2012 OPAR STI Policy Review.pdf - Georgia Institute of Technology

Contributing AuthorsMs. Marlit Hayslett serves as the founding director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Office of Policy Analysisand Research (OPAR), the nation’s only applied research program focused on state-level science, technology, andinnovation (STI) policy. Motivated by the vision of improving public policy outcomes through evidence-based decisionmaking,Ms. Hayslett’s long-term research goals synthesize around understanding the role of government in fosteringinnovation-based economic development. In addition to leading OPAR’s applied policy research, Ms. Hayslettsupports the Georgia General Assembly’s House and Senate Science and Technology Committees. Most recently,she has collaborated with the state technology business community to introduce and enact legislation calling for atask force to explore the role of a strategic plan for S&T in Georgia. Ms. Hayslett was recently honored by the GeorgiaGeneral Assembly with two legislative resolutions recognizing and commending her work in science and technologypolicy in Georgia. Among her professional service activities, Ms. Hayslett serves on the Government Relations TaskForce and the Business and Technology Alliance, both of the Technology Association of Georgia. She is active in theGeorgia Tech community, serving on numerous committees including the Library Faculty Advisory Board, AcademicServices Committee, Open Access Committee, Policy@Tech, and the Strategic Planning Implementation Groupfor a Technology Policy Institute. She recently completed the Leadership Foundations Program offered by Womenin Technology, an industry association dedicated to empowering women. Ms. Hayslett holds a B.S. and M.S. inInternational Affairs and an M.S. in Public Policy from the Georgia Institute of Technology.Ms. Moon K. Kim is a Research Associate at the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Office of Policy Analysis andResearch (OPAR). Since the time she joined GTRI in 2009, Ms. Kim has helped develop a portfolio of policy researchthat examines legislation and policy instruments addressing science and technology issues across the nation.Her primary focus includes studying the role and the impact of state-level agencies on the growth of science andtechnology and in turn, identifying information they need for informed decision-making. Ms. Kim also serves as theAssistant Standards Coordinator for the Enterprise Innovation Institute’s Georgia Tech Energy & EnvironmentalManagement Center (GTEEMC). Ms. Kim manages the development processes of two energy managementstandards for national adoption in support of Superior Energy Performance, an initiative of the U.S. Council forEnergy-Efficient Manufacturing and the U.S. Department of Energy. She has received her Master’s in InternationalAffairs (2009) from Georgia Institute of Technology and is currently pursuing a Master’s in Public Policy.Ms. Elena Petrakieva is a Research Analyst at GTRI’s Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR). Ms. Petrakievahas been a member of the OPAR team since January 2010. She has been a major contributor to the revision of theSTI Legislative Landscape methodology, and her work has helped improve the precision, scope, and depth of theproject. Her additional responsibilities include statistical data analysis, data validation, and training and mentoringof new intern policy analysts. Ms. Petrakieva’s work centers on public policy’s role in economic development with aparticular focus on evaluating the ability of policy actions to achieve measurable results. She holds a Bachelor’s ofScience in Economics and International Affairs from the Georgia Institute of Technology.iiOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

AcknowledgementsThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) would like to extend special appreciation to the following internpolicy analysts who collected and analyzed data for our research portfolio over the past several years: HillaryAlberta, Kavonna Allen, Benjamin Appel, Allison Baker, Mithuna Bhatt, Anthony Boyles, Rebecca Bullard, ChristinaCataldo, Emily Chambers, Njeri Chasseau, Ben Cockburn, Michael Donohue, Mary Catherine Farrell, CatherineFlynn, Ruzanna Frey, Sarah Gitt, Matthew Gould, Joy Guan, Tamara Glover, Thomas Haddle, Alison Hammond,Lindsey Hankins, Andrew Harris, Yujia He, Alexandra Henke, Travis Horsley, Robert Hovencamp, Maria Johnson,Ruchir Karmali, Timothy Lin, Erika Loupee, Natalie McGee, Jason Mills, Alex Milona, Katie Murphy, Douglas Moski,Tiara Napier, Carrie Oliver, Deborah Ortiz, Eunice Park, Ramya Parthasarathy, Emily Pechar, Krystal Persaud, ElenaPetrakieva, Jay Jake Rachels, Kyla Rogers, Diana Roldan, Elizabeth Settle, Danielle Sharpe, Atiyya Shaw, AlexandraShema, Rachel Shoenthal, Maria Sotnikova, Samuel Steed, and Haopeng (Crystal) Xu.In addition, OPAR would like to thank colleagues in the Georgia General Assembly for their support of our research.Finally, we thank the GTRI leadership, past and present, for their support of the establishment and growth of OPAR.OPAR 2012 STI Policy Reviewiii

Table of ContentsLetter from the Editor........................................................................................................................1National Overview.............................................................................................................................2Alabama..........................................................................................................................................10Alaska.............................................................................................................................................12Arizona............................................................................................................................................14Arkansas.........................................................................................................................................16California.........................................................................................................................................18Colorado.........................................................................................................................................20Connecticut.....................................................................................................................................22Delaware.........................................................................................................................................24Florida.............................................................................................................................................26Georgia...........................................................................................................................................28Hawaii.............................................................................................................................................30Idaho...............................................................................................................................................32Illinois..............................................................................................................................................34Indiana............................................................................................................................................36Iowa................................................................................................................................................38Kansas............................................................................................................................................40Kentucky.........................................................................................................................................42Louisiana.........................................................................................................................................44Maine..............................................................................................................................................46Maryland.........................................................................................................................................48Massachusetts................................................................................................................................50Michigan..........................................................................................................................................52Minnesota.......................................................................................................................................54Mississippi.......................................................................................................................................56Missouri...........................................................................................................................................58Montana..........................................................................................................................................60Nebraska.........................................................................................................................................62Nevada............................................................................................................................................64New Hampshire..............................................................................................................................66New Jersey.....................................................................................................................................68New Mexico....................................................................................................................................70New York.........................................................................................................................................72North Carolina.................................................................................................................................74ivOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

North Dakota...................................................................................................................................76Ohio................................................................................................................................................78Oklahoma........................................................................................................................................80Oregon............................................................................................................................................82Pennsylvania...................................................................................................................................84Rhode Island...................................................................................................................................86South Carolina................................................................................................................................88South Dakota..................................................................................................................................90Tennessee.......................................................................................................................................92Texas...............................................................................................................................................94Utah................................................................................................................................................96Vermont...........................................................................................................................................98Virginia..........................................................................................................................................100Washington...................................................................................................................................102West Virginia.................................................................................................................................104Wisconsin......................................................................................................................................106Wyoming.......................................................................................................................................108Appendix A:................................................................................................................................... 110Appendix B: .................................................................................................................................. 111Appendix C: ................................................................................................................................. 113Appendix D: ................................................................................................................................. 115Appendix E: ..................................................................................................................................123

viOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Letter from the EditorNovember 2012Dear Reader,On behalf of the OPAR team, thank you for taking the time to review this fourth edition of OPAR’s Science,Technology, and Innovation Policy Review: A State-Level Legislative Analysis. Science, technology, and innovation(STI) comprise an emerging public policy area at the state level. The issues are complex, making it difficult tounderstand their relevance as public policy issues. With this in mind, OPAR is dedicated to researching andunderstanding STI policy trends, and subsequently communicating that knowledge to policymakers and technologists.In addition to providing a detailed analysis of 2011 STI legislation, this report also offers a broader view of the STIpolicy landscape in each state. The goal of this research is to inform state-level policymakers of nationwide trends inSTI policy and to elevate the discussion of STI policy issues.Here are some of the highlights from our research:Our survey of state STI legislation resulted in 521 bills in 2011, down from 3,364 bills in 2010 and from 1,887 in 2009.You may wonder about this fluctuation and whether it accurately depicts of the volume of state-level STI legislation. Itdoes, but it has limitations. This fluctuation is explained by changes in our methodology. In 2009 and 2010, our teamanalyzed both introduced and enacted legislation. Due to the volume of bills produced by legislatures, we decidedto limit our analysis to enacted bills only in 2011. In conjunction, we expanded our keyword list. The net effect ofthese two changes still resulted in a significantly smaller number of STI bills overall. For 2012, we will be returning toanalysis of both introduced and enacted bills, with a more limited keyword list.Using our classification system to identify the bill’s purpose, we found that legislatures tend to promote STI issues. Ofall the 521 STI bills, they have four main legislative purposes: to promote (43%), regulate (49%), study (5%) and limit(3%). These trends are consistent with the 2010 data.When observing the broader STI policy infrastructure, our research shows that states have an average of 3.56 out of9 of the current STI policy mechanisms. The most common state-level STI policy mechanism is an organization thatoffers a consulting service to entrepreneurs as they start up new businesses. The least common state-level STI policymechanism is a research and development fund.Again, we appreciate your interest in this emerging state-level public policy area. If you would like to offer anyfeedback, or have any questions about our research (from methodology to results), we would love to hear from you.Best regards,Marlit HayslettDirectorOffice of Policy Analysis and ResearchGeorgia Tech Research InstituteGeorgia Institute of Technology

Highlights»»Across the UnitedStates, 521 bills wereenacted that addressscience, technology andinnovation (STI) topics orkeywords.»»Of the 521 STI billsenacted, 3% limit, 43%promote, 49% regulate,and 5% study thekeyword on which theylegislated.»»Nationwide, the STIkeyword most frequentlyenacted on wasrenewable energy.Science, Technology, Innovation (STI) Policy LandscapeNational Overview“”— Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy“We live in an increasingly competitive world—a world in which science,technology, and innovation, and the educational and economic policies...can make all the difference between success and failure as a Nation. ”What is science, technology and innovation policy?Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy involves any form ofgovernment activity intended to influence the conduct and/or advancementof scientific research, technical development, and innovation in responseto societal needs. 1 STI policy was originally led by the federal government,with a focus on research and development investments. Over the past 15to 20 years, STI public policy has matured to include discussions on theimpact of STI advances on quality of life issues such as transportation,healthcare, and education. Specifically, policymakers are increasinglyinterested in how advances in STI influence job creation and sustainableeconomic development.Interest among state leaders in STI policy initially surfaced in the 1980s,as state executive and legislative officials joined scientists and engineersfrom STI associations, universities, and federal agencies to formulate STIpolicy. 2,3 By the 1990s, state governors and state agencies, such as thedepartment of economic development, began to recognize the value of STIfor economic growth. In the last decade, state governments’ interest andeffort to assert a greater role in the development and management of STIpolicies has increased in parallel with their own interest in cultivating anSTI-based economy. 4In 2009, the Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the GeorgiaTech Research Institute began conducting research on state-level STIpolicies. OPAR examines state STI public policy activities in the form oflegislation, legislative committees, government agencies, strategic plans,and others. By tracking and analyzing these forms of public policy overtime, OPAR aims to examine their impact on the innovation ecosystem inthe United States. The Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) PolicyReview is a compilation of OPAR’s findings and includes a profile of eachstate’s STI policies in 2011.Research SummaryOPAR’s portfolio of STI policy research involves the collection,classification, and analysis of state-level STI legislation and other forms ofpublic policy activity. The following projects comprise OPAR’s STI policyresearch:The STI Legislative Landscape involves the collection and monitoring ofstate legislation on STI topics. For 2011, the OPAR research team selected1Stine, D.D. (2009). Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer. Congressional ResearchService.2Geiger, R.L. and Sá, C. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: US state policies to harnessuniversity research for economic development. Minerva, 43, 1-21.3Feller, I. (1992). American state governments as models for national science policy. Journal ofPolicy Analysis and Management, 11 (2), 288-309.4Geiger, R.L. and Sá, C. (2005).2 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

