underlying technologies developed
     by companies with ATP support are brought to the market as
     commercial products.  In addition to the jobs that would result
     directly from the ATP-supported technologies, a multiplier effect
     would be felt throughout the economy.  For example, each
     manufacturing job typically can expect to yield an additional four
     to five jobs.  We have not tried to estimate the specific
     job-generation prospects for each of these programs being announced
     today, recognizing that the largest payoff in terms of jobs will
     occur down the road and depends heavily on full commercial
     deployment of these technologies by U.S. companies.

April 1994