107 STI keywords (topics) on which to identify andcollect relevant pieces of legislation. Based on the107 STI keywords, the research team collected andanalyzed 521 enacted bills across the 50 states. Ofthe 107 STI keywords, 62 keywords were associatedwith at least one piece of legislation, leaving 45STI keywords that did not yield any state legislationin 2011. It is observed that these 45 keywordsare emerging STI topics. 5 See Appendix A for thecomplete list of STI keywords and the total billsenacted for each in 2011.The Legislative Typology is a classification schemethat allows the analyst to classify legislation basedon its overarching purpose towards the STI keyword.The legislation is classified based on its purpose topromote, regulate, limit, or study the STI keyword. Ofthe 521 STI bills enacted, 18 bills were classified aslimit, 307 bills as promote, 351 bills as regulate, and38 bills as study. 6The STI Policy Infrastructure maps the presence orabsence of several STI policy mechanisms in eachstate. An “STI policy mechanism” is defined as apolicy or entity created by the state government inorder to cultivate STI. Examples of these STI policymechanisms include the following: research anddevelopment funding; commercialization funding;technology, equipment and lab space; consulting ormentoring; liaisons to angels and venture capital;marketing STI for the state; legislative committee; STIstrategic plan; and STI advisory role. All states have atleast one of the nine STI policy mechanisms selectedby OPAR. See Appendix C for the inventory of STIpolicy mechanisms for each of the states in 2011.OPAR’s STI Policy Review can be viewed as analmanac that offers a profile of each state’s STIpolicies implemented in 2011. The following sectiondetails major findings from each of these researchprojects in 2011. For a complete discussion of theproject methodologies, see Appendix E.Major FindingsSTI Legislative LandscapeOPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape offers a summaryof major findings from the 2011 legislative session.5The research team theorizes that since public policy tends toadvance at a slower pace than technology and innovation,legislative action in these areas may be forthcoming in future years.Another possible explanation is that these keywords may be toospecific (e.g. cellulosic ethanol) while legislation usually addressesthe general issue (e.g. biofuel).6The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may begreater than the total number of enacted bills. This is becausesome bills have multiple legislative purposes, in which case theywere categorized under more than one purpose.How many pieces of STI legislation wereenacted in 2011?In 2011, states enacted 521 bills which legislatedon STI topics.Which states enacted the most STI bills? Whichstates enacted the fewest STI bills?Virginia enacted the most STI legislation with72 bills, followed by California with 36 bills, andOregon with 30 bills. Massachusetts, Ohio, andPennsylvania did not enact legislation on any ofOPAR’s STI topics, while Alabama and SouthCarolina enacted only one piece of legislation.Tables 1 and 2 list the top and bottom statesrespectively.StateTable 1: States thatenacted themost STI billsSTI billsVirginia 72California 36Oregon 30StateTable 2: States thatenacted thefewest STI billsMassachusetts,Ohio, PennsylvaniaAlabama, SouthCarolinaAlaska, Delaware,Georgia,South Dakota,Tennessee,WisconsinSTI billsOn how many STI keywords did states enactlegislation in 2011?Of the total 107 STI keywords, states enactedlegislation on 62 keywords, leaving 45 keywordsthat did not yield any state laws in 2011. Onaverage, a state enacted legislation on eight STIkeywords in 2011.Which states enacted legislation on themost STI keywords? Which states enactedlegislation on the fewest STI keywords?Virginia enacted on the most with 25 STIkeywords, followed by California and Illinois with20 STI keywords each. Massachusetts, Ohio, andPennsylvania did not enact legislation on any ofthe 107 STI keywords. Alabama, South Carolina,and Tennessee only enacted legislation on oneSTI keyword. Table 3 and Table 4 list the top andbottom states respectively.012OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review3

Table 3: States thatenacted legislation on themost STI keywordsStateSTIkeywordsVirginia 25Table 4: States thatenacted legislation onthe fewest STI keywordsStateMassachusetts,Ohio,PennsylvaniaSTIkeywords0Which STI keyword had the highest number ofenacted bills that promote? Regulate? Limit?Study?The STI keyword renewable energy had thehighest number of bills in three of the fourpurposes. Table 5 offers the STI keywords with thehighest number of enacted bills for each legislativepurpose.California,Illinois20Alabama,South Carolina,Tennessee1Table 5: STI keywords with the highest number of enactedbills for each legislative purposeNew Jersey,Oregon18Alaska, SouthDakota,Wisconsin,Wyoming2Legislative PurposeSTI KeywordEnacted STIbillsLimit Stem cells 6STI Legislative TypologyThe STI Legislative Typology is a classificationscheme developed by OPAR to categorize STIlegislation based on the bill’s purpose towards thekeyword. The four legislative purposes are promote,regulate, limit, and study. Guiding research questionsare listed below, followed by the typology results onthe 2011 STI legislative data.PromoteRegulateStudyRenewableenergyRenewableenergyRenewableenergy, Aerospace64406Of the enacted STI legislation in 2011, howmany bills promote, regulate, study, and/or limitthe STI keyword?Of the 521 pieces of enacted STI legislation, 18bills were classified as limit, 307 bills as promote,351 bills as regulate, and 38 bills as study. Thesum of bills for each purpose is greater than thetotal of STI bills collected because some bills havemore than one purpose. For example, a single billmight promote one keyword and regulate anotherkeyword. In such a case, the bill is categorizedaccording to the two purposes it serves. Figure 1summarizes the breakdown of enacted STI bills bylegislative purpose.Figure 1: Nationwide STI Legislative Typology in 2011Percentage of Total STI Bills3%43%49%5%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative PurposeWhat are the least frequently occurring STIkeywords?The following keywords had one enacted bill in2011: artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles,biosecurity, classroom wiki, computing, defensetechnology, genetically modified, genetics, highspeed rail, hybrid vehicles, incident commandsystem, incident management system, informationaccess, interactive media, nanotechnology, andweb page.What are the top ten most frequently occurringSTI keywords?Of the enacted STI legislation from 2011, theten most frequently occurring STI keywordsare renewable energy, information technology,biomass, wind energy, vaccines, broadband,biofuels, hydro, solar energy, and electric vehicles. 1Table 6 shows the top ten most frequentlyoccurring STI keywords and their total number ofbills along with their legislative purpose.1It is very common for a bill to have more than one keyword,particularly in an area such as renewable energy. If the bill containsmultiple keywords (and meets the other criteria), it is included inthe count for each keyword. However, the bill is only counted oncein the total bill count of 521 across the country.4 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Table 6: STI Legislative Typology on the top ten mostfrequently legislated STI keywords in 2011STIKeywordRenewableenergyInformationtechnologyBiomassWindenergyVaccinesBroadbandBiofuelsHydroSolarEnergyElectricvehiclesTotalEnactedSTI bills%Limit%Promote%Regulate%Study110 0% 58% 36% 5%59 0% 51% 47% 2%41 0% 44% 54% 2%35 6% 40% 51% 3%32 6% 50% 44% 0%30 0% 57% 40% 3%27 0% 26% 63% 11%27 0% 26% 70% 4%23 0% 43% 52% 4%21 0% 71% 14% 14%Which states enacted the highest number ofbills that promote? Regulate? Limit? Study?Virginia enacted the highest number of STI billsthat limit, regulate, and study. California enactedthe highest number of bills that promote. Table 7shows the state that enacted the most STI bills foreach legislative purpose.Table 7: State with the highest number of enacted STI billsfor each legislative purposeLegislative PurposeStateTotal EnactedSTI billsLimit Virginia 8Promote California 29Regulate Virginia 48Study Virginia 7New Analysis in 2011As OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape matures, theresearch invites new questions. In order to gain adeeper understanding of the STI policy landscapeacross the fifty states, OPAR has added two new typesof analysis to the methodology: level of focus andpolicy tool. The following discussion provides a briefsummary of each of these new additions to OPAR’slegislative analysis.Level of FocusAn individual piece of legislation will frequentlyaddress more than one idea, topic, or issue. OPARis interested in discerning the degree to which abill focuses on a STI keyword versus other non-STItopics. For example, if the keyword renewable energyonly occurs once in a ten-page bill, it is likely that thebill is only marginally related to renewable energy.Conversely, a two-page bill with ten occurrences ofrenewable energy is likely focused exclusively onrenewable energy. Building on this assumption, OPARhas developed a criterion called the level of focus, andthe classifications are high, medium, low and none.This criterion is determined by how often the keywordappears in the bill text and the location of the keyword.For instance, if the keyword cloud computing occurs atleast three times throughout the bill text and appearsin the bill title or abstract, the bill is designated ashaving a high level of focus. Bills that have less thantwo occurrences of the keyword are designated asnone, and therefore do not get included into OPAR’sfinal data set. General observations of the level offocus on 2011 legislation are below:Of all the enacted STI legislation from 2011,how many bills had a level of focus of High?Medium? Low?Of the 521 STI bills enacted, 191 bills (27%) wereclassified as having a high level of focus, 287 bills(40%) as medium, and 236 bills (33%) as low ontheir respective STI keywords. Figure 2 shows thepercent breakdown of bills based on the level offocus.Percentage of enacted STI billsFigure 2: Nationwide Levels of Focus in 201127%33%40%High Low MediumLevel of FocusWhich STI keyword had the highest number ofenacted bills for each level of focus?The keyword renewable energy had the highestOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review5

number of bills classified as high (43 bills) andmedium (49) levels of focus, while informationtechnology garnered the most bills classified aslow. Table 8 presents the keyword with the mostnumber of enacted bills for each level of focus.Table 8: The STI keyword with the highest number ofenacted bills for each level of focusLevel of FocusKeywordTotal EnactedSTI billsHigh Renewable energy 43Medium Renewable energy 49Percentage of enacted STI billsFigure 3: Nationwide STI Policy Tools in 20119% 10%14%56%10%Funding Other Program Standards TaxIncentiveSTI Policy Tool2%Tax/feeLow Information technology 31Policy ToolsAnother new type of analysis OPAR has added is thepolicy tool. This analysis strives to characterize how apiece of legislation will accomplish its purpose. A policytool is defined as a specific policy action that is citedin the bill to carry out the purpose of the legislationtoward the STI keyword. In 2011, OPAR tested thisnew criterion by assigning one of the following policyactions for each bill:•§Funding (e.g., grant, loan, any type of financialassistance)•§Program (e.g., government initiated plan, service)•§Standards (e.g., guidelines on how the keywordcan be produced, consumed, or operated)•§Tax/Fee (e.g., tariff, toll, other forms of levy)•§Tax Incentive (e.g., tax break, tax credit, taxrebate)•§OtherGeneral observations of the policy tools on 2011legislation are below:What was the most common policy tool in2011? What was the least common policy tool?Of the 521 STI bills enacted, 397 bills (56%) citedstandards as a policy tool with regards to the STIkeyword. Tax/fee were the least cited policy toolwith a total of only 13 bills (2%). Figure 3 showsthe frequency of the policy tools.Which state enacted the highest number of STIbills for each policy tool?Table 9 offers the states that have the most bills foreach policy tool.Table 9: State with the highest number of enacted STI billsfor each policy toolPolicy ToolStateTotal EnactedSTI billsFunding Colorado 12Program Virginia 13Standards Virginia 46Tax/Fee Virginia 12Tax Incentive Virginia, California 3Other Virginia 13STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementing uniquepolicies and creating special entities to cultivate anenvironment that fosters growth for STI industries.OPAR has developed a classification system to identifythese STI-specific policies and entities, referred to as“policy mechanisms”. These policy mechanisms areat least partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STI PolicyInfrastructure.At present, OPAR has identified nine STI policymechanisms. Five policy mechanisms helpentrepreneurs navigate the innovation cycle. Theseare 1) research and development funding, 2) accessto technology, equipment, and lab space, 3) consulting6 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

for entrepreneurs, 4) connections to angel and venturecapital funding, and 5) commercialization funding.The remaining four policy mechanisms facilitate STIin the state are 1) an agency marking STI for the stateto outside companies, 2) STI strategic plan, 3) STIlegislative committee(s), and 4) an STI advisory body.Figures 4 through 12 highlight states that have each ofthese STI policy mechanisms. Results of this researchindicate the following for 2011:How many states have each of the nine STIpolicy mechanisms?•§Eight states have research and developmentfunding.•§Twenty-two states have commercializationfunding.•§Eleven states have an agency providingtechnology, equipment, and lab space forentrepreneurs.•§Forty-two states have consulting and/ormentoring for entrepreneurs.•§Eleven states have an agency liaising amongentrepreneurs and angel investors and venturecapitalists.•§Twenty-six states have an agency marketing STIfor the states.•§Thirty-one states have STI legislativecommittee(s).•§Twelve states have an STI strategic plan.•§Fifteen states have an STI advisory body.Figure 4: Presence or Absence ofR&D FundingFigure 5: Presence or Absence ofCommercialization FundingWhich states have all nine policy mechanismswith regard to STI policy?None of the states have all nine policymechanisms.Which states have the most policy mechanismswith regard to STI policy?North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah have seven outof the nine policy mechanisms.Figure 6: Presence or Absence ofTechnology, Equipment, and LabsHow many states have none of the policymechanisms with regard to STI policy?All states have at least one policy mechanism. Fora comprehensive listing of all policy mechanismssee Appendices C and D.OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review7

Figure 7: Presence or Absence ofConsulting and/or Mentoring for EntrepreneursFigure 8: Presence or Absence ofLiaisons with Angels and Venture CapitalFigure 9: Presence or Absence ofAgency Marketing STI for the StateFigure 10: Presence or Absence ofLegislative Committee(s)Figure 11: Presence or Absence ofSTI Strategic PlanFigure 12: Presence or Absence ofSTI Advisory Body8 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review9

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeAlabamaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofAlabama’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 1STI Keywords: 1Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 1»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Alabama.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process65 bills with STI keywords introduced13 bills with STI keywords enacted1 bill with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Alabama ranked 21 st nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Alabamaenacted one STI bill. See Figure 2 for a description of Alabama’s STI billand its purpose. 2•§Alabama enacted legislation on one STI keyword, distance learning.Figure 2. Summary of Alabama’s STI bill enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummaryHB 321DistancelearningRegulateAmends regulation of certain schoolsand courses of instruction (includingthose conducted by distance learningeducation) and exemptions from schoollicensing.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.10 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy MechanismAll StatesALAlabama’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Alabama has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Alabama Small Business DevelopmentCenterLegislative Committee(s)•§House Committee on Technology andResearchSTI Strategic Plan•§Alabama Science and Technology Roadmapr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review11

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeAlaskaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofAlaska’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 2STI Keywords: 2Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 1»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Alaska.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process35 bills with STI keywords introduced8 bills with STI keywords enacted2 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Alaska ranked 20 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Alaskaenacted two STI bills. See Figure 2 for a description of Alaska’s STI billsand their purposes. 2•§Alaska enacted legislation on two STI keywords, alternative energy andhydro power.Figure 2. Summary of Alaska’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummarySB 42Alternativeenergy,Hydro powerRegulate,PromoteSpecifies powers and duties of AlaskaEnergy Authority and provides approvalof loans from the power project fund.HJR 9AlternativeenergyPromoteUrges the United States Congress topass legislation on measures increasingthe development and use of alternativeenergy technologies.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.12 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy MechanismAll StatesAKAlaska’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Alaska has one. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Alaska Small Business Development Centerr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review13

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeArizonaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofArizona’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 11STI Keywords: 6Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 3»»Regulate: 8»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Arizona.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process85 bills with STI keywords introduced20 bills with STI keywords enacted11 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Arizona ranked 13 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Arizonaenacted eleven STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Arizona enacted legislation on six keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was distance learning.Figure 2: What do Arizona’s enacted STI bills do?73%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%27%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose14 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesAZArizona’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Arizona has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring forEntrepreneurs•§Arizona Small Business DevelopmentCenterMarketing STI for the State•§Arizona Commerce AuthorityLegislative Committee(s)•§House Committee on Higher Education,Innovation, and Reform•§House Committee on Technology andInfrastructurer&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review15

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeArkansasResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofArkansas’ STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 14STI Keywords: 10Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 6»»Regulate: 12»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingLegislative Committee(s)STI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Arkansas.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process61 bills with STI keywords introduced29 bills with STI keywords enacted14 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Arkansas ranked 10 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Arkansasenacted 14 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Arkansas enacted legislation on ten keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was alternative fuels.Figure 2: What do Arkansas’ enacted STI bills do?67%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%33%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose16 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesARArkansas’ STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Arkansas has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Arkansas Science and TechnologyAuthority: Seed Capital Investment ProgramLegislative Committee(s)•§Senate Committee on Transportation,Technology, and Legislative AffairsSTI Advisory Body•§Arkansas Science and Technology Authorityr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review17

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeCaliforniaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofCalifornia’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 36STI Keywords: 20Legislative Typology»»Limit: 4»»Promote: 29»»Regulate: 24»»Study: 3Policy InfrastructureLegislative Committee(s)STI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin California.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process251 bills with STI keywords introduced78 bills with STI keywords enacted36 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§California ranked 2 nd nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Californiaenacted 36 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. California enacted legislation on 20 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do California’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills7%48%40%5%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose18 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesCACalifornia’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, California has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Legislative Committee(s)•§Select Committee on Emerging Technologiesand Economic Competitiveness•§Select Committee on Excellence andInnovation in State Government•§Select Committee on Government Efficiency,Technology, and Innovation•§Select Committee on High TechnologySTI Advisory Body•§California Council on Science andTechnologyr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review19

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeColoradoResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofColorado’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 18STI Keywords: 8Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 16»»Regulate: 4»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Colorado.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process82 bills with STI keywords introduced38 bills with STI keywords enacted18 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Colorado ranked 7 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Coloradoenacted 18 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Colorado enacted legislation on eight keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was information technology.Figure 2: What do Colorado’s enacted STI bills do?76%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%19%5%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose20 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesCOColorado’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Colorado has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Colorado Small Business DevelopmentCenterLegislative Committee(s)•§Senate Committee on Business, Labor, andTechnologyr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review21

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeConnecticutResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofConnecticut’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 14STI Keywords: 9Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 8»»Regulate: 8»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Connecticut.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process138 bills with STI keywords introduced26 bills with STI keywords enacted14 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Connecticut ranked 10 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten.Connecticut enacted 14 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of thesebills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Connecticut enacted legislation on nine keywords. The mostfrequent keywords were clinical trials and solar energy, with three billseach.Figure 2: What do Connecticut’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%50% 50%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose22 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesCTConnecticut’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Connecticut has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§Clean Energy Finance and InvestmentAuthority: Alpha ProgramCommercialization Funding•§Connecticut Innovations: Seed InvestmentFundConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Connecticut Small Business DevelopmentCenterLegislative Committee(s)•§Joint Energy and Technology Committeer&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review23

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeDelawareResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofDelaware’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 2STI Keywords: 3Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 1»»Regulate: 2»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalLegislative Committee(s)STI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Delaware.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process12 bills with STI keywords introduced7 bills with STI keywords enacted2 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Delaware ranked 20 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Delawareenacted two STI bills. See Figure 2 for a description of Delaware’s STIbills and their purpose. 2•§Delaware enacted legislation on three STI keywords, clean energy, fuelcell, and renewable portfolio standards (RPS).Figure 2. Summary of Delaware’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummarySB 124RPS,Fuel cellRegulateAmends state code relating toDelaware’s renewable energyportfolio standards and Delawaremanufacturedfuel cells.SB 40 Clean energy PromoteAmends state code pertaining tobusiness tax credits and deductionsand clean energy technology devicemanufacturing.24 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesDEDelaware’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Delaware has six. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Small Business Innovation Research BridgeGrantsTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§Delaware Technology ParkConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Delaware Small Business DevelopmentCenterLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Delaware Small Business DevelopmentCenterLegislative Committee(s)•§House Telecommunication, Internet, andTechnology CommitteeSTI Advisory Body•§Technology Investment Councilr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review25

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeFloridaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofFlorida’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 8STI Keywords: 6Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 4»»Regulate: 6»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Florida.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process219 bills with STI keywords introduced12 bills with STI keywords enacted8 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Florida ranked 15 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Floridaenacted eight STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Florida enacted legislation on six keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was broadband.Figure 2: What do Florida’s enacted STI bills do?55%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%36%9%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose26 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesFLFlorida’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Florida has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Florida Institute for Commercialization ofPublic ResearchTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§Technology Research and DevelopmentAuthorityLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Florida Small Business Development CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Enterprise Floridar&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review27

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeGeorgiaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofGeorgia’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 2STI Keywords: 3Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 3»»Regulate: 0»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Georgia.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process79 bills with STI keywords introduced6 bills with STI keywords enacted2 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Georgia ranked 20 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Georgiaenacted two STI bills. See Figure 2 for a description of Georgia’s STIbills and their purpose. 2•§Georgia enacted legislation on three STI keywords, bioenergy, cleanenergy, and renewable energy.Figure 2. Summary of Georgia’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummaryHB 274Bioenergy,RenewableenergyPromoteSets recommendations for the handlingof yard trimmings to be in line withbioenergy and renewable energy goals.HB 346 Clean energy PromoteRevises and changes the income taxcredit for clean energy property.28 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesGAGeorgia’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Georgia has six. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Georgia Research Alliance: Venture LabTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§Advanced Technology Development CenterConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Advanced Technology Development Center•§Georgia Small Business DevelopmentCenter•§Enterprise Innovation InstituteLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Advanced Technology Development CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Georgia Department of EconomicDevelopmentLegislative Committee(s)•§House Science and Technology Committee•§Senate Science and Technology Committee•§Science and Technology Strategic InitiativeJoint Study Commissionr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommitteesSTI Strategicplan8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 states12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review29

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeHawaiiResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofHawaii’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 19STI Keywords: 14Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 13»»Regulate: 12»»Study: 2Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Hawaii.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process286 bills with STI keywords introduced25 bills with STI keywords enacted19 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Hawaii ranked 6 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Hawaiienacted 19 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Hawaii enacted legislation on 14 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Hawaii’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%48%44%7%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose30 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesHIHawaii’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Hawaii has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§High Technology Development Corporation:SBIR Matching Grant programTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§High Technology Development Corporation:Incubation ProgramsConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Hawaii Small Business Development CenterLegislative Committee(s)§ • Senate Committee on EconomicDevelopment and Technologyr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review31

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeIdahoResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofIdaho’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 4Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 1»»Regulate: 4»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Idaho.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process41 bills with STI keywords introduced13 bills with STI keywords enacted4 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Idaho ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Idahoenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Idaho enacted legislation on four keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was stem cells.Figure 2: What do Idaho’s enacted STI bills do?80%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%20%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose32 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesIDIdaho’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Idaho has five. For a comprehensivelisting of policy mechanisms across all 50 statessee Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Idaho Small Business TechnologyDevelopment CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Idaho Department of CommerceLegislative Committee(s)•§House Committee on Environment, Energy,and Technology•§Joint Energy, Environment, and TechnologyInterim CommitteeSTI Strategic Plan•§Moving Forward: Accelerating Idaho’sInnovation EconomySTI Advisory Body•§Idaho Innovation Councilr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review33

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeIllinoisResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofIllinois’ STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 22STI Keywords: 20Legislative Typology»»Limit: 1»»Promote: 16»»Regulate: 16»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Illinois.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process270 bills with STI keywords introduced48 bills with STI keywords enacted22 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Illinois ranked 5 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Illinoisenacted 22 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Illinois enacted legislation on 20 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Illinois‘ enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills3%48% 48%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose34 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesILIllinois’ STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Illinois has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Illinois Small Business Development CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Illinois Department of Commerce andEconomic OpportunityLegislative Committee(s)•§Senate Subcommittee on Competitivenessand Innovation•§Senate Subcommittee on EmergingTechnologies and Special IssuesSTI Advisory Body•§Illinois Innovation Council•§Illinois Science and Technology Coalitionr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review35

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeIndianaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofIndiana’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 6STI Keywords: 7Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 7»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Indiana.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process91 bills with STI keywords introduced18 bills with STI keywords enacted6 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Indiana ranked 16 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Indianaenacted six STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Indiana enacted legislation on seven keywords. The mostfrequent keywords were geographic information system (GIS) andrenewable energy, with two bills each.Figure 2: What do Indiana’s enacted STI bills do?78%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%22%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose36 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesINIndiana’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Indiana has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Marketing STI for the State•§Indiana Economic Development CorporationLegislative Committee(s)•§Senate Utilities and Technology Committeer&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review37

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeIowaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofIowa’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 8STI Keywords: 8Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 7»»Regulate: 5»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Iowa.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process107 bills with STI keywords introduced11 bills with STI keywords enacted8 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Iowa ranked 15 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Iowaenacted eight STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Iowa enacted legislation on eight keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was information technology.Figure 2: What do Iowa’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%58%42%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose38 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesIAIowa’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Iowa has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Iowa Small Business Development CenterSTI Strategic Plan•§Iowa Innovation Council - Strategic PlanSTI Advisory Body•§Iowa Innovation Councilr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review39

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeKansasResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofKansas’ STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 3STI Keywords: 3Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 3»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Kansas.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process65 bills with STI keywords introduced6 bills with STI keywords enacted3 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Kansas ranked 19 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Kansasenacted three STI bills. See Figure 2 for a description of Kansas’ STIbills and their purpose. 2•§Kansas enacted legislation on three STI keywords, broadband, healthinformation exchange, and solar energy.Figure 2. Summary of Kansas’ STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummarySB 72 Broadband RegulateAmends law concerningtelecommunications and the reportingof state corporation commissionregarding broadband services.HB 2182HealthinformationexchangeRegulateSpecifies authority and duty of theKansas Health Information Exchange,Inc.SB 227 Solar energy RegulateRequires solar agreements to run withsurface estate.40 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesKSKansas’ STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Kansas has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Kansas Small Business Development CenterLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Wichita Technology Corporationr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review41

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeKentuckyResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofKentucky’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 9Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 6»»Regulate: 2»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Kentucky.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process76 bills with STI keywords introduced7 bills with STI keywords enacted4 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Kentucky ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Kentuckyenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Kentucky did not have a most frequently occurring keyword. Thestate enacted legislation on nine keywords with one bill each.Figure 2: What do Kentucky’s enacted STI bills do?67%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%22%11%42 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesKYKentucky’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Kentucky has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Kentucky Cabinet for EconomicDevelopment: SBIR-STTR Matching FundsProgramTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§Kentucky Office of Innovation andCommercializationConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Kentucky Office of Innovation andCommercialization•§Emerging Ventures: Center for Innovationr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review43

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeLouisianaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofLouisiana’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 4Legislative Typology»»Limit: 1»»Promote: 1»»Regulate: 2»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Louisiana.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process55 bills with STI keywords introduced7 bills with STI keywords enacted4 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Louisiana ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Louisianaenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Louisiana did not have a most frequently occurring keyword.The state enacted legislation on four keywords with one bill each.Figure 2: What do Louisiana’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills25% 25%50%0%44 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesLALouisiana’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Louisiana has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Louisiana Small Business DevelopmentCenterLegislative Committee(s)§ • Senate Select Consumer Affairs andTechnology Committeer&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review45

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMaineResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMaine’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 14STI Keywords: 6Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 7»»Regulate: 6»»Study: 2Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Maine.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process87 bills with STI keywords introduced33 bills with STI keywords enacted14 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Maine ranked 10 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Maineenacted 14 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Maine enacted legislation on six keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Maine’s enacted STI bills do?47%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%40%13%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose46 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesMEMaine’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Maine has six. For a comprehensivelisting of policy mechanisms across all 50 statessee Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§Maine Technology Institute: BusinessInnovation Program•§Maine Technology Institute: TechnologyAsset FundCommercialization Funding•§Maine Technology Institute: TechnologyAsset FundConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Maine Small Business Development CenterLegislative Committee(s)•§Joint Standing Committee on Energy,Utilities, and TechnologySTI Strategic Plan•§2010 Science and Technology Action Plan:A Bold Approach to Stimulate Maine’sEconomySTI Advisory Body•§Maine Innovation Economy Advisory Boardr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommitteesSTI Strategicplan8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 states12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review47

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMarylandResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMaryland’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 26STI Keywords: 13Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 12»»Regulate: 18»»Study: 4Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Maryland.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process91 bills with STI keywords introduced38 bills with STI keywords enacted26 billsAccording to OPAR’s research:with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteria•§Maryland ranked 4 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Marylandenacted 26 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Maryland enacted legislation on 13 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Maryland’s enacted STI bills do?53%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%35%12%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose48 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy MechanismAll StatesMDMaryland’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Maryland has six. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§Technology Development CorporationCommercialization Funding•§Maryland Technology Enterprise Institute•§Technology Development CorporationConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Maryland Small Business DevelopmentCenter•§Maryland Department of Business andEconomic DevelopmentLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Maryland Department of Business andEconomic Development: Maryland VentureFundMarketing STI for the State•§Maryland Department of Business andEconomic DevelopmentLegislative Committee(s)§ • House Banking, Economic Development,Science, and Technology Subcommitteer&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommitteesSTI Strategicplan8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 states12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review49

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMassachusettsResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMassachusetts’ STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 0STI Keywords: 0Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 0»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureTech, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Massachusetts.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process221 bills with STI keywords introduced1 bills with STI keywords enacted0 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§In 2011, Massachusetts did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107STI keywords. Other states that did not enact STI legislation in 2011include Ohio and Pennsylvania.•§Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation in 2011.The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten.•§In comparison, last year Massachusetts enacted five bills on five STIkeywords: biotechnology, broadband, clean energy, renewable energy,and fuel cell.50 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy MechanismAll StatesMAMassachusetts’ STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Massachusetts has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Technology, Equipment, and Labs•§Massachusetts Biomedical InitiativesConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Massachusetts Technology Transfer CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Massachusetts: It’s All HereLegislative Committee(s)§ • Joint Committee on Economic Developmentand Emerging Technologiesr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review51

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMichiganResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMichigan’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 6STI Keywords: 8Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 7»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Michigan.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process102 bills with STI keywords introduced8 bills with STI keywords enacted6 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Michigan ranked 16 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Michiganenacted six STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Michigan enacted legislation on eight keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was digital media.Figure 2: What do Michigan’s enacted STI bills do?78%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%22%0%Limit Promote Regulate Study52 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Michigan’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Michigan has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Policy Mechanism All States MIr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesCommercialization Funding•§Michigan Economic DevelopmentCorporation: Pre-Seed Fund•§Michigan Economic DevelopmentCorporation: Emerging Technologies Fund(SBIR/STTR Matching Program)Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Michigan Small Business TechnologyDevelopment CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Michigan Economic DevelopmentCorporationLegislative Committee(s)•§House Energy and Technology Committee•§Senate Energy and Technology Committeeconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review53

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMinnesotaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMinnesota’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 7Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 5»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Minnesota.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process200 bills with STI keywords introduced9 bills with STI keywords enacted4 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Minnesota ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Minnesotaenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Minnesota did not have a most frequently occurring keyword.The state enacted legislation on seven keywords with one bill each.Figure 2: What do Minnesota’s enacted STI bills do?71%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%29%0%Limit Promote Regulate Study54 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Minnesota’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States MNr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Minnesota has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Minnesota Small Business DevelopmentCenterMarketing STI for the State•§Minnesota Department of Employment andEconomic DevelopmentSTI Strategic Plan•§Minnesota Science and Technology AuthorityStrategic PlanSTI Advisory Body•§Minnesota Science and Technology AdvisoryCommissiontech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review55

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMississippiResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMississippi’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 3STI Keywords: 4Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 2»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Mississippi.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process127 bills with STI keywords introduced9 bills with STI keywords enacted3 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Mississippi ranked 19 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Mississippienacted three STI bill. See Figure 2 for a description of Mississippi’s STIbills and their purpose. 2•§Mississippi enacted legislation on four STI keywords, biomass,broadband, genetic testing, and information technology.Figure 2. Summary of Mississippi’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummaryHB 344GenetictestingRegulateClarifies when the court shall grantgenetic testing where paternity has notbeen established.HB 1161Biomass,BroadbandPromoteGrants certain tax exemptions for salesof variety of products, including thoseinvolving biomass and broadband.SB 2975InformationtechnologyRegulateRevises membership and term periodof the Information Technology Board.56 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Mississippi’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States MSr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Mississippi has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Mississippi Technology Alliance: Seed FundConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Mississippi Small Business DevelopmentCenterMarketing STI for the State•§Mississippi Development Authoritytech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review57

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMissouriResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMissouri’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 8STI Keywords: 9Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 4»»Regulate: 8»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Missouri.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process116 bills with STI keywords introduced16 bills with STI keywords enacted8 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Missouri ranked 15 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Missourienacted eight STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Missouri enacted legislation on nine keywords. The mostfrequent keywords were biomass, hydro power, and stem cells, with twobills each.Figure 2: What do Missouri’s enacted STI bills do?67%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%33%0%58 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Missouri’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Missouri has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization FundingPolicy Mechanism All States MOr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states•§Missouri Technology Corporation: High-TechIndustrial Expansion ProgramConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Missouri Small Business TechnologyDevelopment CenterMarketing STI for the State•§Missouri Partnershipconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review59

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeMontanaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofMontana’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 9STI Keywords: 11Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 5»»Regulate: 7»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Montana.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process172 bills with STI keywords introduced20 bills with STI keywords enacted9 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Montana ranked 14 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Montanaenacted nine STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Montana enacted legislation on 11 keywords. The most frequentkeywords were hydro power and renewable energy, with two bills each.Figure 2: What do Montana’s enacted STI bills do?54%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%38%8%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose60 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Montana’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Montana has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization FundingPolicy Mechanism All States MTr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states•§Montana Department of Commerce: SBIR/STTR Matching Funds ProgramConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Montana Small Business DevelopmentCenter•§Montana Department of Commerce:Technology Innovation PartnershipMarketing STI for the State•§Governor’s Office of Economic Developmentconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review61

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNebraskaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofNebraska’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 4Legislative Typology»»Limit: 1»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 3»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalSTI Strategic PlanSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Nebraska.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process27 bills with STI keywords introduced12 bills with STI keywords enacted4 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Nebraska ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Nebraskaenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Nebraska enacted legislation on four keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was wind energy.Figure 2: What do Nebraska’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills17%33%50%0%62 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Nebraska’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Nebraska has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for EntrepreneursPolicy Mechanism All States NEr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states•§Nebraska Business Development Center:Innovation Venture ServicesLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Nebraska Business Development CenterSTI Strategic Plan•§Digital Nebraska: Envisioning Our Futureconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review63

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNevadaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofNevada’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 14STI Keywords: 16Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 7»»Regulate: 15»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Nevada.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process104 bills with STI keywords introduced31 bills with STI keywords enacted14 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Nevada ranked 10 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Nevadaenacted 14 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Nevada enacted legislation on 16 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Nevada’s enacted STI bills do?65%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%30%4%64 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Nevada’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Nevada has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for EntrepreneursPolicy Mechanism All States NVr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states•§Nevada Small Business DevelopmentCenterMarketing STI for the State•§Governor’s Office of Economic Developmentconsulting and/ormentoring41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review65

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNew HampshireResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of NewHampshire’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 5STI Keywords: 7Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 4»»Regulate: 3»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin New Hampshire.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process62 bills with STI keywords introduced12 bills with STI keywords enacted5 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§New Hampshire ranked 17 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. NewHampshire enacted five STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of thesebills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. New Hampshire did not have a most frequently occurringkeyword. The state enacted legislation on seven keywords with one billeach.Figure 2: What do New Hampshire’s enacted STI bills do?57%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%43%0%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose66 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

New Hampshire’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States NHr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, New Hampshire has three. Fora comprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§New Hampshire Small BusinessDevelopment CenterLegislative Committee(s)•§House Science, Technology, and EnergyCommitteeSTI Strategic Plan•§New Hampshire Science and TechnologyPlantech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review67

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNew JerseyResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of NewJersey’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 13STI Keywords: 18Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 12»»Regulate: 13»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin New Jersey.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process567 bills with STI keywords introduced23 bills with STI keywords enacted13 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§New Jersey ranked 11 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. New Jerseyenacted 13 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. New Jersey enacted legislation on 18 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was wind energy.Figure 2: What do New Jersey’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%46%50%4%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose68 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

New Jersey’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States NJr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, New Jersey has five. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§New Jersey Commission on Science andTechnology: Edison Innovation Researchand Development FundCommercialization Funding•§New Jersey Commission on Science andTechnology: SBIR Bridge Grant ProgramTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§New Jersey Commission on Science andTechnology: Edison Innovation ZonesConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§New Jersey Small Business DevelopmentCenter•§New Jersey Commission on Science andTechnologyMarketing STI for the State•§New Jersey Office of InformationTechnology: Business Portaltech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review69

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNew MexicoResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of NewMexico’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 13STI Keywords: 12Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 8»»Regulate: 7»»Study: 4Policy InfrastructureMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin New Mexico.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process103 bills with STI keywords introduced21 bills with STI keywords enacted13 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§New Mexico ranked 11 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. New Mexicoenacted 13 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. New Mexico enacted legislation on 12 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do New Mexico’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%42%37%21%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose70 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

New Mexico’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States NMr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, New Mexico has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Marketing STI for the State•§New Mexico PartnershipLegislative Committee(s)•§Joint Science, Technology andTelecommunications Committeetech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review71

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNew YorkResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of NewYork’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 5STI Keywords: 5Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 3»»Study: 2Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin New York.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process531 bills with STI keywords introduced12 bills with STI keywords enacted5 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§New York ranked 17 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. New Yorkenacted five STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. New York enacted legislation on five keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was alternative energy.Figure 2: What do New York’s enacted STI bills do?43%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%29%29%72 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

New York’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, New York has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization FundingPolicy Mechanism All States NYr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states•§Empire State Development: TechnologyTransfer Incentive ProgramConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§New York Small Business DevelopmentCenterLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§New York Small Business DevelopmentCenterLegislative Committee(s)•§Legislative Commission on Science andTechnologyconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review73

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNorth CarolinaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of NorthCarolina’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 11STI Keywords: 10Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 11»»Regulate: 4»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabsMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin North Carolina.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process98 bills with STI keywords introduced25 bills with STI keywords enacted11 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§North Carolina ranked 13 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. NorthCarolina enacted eleven STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of thesebills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. North Carolina enacted legislation on ten keywords, and themost frequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do North Carolina’s enacted STI bills do?73%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%27%0%74 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

North Carolina’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States NCr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, North Carolina has seven. Fora comprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§North Carolina Department of Commerce:Office of Science and Technology GrantProgramsCommercialization Funding•§North Carolina Department of Commerce:SBIR-STTR Matching Funds ProgramTechnology, Equipment, and Labs•§Research Triangle ParkMarketing STI for the State•§North Carolina Department of CommerceLegislative Committee(s)•§House Commerce and Job DevelopmentSubcommittee on Science and TechnologySTI Strategic Plan•§Strategic Plan: “Advancing Innovation inNorth Carolina”STI Advisory Body•§North Carolina Board of Science andTechnology•§North Carolina Innovation Counciltech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommitteesSTI Strategicplan11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 states12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review75

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeNorth DakotaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of NorthDakota’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 13STI Keywords: 14Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 8»»Regulate: 10»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin North Dakota.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process46 bills with STI keywords introduced28 bills with STI keywords enacted13 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§North Dakota ranked 11 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. NorthDakota enacted 13 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. North Dakota enacted legislation on 14 keywords. The mostfrequent keywords were broadband, information technology, stem cells,and wind energy, with two bills each.Figure 2: What do North Dakota’s enacted STI bills do?56%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%44%0%76 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

North Dakota’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States NDr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, North Dakota has one. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§North Dakota Small Business DevelopmentCentertech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review77

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeOhioResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofOhio’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 0STI Keywords: 0Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 0»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalLegislative Committee(s)STI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Ohio.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process55 bills with STI keywords introduced6 bills with STI keywords enacted0 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§In 2011, Ohio did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords. Other states that did not enact STI legislation in 2011 includeMassachusetts and Pennsylvania.•§Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation in 2011.The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten.•§In comparison, last year Ohio enacted seven bills on ten STI keywords:alternative energy, broadband, health information technology, renewableenergy, alternative fuels, carbon capture, fuel cells, sensors, stem cells,and voice over internet protocol (VoIP)78 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Ohio’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Ohio has five. For a comprehensivelisting of policy mechanisms across all 50 statessee Appendices D and E.Policy Mechanism All States OHr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labs8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesCommercialization Funding•§Ohio Third Frontier: Technology Validationand Start-up FundConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Edison Technology Incubator ProgramLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Ohio Third FrontierLegislative Committee(s)•§House Committee for Science, Labor,TechnologySTI Advisory Body•§Ohio Third Frontier Advisory Boardconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review79

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeOklahomaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofOklahoma’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 12STI Keywords: 9Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 6»»Regulate: 8»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Oklahoma.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process128 bills with STI keywords introduced36 bills with STI keywords enacted12 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Oklahoma ranked 12 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Oklahomaenacted 12 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Oklahoma enacted legislation on nine keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was information technology.Figure 2: What do Oklahoma’s enacted STI bills do?57%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%43%0%80 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Oklahoma’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.Policy Mechanism All States OKr&d FundingcommercializationFunding8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 statesOPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Oklahoma has five. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§Oklahoma Center for the Advancement ofScience and TechnologyCommercialization Funding•§i2E: Accelerate Oklahoma Seed FundConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Oklahoma Small Business DevelopmentCenterSTI Strategic Plan•§Oklahoma’s Strategic Plan for Science andTechnologySTI Advisory Body•§Oklahoma Secretary of Science andTechnology•§Oklahoma Science and TechnologyResearch and Development Board•§Governor’s Science and Technology Counciltech, equipment,and labsConsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review81

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeOregonResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofOregon’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 30STI Keywords: 18Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 17»»Regulate: 24»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabSpaceConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Oregon.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process219 bills with STI keywords introduced58 bills with STI keywords enacted30 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Oregon ranked 3 rd nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Oregonenacted 30 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Oregon enacted legislation on 18 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Oregon’s enacted STI bills do?57%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%40%2%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose82 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States OROregon’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Oregon has seven. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E. .Commercialization Funding•§Oregon Inc.Technology, Equipment, and Labs•§Oregon Inc. High Tech Extension ServiceConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Oregon Small Business Development Centerr&d FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STI for the State•§Business OregonLegislative Committee(s)•§Joint Committee on Legislative Audits,Information Management, and TechnologySTI Strategic Plan•§2009 Oregon Innovation Plan 2.0Marketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Advisory Body•§Oregon Innovation CouncilSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review83

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapePennsylvaniaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofPennsylvania’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 0STI Keywords: 0Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 0»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureTech, Equipment, and LabSpaceConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Pennsylvania.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process161 bills with STI keywords introduced4 bills with STI keywords enacted0 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§In 2011, Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107STI keywords. Other states that did not enact STI legislation in 2011include Massachusetts and Ohio.•§Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation in 2011.The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten.•§In comparison, last year Pennsylvania enacted one bill on the STIkeyword alternative energy.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.84 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy Mechanism All States PAPennsylvania’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Pennsylvania has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Technology, Equipment, and Labs•§Hershey Center for Applied ResearchR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Pennsylvania Small Business DevelopmentCenter•§Ben Franklin Technology PartnersliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STI for the State•§Pennsylvania Department of Community andEconomic DevelopmentMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislative Committee(s)•§Senate Committee on Communications andTechnologyLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review85

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeRhode IslandResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofRhode Island’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 18STI Keywords: 6Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 11»»Regulate: 8»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Rhode Island.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process100 bills with STI keywords introduced30 bills with STI keywords enacted18 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Rhode Island ranked 7 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. RhodeIsland enacted 18 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Rhode Island enacted legislation on six keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Rhode Island’s enacted STI bills do?55%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%40%5%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose86 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States RIRhode Island’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Rhode Island has five. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§Rhode Island Science and TechnologyAdvisory Council: Collaborative ResearchGrantsConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Rhode Island Small Business DevelopmentCenterMarketing STI for the State•§Rhode Island Economic DevelopmentCorporationSTI Strategic Plan•§Science and Technology Infrastructure Planfor Rhode IslandSTI Advisory Body•§Rhode Island Science and TechnologyAdvisory CouncilR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review87

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeSouth CarolinaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of SouthCarolina’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 1STI Keywords: 1Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 1»»Regulate: 0»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin South Carolina.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process72 bills with STI keywords introduced4 bills with STI keywords enacted1 bill with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§South Carolina ranked 21 st nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. SouthCarolina enacted one STI bill. See Figure 2 for a description of SouthCarolina’s STI bill and its purpose. 2•§South Carolina enacted legislation on one STI keyword, renewableenergy.Figure 2. Summary of South Carolina’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummaryS 766RenewableenergyPromoteAllows South Carolina ElectricCooperatives to advocate energyefficiency and renewable energyinitiatives.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.88 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

South Carolina All States SCSouth Carolina’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, South Carolina has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring•§BizBuilderSC•§South Carolina Small BusinessDevelopment CenterLiaisons with Angel and Venture Capital•§South Carolina Small BusinessDevelopment CenterR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesLegislative Committee(s)•§Joint Strategic Technology CommitteeMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review89

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeSouth DakotaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of SouthDakota’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 2STI Keywords: 2Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 1»»Regulate: 1»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin South Dakota.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process11 bills with STI keywords introduced5 bills with STI keywords enacted2 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§South Dakota ranked 20 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. SouthDakota enacted two STI bills. See Figure 2 for a description of SouthDakota’s STI bills and their purpose. 2•§South Dakota enacted legislation on two STI keywords, hydro powerand wind energy.Figure 2. Summary of South Dakota’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummarySB 194 Wind energy RegulateCreates a Wind Energy CompetitiveAdvisory Task Force and providesappointment of the members.HCR 1008 Hydro power PromoteOpposes levy fees for the storageof water in river reservoirs due tobenefits including hydro power.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.90 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy Mechanism All States SDSouth Dakota’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STIspecificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, South Dakota has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§South Dakota Small Business DevelopmentCenterR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesMarketing STI for the State•§Governor’s Office of Economic DevelopmentliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review91

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeTennesseeResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofTennessee’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 2STI Keywords: 1Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 2»»Regulate: 0»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Tennessee.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process97 bills with STI keywords introduced26 bills with STI keywords enacted2 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Tennessee ranked 20 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Tennesseeenacted two STI bills. See Figure 2 for a description of Tennessee’s STIbills and their purpose. 2•§Tennessee enacted legislation on one STI keyword - virtual school.Figure 2. Summary of Tennessee’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummaryHB 1030 Virtual school PromoteAllows Local Education Agency toestablish virtual schools as an effort toimprove academic achievement.SB 714 Virtual school PromoteAmends state code to broadeneligibility for students to participate in avirtual public education program.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.92 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy Mechanism All States TNTennessee’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STIspecificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Tennessee has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Tennessee Technology DevelopmentCorporation: Co-Investment FundR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Tennessee Small Business DevelopmentCenterliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STI for the State•§Tennessee Department of Economic andCommunity DevelopmentMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review93

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeTexasResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofTexas’ STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 17STI Keywords: 12Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 10»»Regulate: 8»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Texas.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process295 bills with STI keywords introduced42 bills with STI keywords enacted17 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Texas ranked 8 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Texasenacted 17 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Texas enacted legislation on 12 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Texas’ enacted STI bills do?53%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%42%5%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose94 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States TXTexas’ STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Texas has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Marketing STI for the State•§Office of the Governor - EconomicDevelopment DivisionR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesLegislative Committee(s)•§House Committee on Technology, EconomicDevelopment, and WorkforceliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review95

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeUtahResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofUtah’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 12STI Keywords: 10Legislative Typology»»Limit: 1»»Promote: 12»»Regulate: 3»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingTech, Equipment, and LabSpaceConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Utah.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process42 bills with STI keywords introduced22 bills with STI keywords enacted12 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Utah ranked 12 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Utahenacted 12 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Utah enacted legislation on 10 keywords, and the most frequentkeyword was information technology.Figure 2: What do Utah’s enacted STI bills do?STI Advisory BodyPercentage of state'senacted STI bills6%71%18%6%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose96 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States UTUtah’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STIspecificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Utah has seven. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Commercialization Funding•§Utah Science Technology and ResearchInitiative: Go-To-Market GrantsTechnology, Equipment, and Lab Space•§BioInnovations GatewayConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Utah Science Technology and ResearchInitiative•§Utah Small Business Development CenterLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Utah Science Technology and ResearchInitiativeMarketing STI for the State•§Governor’s Office of Economic DevelopmentLegislative Committee(s)•§Senate Transportation and Public Utilitiesand Technology Committee•§House Public Utilities and TechnologyCommitteeSTI Advisory Body•§State Science Advisor•§Utah Science Technology and ResearchInitiativeR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommitteesSTI StrategicplanSTI AdvisoryBody8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 states12 out of 50 states14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review97

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeVermontResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofVermont’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 9Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 5»»Regulate: 5»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureR&D FundingConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Vermont.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process65 bills with STI keywords introduced4 bills with STI keywords enacted4 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Vermont ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Vermontenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Vermont enacted legislation on nine keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was also renewable energy.Figure 2: What do Vermont’s enacted STI bills do?45% 45%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%9%98 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States VTVermont’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Vermont has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Research and Development Funding•§Experimental Program to StimulateCompetitive Research (EPSCoR) InnovationFundConsulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Center for Emerging Technologies•§Vermont Small Business DevelopmentCenterR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review99

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeVirginiaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofVirginia’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 72STI Keywords: 25Legislative Typology»»Limit: 8»»Promote: 28»»Regulate: 48»»Study: 7Policy InfrastructureCommercialization FundingConsulting and/or MentoringLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Virginia.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process362 bills with STI keywords introduced121 bills with STI keywords enacted72 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Virginia ranked 1 st nationally in the total number of STI bills enacted in2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Virginiaenacted 72 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Virginia enacted legislation on 25 keywords. The most frequentkeywords were renewable energy and vaccines, with 10 bills each.Figure 2: What do Virginia’s enacted STI bills do?53%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills9%31%8%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose100 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States VAVirginia’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these ninepolicy mechanisms, Virginia has three. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E. .Commercialization Funding•§Center for Innovative Technology:Commonwealth ResearchCommercialization FundR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesConsulting and/or Mentoring forEntrepreneurs•§Virginia Small Business DevelopmentCenterliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesLegislative Committee(s)•§House of Delegates Committee on Scienceand Technology•§Joint Commission on Science andTechnology•§Senate Committee on General Laws andTechnologyMarketing STIin the stateLegislativecommittees20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review101

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeWashingtonResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofWashington’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 15STI Keywords: 13Legislative Typology»»Limit: 1»»Promote: 5»»Regulate: 9»»Study: 2Policy InfrastructureMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Washington.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process192 bills with STI keywords introduced28 bills with STI keywords enacted15 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Washington ranked 9 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Washingtonenacted 15 STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Washington enacted legislation on 13 keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was aerospace.Figure 2: What do Washington’s enacted STI bills do?53%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills6%29%12%102 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States WAWashington’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Washington has two. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Marketing STI for the State•§Washington Department of CommerceLegislative Committee(s)•§House Committee of Technology, Energy,and Communications•§Senate Committee on EconomicDevelopment, Trade, and InnovationR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capital8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review103

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeWest VirginiaResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot of WestVirginia’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 8Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 3»»Regulate: 5»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin West Virginia.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process90 bills with STI keywords introduced9 bills with STI keywords enacted4 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§West Virginia ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI billsenacted in 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces oflegislation, while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. WestVirginia enacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of thesebills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. West Virginia did not have a most frequently occurring keyword.The state enacted legislation on eight keywords with one bill each.Figure 2: What do West Virginia’s enacted STI bills do?63%Percentage of state'senacted STI bills0%38%0%104 OPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewLimit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States WVWest Virginia’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, West Virginia has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring forEntrepreneurs•§West Virginia Small Business DevelopmentCenterMarketing STI for the State•§West Virginia Department of CommerceLegislative Committee(s)•§Joint Interim Committee on TechnologySTI Strategic Plan•§Vision 2015: The West Virginia Science andTechnology Strategic PlanR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the state8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review105

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeWisconsinResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofWisconsin’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 2STI Keywords: 2Legislative Typology»»Limit: 0»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 2»»Study: 0Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringLiaisons with Angels andVenture CapitalLegislative Committee(s)STI Advisory BodySTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Wisconsin.Figure 1. Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process56 bills with STI keywords introduced7 bills with STI keywords enacted2 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Wisconsin ranked 20 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Wisconsinenacted two STI bill. See Figure 2 for a description of Wisconsin’s STIbills and their purpose. 2•§Wisconsin enacted legislation on two STI keywords, hydro power andvoice over internet protocol (VoIP).Figure 2. Summary of Wisconsin’s STI bills enacted in 2011Bill No. STI Keyword Purpose SummarySB 13Voice overinternet protocol(VoIP)RegulateSpecifies the Public ServiceCommission’s authority overinterconnected VoIP service.SB 81 Hydro power RegulateAllows electricity from hydroelectricresources to count toward satisfyingrenewable portfolio standard.1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.106 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Policy Mechanism All States WIWisconsin’s STI PolicyInfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STI-specificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms are atleast partially funded and/or operated by the stategovernment and they comprise the state’s STIPolicy Infrastructure.OPAR identifies nine state-level STI policymechanisms that encourage implementationof STI policy in the state. Of these nine policymechanisms, Wisconsin has four. For acomprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring forEntrepreneurs•§Wisconsin Small Business DevelopmentCenter•§Wisconsin Entrepreneurs’ NetworkLiaisons with Angels and Venture Capital•§Wisconsin Entrepreneurs’ NetworkSTI Legislative Committee(s)•§Joint Committee on Information Policy andTechnologySTI Advisory Body•§Wisconsin Technology CouncilR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoringliaIsons withangels andventure capitalMarketing STIfor the stateLegislativecommittees8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states20 out of 50 states29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review107

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy LandscapeWyomingResearch OverviewThe Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at the Georgia TechResearch Institute conducts research on state-level science, technology,and innovation (STI) policies. In particular, OPAR examines state STIpolices in the form of legislation, legislative committees, governmentagencies, strategic plans, and others. This document is a snapshot ofWyoming’s STI policy landscape in 2011.HIGHLIGHTSLegislative LandscapeSTI Bills Enacted: 4STI Keywords: 2Legislative Typology»»Limit: 1»»Promote: 0»»Regulate: 2»»Study: 1Policy InfrastructureConsulting and/or MentoringSTI Legislative LandscapeIn 2011, OPAR’s STI Legislative Landscape used 107 keywords to identifyand analyze 521 enacted bills on STI topics across the fifty states. Usingthe Legislative Typology, the research team classified each piece oflegislation according to whether its purpose was to promote, regulate, limit,or study the STI keyword. The following is a summary of legislative findingsin Wyoming.Figure 1: Number of bills at each stage of OPAR’s validation process16 bills with STI keywords introduced6 bills with STI keywords enacted4 bills with STI keywords enacted and met OPAR’s criteriaAccording to OPAR’s research:•§Wyoming ranked 18 th nationally in the total number of STI bills enactedin 2011. Virginia enacted the most STI bills with 72 pieces of legislation,while three states enacted none. 1•§The average number of STI bills enacted per state was ten. Wyomingenacted four STI bills. Figure 2 shows the purpose of these bills. 2•§Nationwide, the STI keyword most frequently enacted on was renewableenergy. Wyoming enacted legislation on two keywords, and the mostfrequent keyword was wind energy.Figure 2: What do Wyoming’s enacted STI bills do?Percentage of state'senacted STI bills25%0%50%25%Limit Promote Regulate StudyLegislative purpose108 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review1Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did not enact legislation on any of OPAR’s 107 STIkeywords in 2011.2The sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may be greater than the total number ofenacted bills. This is because some bills have multiple legislative purposes.

Policy Mechanism All States WYWyoming’s STI Policy InfrastructureBeyond legislation, states are implementingunique policies and creating special entities tocultivate an environment that fosters growthfor STI industries. OPAR has developed aclassification system to identify these STIspecificpolicies and entities, referred to as “policymechanisms”. These policy mechanisms areat least partially funded and/or operated by thestate government and they comprise the state’sSTI Policy Infrastructure. OPAR identifies ninestate-level STI policy mechanisms that encourageimplementation of STI policy in the state. Of thesenine policy mechanisms, Wyoming has one. Fora comprehensive listing of policy mechanismsacross all 50 states see Appendices D and E.Consulting and/or Mentoring for Entrepreneurs•§Wyoming Small Business DevelopmentCenterR&D FundingcommercializationFundingtech, equipment,and labsconsulting and/ormentoring8 out of 50 states21 out of 50 states11 out of 50 states41 out of 50 statesliaIsons withangels andventure capital11 out of 50 statesMarketing STIfor the state20 out of 50 statesLegislativecommittees29 out of 50 statesSTI Strategicplan12 out of 50 statesSTI AdvisoryBody14 out of 50 statesOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review109

Appendix A: List of STI keywords and the total number ofSTI bills enactedSTI keywordAdvancedmanufacturingTotalSTI billsenactedAerospace 15AgriculturalTechnologyAlternative energy 19Alternative fuels 18Artificial intelligence 1Autonomous vehicles 1Bioenergy 2Biofuels 27Biomass 41Biometrics 0Biosecurity 1Biosensor 0Biotechnology 10Blogs 0Broadband 30Carbon capture 3Cellulosic Ethanol 0Classroom wiki 1Clean energy 17Clinical trials 18Cloud computing 0Collective intelligence 0Computer basedlearningComputing 1Convergence 0Counterterrorism 0Cybersecurity 4Data analytics 0Data integrity 0Data mining 0Data privacy 0Defense Technology 1Digital media 4Distance learning 10Educational socialmediaEducationalTechnologyElectric vehicles 21Electronic books 030005STI keywordElectronic healthrecordsEmergencycommunicationEmergingtechnologiesEnergy-efficient manfprocessesEnvironmentaltechnologyTotalSTI billsenacted11Fuel cell 13Fusion center 0Genetic Engineering 0Genetic screening 2Genetic testing 11Geneticallyengineered foodGenetically modified 1Genetics 1Geographicinformation system(GIS)Genetically modifiedorganism (GMO)Green energy 0Health informationexchangeHealth informationtechnology (Health IT)High performancecomputingHigh speed rail 1Hybrid vehicles 1320007011Hydro power 27Incident commandsystemIncident managementsystemInformatics 0Information Access 1Information exchange 4Information security 2InformationtechnologyIntegrated systems 0Intelligenttransportation systemInteractive media 1Interoperability 85011590STI keywordInternet Protocoltelevision (IPTV)TotalSTI billsenactedMachine learning 0Nanomedicine 0Nanotechnology 1Network neutrality 0Next gen robotics 0Nuclear energy 7Online learning 4Open source 0Optical computer 0Photovoltaics 12Quantum computing 0Renewable energy 110Response andRecoveryRadio frequencyidentification (RFID)Renewable portfoliostandards (RPS)Screening technology 0Smart board 0Smart grid 5Social computing 0Social media 2Solar Energy 23Stem cells 18STEM Education 3Synthetic biology 0telematics 0Tidal power 0Vaccines 32Virtual classroom 0Virtual school 6Virtual worlds 0Voice over InternetProtocol (VoIP)003917Web page 1Web-based learning 0Wind energy 35110 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Appendix B: Total number of STI bills enacted by stateand their legislative purposeStateTotal STI billsenactedLimit Promote Regulate StudyAlabama 1 0% 0% 100% 0%Alaska 2 0% 67% 33% 0%Arizona 11 0% 27% 73% 0%Arkansas 14 0% 33% 67% 0%California 36 7% 48% 40% 5%Colorado 18 0% 76% 19% 5%Connecticut 14 0% 50% 50% 0%Delaware 2 0% 33% 67% 0%Florida 8 0% 36% 55% 9%Georgia 2 0% 100% 0% 0%Hawaii 19 0% 48% 44% 7%Idaho 4 0% 20% 80% 0%Illinois 22 3% 48% 48% 0%Indiana 6 0% 22% 78% 0%Iowa 8 0% 58% 42% 0%Kansas 3 0% 0% 100% 0%Kentucky 4 0% 67% 22% 11%Louisiana 4 25% 25% 50% 0%Maine 14 0% 47% 40% 13%Maryland 26 0% 35% 53% 12%Massachusetts 0 0% 0% 0% 0%Michigan 6 0% 22% 78% 0%Minnesota 4 0% 29% 71% 0%Mississippi 3 0% 50% 50% 0%Missouri 8 0% 33% 67% 0%Montana 9 0% 38% 54% 8%Nebraska 4 17% 33% 50% 0%Nevada 14 0% 30% 65% 4%New Hampshire 5 0% 57% 43% 0%New Jersey 13 0% 46% 50% 4%New Mexico 13 0% 42% 37% 21%New York 5 0% 29% 43% 29%North Carolina 11 0% 73% 27% 0%North Dakota 13 0% 44% 56% 0%Ohio 0 0% 0% 0% 0%Oklahoma 12 0% 43% 57% 0%Oregon 30 0% 40% 57% 2%Pennsylvania 0 0% 0% 0% 0%OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review111

StateTotal STI billsenactedLimit Promote Regulate StudyRhode Island 18 0% 55% 40% 5%South Carolina 1 0% 100% 0% 0%South Dakota 2 0% 50% 50% 0%Tennessee 2 0% 100% 0% 0%Texas 17 0% 53% 42% 5%Utah 12 6% 71% 18% 6%Vermont 4 0% 45% 45% 9%Virginia 72 9% 31% 53% 8%Washington 15 6% 29% 53% 12%West Virginia 4 0% 38% 63% 0%Wisconsin 2 0% 0% 100% 0%Wyoming 4 25% 0% 50% 25%112 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Appendix C: Inventory of State STI Policy InfrastructureState A B C D E F G H IStateTotalAlabama 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3Alaska 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Arizona 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3Arkansas 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3California 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2Colorado 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2Connecticut 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4Delaware 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6Florida 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4Georgia 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6Hawaii 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4Idaho 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5Illinois 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2Iowa 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3Kansas 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2Kentucky 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3Louisiana 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2Maine 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 6Maryland 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6Massachusetts 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4Michigan 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4Minnesota 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4Mississippi 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3Missouri 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3Montana 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3Nebraska 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3Nevada 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2New Hampshire 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3New Jersey 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 5New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2New York 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4North Carolina 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7North Dakota 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Ohio 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 5Oklahoma 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5Oregon 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7Pennsylvania 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review113

State A B C D E F G H IStateTotalRhode Island 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5South Carolina 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3South Dakota 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2Tennessee 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3Texas 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2Utah 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7Vermont 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2Virginia 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3Washington 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2West Virginia 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4Wisconsin 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4Wyoming 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1TOTAL 8 22 11 42 11 26 31 12 15 178LegendABCDEFGHIResearch and Development FundingCommercialization FundingTechnology, Equipment, and LabsConsulting and/or Mentoring for EntrepreneursLiaisons with Angels and Venture CapitalMarketing STI for the StateLegislative Committee(s)STI Strategic PlanSTI Advisory Body114 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Appendix D: List of STI Policy MechanismsCommercialization FundingArkansasConnecticutDelawareFloridaScience and Technology Authority: SeedCapital Investment ProgramConnecticut Innovations: Seed InvestmentFundState of Delaware Small BusinessInnovation Research Bridge GrantsFlorida Institute for the Commercialization ofPublic Researchhttp://www.asta.arkansas.gov/programsProjects/buisness/Pages/seedCapitalInvestment.aspxhttp://www.ctinnovations.com/FundingOpportunities/SeedInvestmentFund.aspxhttp://dedo.delaware.gov/BusinessServices/BusinessFinancing/BusinessFinancing_SBIR.shtml?businesfinancinghttp://www.florida-institute.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.background##Georgia Georgia Research Alliance: Venture Lab http://www.gra.org/ProgramsInitiatives.aspxHawaiiHigh Technology Development Corporation:SBIR Matching Grant Programhttp://www.htdc.org/hawaii-sbir.htmlKentuckyMaineMarylandCabinet for Economic Development: SBIR-STTR Matching Funds ProgramMaine Technology Institute: TechnologyAsset FundTechnology Development Corporation(TEDCO)http://www.thinkkentucky.com/dci/pdfs/DCIAnnualReportNew.pdfhttp://www.mainetechnology.org/fund/seed-granthttp://www.marylandtedco.org/tedcoprograms/fundingopportunities.cfmMaryland Maryland Technology Enterprise Institute http://www.mtech.umd.edu/mips/overview.htmlMichiganMichiganEconomic Development Corporation: Pre-Seed FundEconomic Development Corporation:Emerging Technologies Fund (SBIR/STTRMatching Program)http://www.michiganadvantage.org/E-and-I-Access-to-Capital/http://www.mietf.org/Mississippi Mississippi Technology Alliance: Seed Fund http://www.technologyalliance.ms/seed-fund/MissouriMontanaNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioMissouri Technology Corporation: High-TechIndustrial Expansion ProgramDepartment of Commerce: SBIR/STTRMatching Funds ProgramCommission on Science and Technology:SBIR Bridge Grant ProgramEmpire State Development: TechnologyTransfer Incentive ProgramDepartment of Commerce: SBIR-STTRMatching Funds ProgramThird Frontier: Technology Validation andStart-up Fundhttp://businessresources.mt.gov/msmfp/default.mcpxhttp://www.state.nj.us/scitech/entassist/edison/http://esd.ny.gov/nystar/TechTransferIncentiveProgram.asphttp://www.missouritechnology.com/commercializationprograms/high-tech-industrial-expansion-programhttp://www.nccommerce.com/scitech/grant-programs/onen.c.-small-business-programhttp://development.ohio.gov/bs_thirdfrontier/tvsf.htmOklahoma i2E: Accelerate Oklahoma Seed Fund http://www.i2e.org/access-to-capital/seed-capital/OregonOregon Inc.http://www.onami.us/index.php/commercialization/gap_program_structureTennesseeTennessee Technology DevelopmentCorporation: Co-Investment Fundhttp://www.tntechnology.org/incite/UtahVirginiaUtah Science Technology and ResearchInitiative: Go-To-Market GrantsCenter for Innovative Technology:Commonwealth ResearchCommercialization Fundhttp://www.innovationutah.com/entrepreneur-resources/funding-resources/go-to-market-grants/http://www.cit.org/programs/cit-rd/CRCFOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review115

Consulting and/or MentoringAlabama Small Business Development Center http://www.asbdc.org/aboutasbdc.htmlAlaska Small Business Development Center http://aksbdc.org/about/partners/Arizona Small Business Development Center http://www.azsbdc.net/who-we-are/ColoradoSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.coloradosbdc.org/DocumentMaster.aspx?doc=37Connecticut Small Business Development Center http://www.ctsbdc.org/folder.aspx?f=202Delaware Small Business Development Center http://www.dsbtdc.org/DocumentMaster.aspx?doc=2013GeorgiaSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.georgiasbdc.org/subpage.aspx?cart=a104bf53-6bb3-45c8-8271-de6e92c145e0&page_name=partnersGeorgiaEnterprise Innovation Institutehttp://innovate.gatech.edu/services/services-toentrepreneurs/Georgia Advanced Technology Development Center http://atdc.org/services/services-2Hawaii Small Business Development Center http://hisbdc.com/AboutUs.aspxIdahoSmall Business Technology DevelopmentCenterhttp://www.idahosbdc.org/IllinoisSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Entrepreneurship+and+Small+Business/sbdc.htmIowa Small Business Development Center http://www.iowasbdc.org/about-the-ia-sbdc.aspxKansas Small Business Development Center http://ksbdc.kansas.gov/Pages/AboutUs.aspxKentuckyCabinet for Economic Development: Officeof Commercialization and Innovationhttp://www.thinkkentucky.com/dci/pdfs/DCIAnnualReportNew.pdfKentucky Emerging Ventures: Center for Innovation http://www.emergingventures.org/#!servicesLouisiana Small Business Development Center http://www.lsbdc.org/about_our_partners.phpMaineSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.mainesbdc.org/index.cfm/spKey/home.about.htmlMaryland Small Business Development Center http://www.mdsbdc.umd.edu/partners.htmlMarylandDepartment of Business and EconomicDevelopmenthttp://www.choosemaryland.org/Pages/default.aspxMassachusetts Massachusetts Technology Transfer Center http://www.mattcenter.org/MichiganSmall Business Technology DevelopmentCenterhttp://misbtdc.org/who-we-are/MinnesotaSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.positivelyminnesota.com/All_Programs_Services/ProgramsAndServices.aspxMississippi Small Business Development Center http://www.mssbdc.org/MissouriSmall Business Technology DevelopmentCenterhttp://www.missouribusiness.net/sbtdc/services.aspMontana Small Business Development Center http://sbdc.mt.gov/default.mcpxMontanaDepartment of Commerce: TechnologyInnovation Partnershiphttp://www.mtip.mt.gov/default.mcpxNebraskaNebraska Business Development Center:Innovation Venture Serviceshttp://nbdc.unomaha.edu/venture/Nevada Small Business Development Center http://nsbdc.org/New Hampshire Small Business Development Center http://www.nhsbdc.org/about-sbdcNew Jersey Small Business Development Center http://www.njsbdc.com/blog/njsbdc-funding/New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology http://www.state.nj.us/scitech/entassist/New York Small Business Development Center http://www.nyssbdc.org/services/tech/tech.html116 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

North Dakota Small Business Development Center http://www.ndsbdc.org/services/Ohio Edison Technology Incubator Program http://development.ohio.gov/bs_thirdfrontier/eti.htmOklahoma Small Business Development Center http://www.osbdc.org/DocumentMaster.aspx?doc=1088Oregon Small Business Development Center http://www.bizcenter.org/AboutPennsylvania Small Business Development Center http://www.pasbdc.org/about-usPennsylvania Ben Franklin Technology Partners http://benfranklin.org/programs-servicesRhode Island Small Business Development Center http://www.risbdc.org/DocumentMaster.aspx?doc=1246South Carolina Small Business Development Center http://www.uscbiz.net/South CarolinaBizBuilderSChttp://www.fasttracsc.org/entrepreneur-resourcesbizbuilder-sc.phpSouth DakotaSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.usd.edu/business/small-businessdevelopment-center/Tennessee Small Business Development Center http://www.tsbdc.org/UtahUtah Science Technology and ResearchInitiativehttp://www.innovationutah.com/entrepreneurs.htmlUtah Small Business Development Center http://www.utahsbdc.org/news/successVermont Small Business Development Center http://www.vtsbdc.org/Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies http://vermonttechnologies.com/capabilities/Virginia Small Business Development Center http://www.virginiasbdc.org/West VirginiaSmall Business Development Centerhttp://www.wvcommerce.org/business/businessassistance/smallbusiness/servicesandspecialtyprograms/default.aspxWisconsin Small Business Development Center http://www.wisconsinsbdc.org/SBDC/AboutUs.htmWisconsin Wisconsin Entrepreneurs' Network http://www.wenportal.org/WENRegionalDirectors.htmWyoming Small Business Development Center http://www.uwyo.edu/sbdc/about_us.htmlLegislative Committee(s)AlabamaArizonaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaCaliforniaCaliforniaCaliforniaColoradoHouse Committee on Technology andResearchHouse Committee on Higher Education,Innovation, and ReformHouse Committee on Technology andInfrastructureSenate Committee on Transportation,Technology, and Legislative AffairsSelect Committee on Government Efficiency,Technology and InnovationSelect Committee on High TechnologySelect Committee on EmergingTechnologies and EconomicCompetitivenessSelect Committee on Excellence andInnovation in State GovernmentSenate Committee on Business, Labor, andTechnologyhttp://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/housecommittees.html#Anchor-HEALT-51163http://www.azleg.gov/CommitteeInfo.asp?Committee_ID=20&Session_ID=102http://www.azleg.gov/CommitteeInfo.asp?Committee_ID=21&Session_ID=102www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/pages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?committeecode=440http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=506http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=509http://senate.ca.gov/emergingtechhttp://senate.ca.gov/stategovtinnovationConnecticut Joint Energy and Technology Committee http://www.cga.ct.gov/ET/http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=CGA-LegislativeCouncil%2FCLCLayout&cid=1251568868895&pagename=CLCWrapperOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review117

DelawareGeorgiaGeorgiaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIdahoIllinoisIllinoisIndianaLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMichiganNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOregonPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaHouse Telecommunication Internet &Technology CommitteeHouse Science and Technology CommitteeSenate Science and Technology CommitteeScience & Technology Strategic InitiativeJoint Study CommissionSenate Committee on EconomicDevelopment and TechnologyHouse Committee on Environment, Energy,and TechnologyJoint Energy, Environment & TechnologyInterim CommitteeSenate Commerce Subcommittee onEmerging Technologies and Special IssuesSenate Commerce Subcommittee onCompetitiveness and InnovationSenate Utilities and Technology Committee"Senate Select Consumer Affairs andTechnology Committee"Joint Standing Committee on Energy,Utilities and TechnologyHouse Banking, Economic Development,Science and Technology Subcommittee(standing)Joint Committee on Economic Developmentand Emerging TechnologiesHouse Energy and Technology CommitteeSenate Energy and Technology CommitteeHouse Science, Technology, and EnergyCommitteeScience, Technology andTelecommunications CommitteeLegislative Commission on Science andTechnologyHouse Commerce and Job DevelopmentSubcommittee on Science and TechnologyCommittee for Science, Labor, TechnologyJoint Committee on Legislative Audits,Information Management, and TechnologySenate Committee on Communications andTechnologyJoint Strategic Technology Committeehttp://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/*/FEA25539CE200D2685257507005A4CA8/?opendocument&nav=Househttp://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/house/Committees/scienceTech/gahst.htmhttp://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/en-US/committee.aspx?Committee=142&Session=22http://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/en-US/CurrentStudyCommittees.aspxhttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/senatecommittees/committeepage.aspx?committee=EDThttp://legislature.idaho.gov/house/committees.cfmhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2011/interim/energy.htmhttp://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=1124http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=1122http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2011&request=getCommittee&committee_name=Utilities+%26+Technology&chamber=Shttp://senate.legis.state.la.us/ConsumerAffairs/Default.asphttp://www.maine.gov/legis/house/jt_com/eut.htmhttp://mlis.state.md.us/other/roster/Committee.pdfhttp://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/j12?generalCourtNumber=187http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=energy+and+technology&submit=Gohttp://www.senate.michigan.gov/committees/Default.aspx?commid=218http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/committeedetail.aspx?CommitteeCode=STTChttp://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?sec=post&id=51http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=House+Standing_20http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=96http://www.leg.state.or.us/committees/http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=5&body=Shttp://www.scstatehouse.gov/publicationspage/jtspeccommlist.pdf118 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

TexasUtahUtahVirginiaVirginiaVirginiaWashingtonWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinHouse Committee on Technology, EconomicDevelopment and WorkforceSenate Transportation and Public Utilitiesand Technology CommitteeHouse Public Utilities and TechnologyCommitteeHouse of Delegates Committee on Scienceand TechnologySenate Committee on General Laws andTechnologyJoint Commission on Science andTechnologyHouse Committee on Technology, Energy &CommunicationsSenate Committee on EconomicDevelopment Trade and InnovationJoint Committee on Technology - InterimCommittee on Information Policy andTechnologyhttp://www.legis.state.tx.us/Committees/MembershipCmte.aspx?LegSess=81R&CmteCode=C230http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=SSTTPThttp://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=HSTPUThttp://hodcap.state.va.us/publications/housecommitteechart.pdfhttp://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+com+S12http://jcots.state.va.us/AboutJCOTS.htmhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/house/committees/TEC/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/committees/EDTI/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.legis.state.wv.us/committees/Interims/committee.cfm?abb=techhttp://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3asp/commpages/IndividualCommittee.aspx?committee=Information+Policy+and+Technology&house=JointLiaisons to Angels and Venture CapitalDelaware Small Business Development Center http://www.dsbtdc.org/DocumentMaster.aspx?doc=2020Florida Small Business Development Center http://www.floridasbdc.org/SpecialPrograms/BTC/Georgia Advanced Technology Development Center http://atdc.org/services/services-2KansasWichita Technology Corporationhttp://www.wichitatechnology.com/aboutwichitatechnologycorp.htmlMarylandDepartment of Business and EconomicDevelopment: Maryland Venture Fundhttp://www.choosemaryland.org/businessresources/pages/marylandventurefund.aspxNebraska Nebraska Business Development Center http://nbdc.unomaha.edu/venture/New York Small Business Development Center http://www.nyssbdc.org/services/tech/tech.htmlOhio Third Frontier http://thirdfrontier.com/ONEFund.htmSouth Carolina Small Business Development Center http://www.scbdc.com/services.phpUtahUtah Science Technology and ResearchInitiativehttp://www.innovationutah.com/entrepreneurs.htmlWisconsin Wisconsin Entrepreneurs' Network http://www.wenportal.org/WENRegionalDirectors.htmMarketing STI for the StateArizona Arizona Commerce Authority http://www.azcommerce.com/incentives.aspxFlorida Enterprise Florida http://www.eflorida.com/Georgia Department of Economic Development http://www.georgia.org/Pages/default.aspxIdaho Department of Commerce http://www.commerce.idaho.gov/business/IllinoisDepartment of Commerce and EconomicOpportunityhttp://www.ildceo.net/dceo/Bureaus/Facts_Figures/Factsheets/Indiana Indiana Economic Development Corporation http://iedc.in.gov/indiana-info/business-friendlyMarylandDepartment of Business and EconomicDevelopmenthttp://www.choosemaryland.org/Pages/default.aspxOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review119

MassachusettsMassachusetts: "Its All Here" Websitehttp://www.massitsallhere.com/Business/Business_ResourcesMichigan Economic Development Corporation http://www.michiganadvantage.org/Growing-Industries/MinnesotaDepartment of Employment and EconomicDevelopmenthttp://www.positivelyminnesota.com/Business/Locating_in_Minnesota/Data/index.aspxResearch and Development FundingConnecticutMaineMaineMarylandNew JerseyNorth CarolinaOklahomaRhode islandClean Energy Finance and InvestmentAuthority: Alpha ProgramMaine Technology Institute: BusinessInnovation ProgramMaine Technology Institute: TechnologyAsset FundTechnology Development Corporation(TEDCO): University TechnologyDevelopment Fund (UTDF)Commission on Science and Technology:Edison Innovation Research andDevelopment FundDepartment of Commerce: Office of Scienceand TechnologyOklahoma Center for the Advancement ofScience and TechnologyRhode Island Science and TechnologyAdvisory Council: Collaborative ResearchGrantshttp://www.ctcleanenergy.com/YourBusinessorInstitution/TechnologyInnovationPrograms/AlphaProgram/tabid/602/Default.aspxhttp://www.mainetechnology.org/fund/seed-grantMississippi Mississippi Development Authority http://www.mississippi.org/index.php?id=939Missouri Missouri Partnership http://www.missouripartnership.com/Montana Governor's Office of Economic Development http://www.innovatemontana.com/Nevada Governor's Office of Economic Development http://www.diversifynevada.com/why/technology/New JerseyOffice of Information Technology: BusinessPortalhttp://www.nj.gov/njbusiness/New MexicoNew Mexico Partnershiphttp://nmpartnership.com/Frequently_Asked_Questions.aspx#q002North Carolina Department of Commerce http://thrivenc.com/whync/overviewOregonBusiness Oregonhttp://www.oregon4biz.com/The-Oregon-Advantage/Industry/PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Department of Communityand Economic Developmenthttp://www.newpa.com/Rhode islandRhode Island Economic DevelopmentCorporationhttp://www.riedc.com/data-and-publicationsSouth Dakota Governor's Office of Economic Development http://www.sdreadytowork.com/Key-Industries-IT.aspxTennesseeDepartment of Economic and CommunityDevelopmenthttp://www.tn.gov/ecd/Innovation.htmlTexas Texas Economic Development http://www.texaswideopenforbusiness.com/UtahGovernor's Office of Economic Developmenthttp://business.utah.gov/targeted-industries/economicclusters/Washington Department of Commerce http://www.choosewashington.com/Pages/default.aspxWest VirginiaDepartment of Commercehttp://wvcommerce.org/business/industries/default.aspx?mediatrackingcode=198_67wvdo_377induhttp://www.mainetechnology.org/fund/maine-technologyasset-fundhttp://www.marylandtedco.org/tedcoprograms/fundingopportunities.cfmhttp://www.state.nj.us/scitech/entassist/edison/http://www.nccommerce.com/scitech/grant-programshttp://www.ok.gov/ocast/Programs/index.htmlhttp://stac.ri.gov/alliance/background/120 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

VermontSTI Advisory BodyExperimental Program to StimulateCompetitive Research: Innovation Fundhttp://www.uvm.edu/~epscor/new02/?q=node/46MinnesotaNorth CarolinaMinnesota Science and Technology AdvisoryCommissionNorth Carolina Board of Science andTechnologyhttp://www.mnscienceandtechnologyauthority.org/Member-Profiles/http://www.ncscitech.com/North CarolinaNorth Carolina Innovation Councilhttp://www.governor.state.nc.us/eTownhall/Blog/post/2011/01/27/NC-Innovation-Council-Report.aspxOhio Ohio Third Frontier Advisory Board http://thirdfrontier.com/Governance.htmOklahoma Secretary of Science and Technology http://www.ok.gov/governor/Agenda/Cabinet/index.htmlOklahomaOklahoma Science and TechnologyResearch and Development Boardhttp://www.ok.gov/ocast/About_OCAST/Boards_Committees/index.htmlOklahomaGovernor's Science and Technology Councilhttp://www.ok.gov/ocast/Public_Information/Newsletter/Newsletter1108.htmlOregon Oregon Innovation Council http://www.oregon4biz.com/Innovation-in-Oregon/Rhode IslandRhode Island Science and TechnologyAdvisory Councilhttp://stac.ri.gov/Utah State Science Advisor http://business.utah.gov/programs/science-advisor/UtahUtah Science Technology and ResearchInitiativehttp://www.innovationutah.com/aboutustar/council.htmlWisconsin Wisconsin Technology Council http://www.wisconsintechnologycouncil.com/STI Strategic PlanAlabama Alabama Science and Technology Roadmap http://www.coecon.com/Reports/Alabama_FinalNarrative.pdfIdahoIowaMaineMinnesotaMoving Forward: Accelerating Idaho'sInnovation EconomyIowa Innovation Council: Strategic Plan2010 Science and Technology Action Plan:A Bold Approach to Stimulate Maine'sEconomyMinnesota Science and TechnologyAuthority Strategic PlanArkansasScience & Technology Authorityhttp://www.asta.arkansas.gov/aboutUs/Pages/authorityBoard.aspxCaliforniaCalifornia Council on Science andTechnologyhttp://www.ccst.us/Delaware Technology Investment Council http://dti.delaware.gov/information/committees.shtml#ticIdahoIdaho Innovation Councilhttp://commerce.idaho.gov/investments/idaho-innovationcouncil/Illinois Illinois Innovation Council http://www.illinoisinnovation.com/about/Illinois Illinois Science and Technology Coalition http://istcoalition.org/innovation/IowaIowa Innovation Councilhttps://openup.iowa.gov/board/Iowa+Innovation+Council/183/MaineMaine Innovation Economy Advisory Boardhttp://www.maine.gov/decd/innovation/economic_advisory_board.shtmlhttp://www.commerce.idaho.gov/technology/science-andtechnology-strategic-plan.aspxhttp://www.iowainnovationcouncil.com/en/publications/iowa_innovation_councils_strategic_plan/http://www.maine.gov/decd/innovation/reports_and_publications/pdfs/2010_S&T_Plan.pdfhttp://www.mnscienceandtechnologyauthority.org/Reports/Science-Technology-FINAL-REPORT.pdfOPAR 2012 STI Policy ReviewOPAR 2012 STI Policy Review121

Nebraska Digital Nebraska: Envisioning Our Future http://www.nitc.ne.gov/stp/stp.pdfNew HampshireNorth CarolinaOklahomaScience and Technology PlanStrategic Plan: "Advancing Innovation inNorth Carolina"Oklahoma's Strategic Plan for Science andTechnologyhttp://techhampshire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/New-Hampshire-Science-and-Technology-Plan.pdfhttp://www.ncscitech.com/Portals/6/Documents/Resources/Advancing_Innovation_in_NC_Executive_Summary.pdfhttp://www.crossroads.odl.state.ok.us/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/stgovpub&CISOPTR=4922&filename=5123.pdfOregon 2009 Oregon Innovation Plan 2.0 http://www.oregon4biz.com/assets/docs/09InnoPlan.pdfRhode IslandWest VirginiaScience and Technology Infrastructure Planfor Rhode IslandVision 2015: The West Virginia Science andTechnology Strategic PlanTechnology, Equipment, and Lab Spacehttp://stac.ri.gov/assets/195/RIScienceTechnologyPlan_30Sept09.pdfhttp://www.wvresearch.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=22&Itemid=26&mosmsg=You+are+trying+to+access+from+a+nonauthorized+domain.+%28www.google.com%29Delaware Delaware Technology Park http://deltechpark.org/research-technology/FloridaTechnology Research and DevelopmentAuthorityhttp://www.trda.org/Georgia Advanced Technology Development Center http://atdc.org/services/services-2HawaiiHigh Technology Development Corporation:Incubation Programshttp://www.htdc.org/incubations_programs.htmlKentuckyCabinet for Economic Development: Officeof Commercialization and Innovationhttp://www.thinkkentucky.com/dci/pdfs/Technology%20Business%20Incubators.pdfMassachusetts Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives http://massbiomed.org/company/our-historyNew JerseyCommission on Science and Technology:Edison Innovation Zoneshttp://www.state.nj.us/scitech/university/izones/#techNorth Carolina Research Triangle Park http://www.rtp.org/about-rtpOregonOregon Inc. High Tech Extension Servicehttp://www.oregon4biz.com/Innovation-in-Oregon/Research-Development/Pennsylvania Hershey Center for Applied Research http://www.hersheyresearch.com/about.htmlUtah Bioinnovations Gateway http://bioinnovationsgateway.org/about122 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

Appendix E: Research MethodologyOPAR’s STI Policy Landscape includes projects focused on the collection, classification, and analysis of state-level legislation andother forms of government activity. The following sections describe the methodology for each of the projects.STI Legislative LandscapeThe STI Legislative Landscape is an annual survey of state legislatures to collect legislation being introduced on topics of science,technology and innovation (STI). Due to the large volume of legislation introduced in state legislatures in 2011, OPAR focused onenacted legislation only.The research team maintains a list of STI topics or “keywords” to query for relevant bills in state legislative databases. Examples ofkeywords include cloud computing, radio frequency identification, genetically modified organism, and smart grid. For 2011, OPARselected 107 STI keywords for the identification and collection of relevant bills in states with an active legislative session.Using a subscription-based legislative search engine called CQ StateTrack, the research team can create sophisticated queriesbased on Boolean logic to search for bills with at least one occurrence of the keyword from the legislative database that includesbills from all fifty states. Each keyword has a unique query, which allows the analyst to include synonyms and plural forms of thekeyword.The bill search is based on a query system that returns legislation with at least one occurrence of the STI keyword underconsideration in the bill text. These bills are then analyzed to determine if they meet OPAR’s inclusion criteria, which are primarilybased on how frequently and where the keyword appears in the bill text. Designations for inclusion are high, medium and low. Ifthe bill is determined eligible for inclusion, several attributes are collected for that bill including bill number, short title, bill text URL,etc.Search results from all the keyword queries yielded X bills with at least one occurrence of the STI keywords. Each of these billswas reviewed and based on the inclusion criteria, a determination was made to include 521 bills.Legislative TypologyOPAR’s Legislative Typology builds on the Legislative Landscape by analyzing each bill for its purpose with regard to the STIkeyword under consideration. The Legislative Typology is used to classify each bill with one of four purposes:•§Promote: If the main purpose of a bill is to increase the usage, availability, or the pervasiveness of the STI keyword in a state,we consider the bill to be promoting the keyword.•§Regulate: If the main purpose of the bill is to add, clarify or remove rules or standards, the bill is regulating the keyword.•§Limit: If the main purpose of the bill is to reduce the usage, prohibit or otherwise limit the availability of the keyword in the state,the bill is limiting the keyword.•§Study: If the main purpose of the bill is to establish a pilot program, committee, commission, or other means to study theeffects of the keyword, the bill is studying the keyword.The Legislative Typology is based on the assumption that the bill promotes, regulates, limits, or studies the STI keyword byexpanding or reducing (or neither) the availability of the keyword. For instance, the 2010 Georgia House Bill 1416 on the STIkeyword broadband calls for tax incentives on the purchase of broadband equipment. HB 1416 encourages the purchase ofsuch broadband equipment, and hence will increase the availability or use of broadband by virtue of this incentive. Therefore, thepurpose of HB 1416 is to promote the STI keyword broadband.Due to the fact that bills often contain more than one STI keyword, the sum of the totals for the four legislative purposes may begreater than the total number of introduced bills. This is because some of the bills have multiple legislative purposes in which casethey were categorized under more than one legislative purpose. For example, the total number of bills introduced in Georgia in2010 was 32, but when analyzing the legislation by keyword, the number of bills that include STI keywords was 41. In other words,at least one of Georgia’s 32 STI bills addressed more than one STI keyword. The adjusted total is only reflected in the LegislativeTypology analysis of each state profile. The actual total is used in all other analyses.STI Policy InfrastructureOPAR’s STI Policy Infrastructure is a systematic approach to identifying the components that comprise our STI public policysystem. As defined by OPAR, an STI policy mechanism is a policy or entity created by the state government in order to cultivateSTI. The STI Policy Mechanisms surveyed by OPAR fall into two categories - four policy mechanisms that help entrepreneursnavigate the innovation cycle and five policy mechanisms that facilitate STI in the state. By surveying these policy mechanisms,OPAR intends to examine the government’s role and engagement in advancing STI at the state-level. Each of the policymechanisms are defined below, followed by the research results.As the interest in STI policy grows, policy makers are increasingly focusing on fostering start-up tech companies within their states.OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review123

As such, the first group of policy mechanisms in the Policy Infrastructure looks at policy mechanisms that help entrepreneurs intheir attempt to start a tech-based companies. OPAR has synthesized aspects of many different entrepreneurship models into onethat makes sense given our interest in technology companies and state-level policy. OPAR’s model breaks down the process ofcreating a technology business into five stages: research and development, incubation, demonstrating, promoting, and sustaining.Entrepreneurs have different needs at each stage of the development process, and public policies can assist entrepreneurs withmany of these needs. The second group of policy mechanisms looks at the policy mechanisms which help facilitate overall STIpolicy in the state.1. Research and development funding - An entity that provides state funding for science, technology and innovation (STI)research and development. The allocation of funding must be competitive and based on merit.2. Commercialization funding - An entity that provides state funding specifically for STI commercialization. This may include SBIRgrants matched by the state. The allocation of funding must be competitive and based on merit.3. Technology, equipment, and labs - An entity that provides start-ups with the technology or lab space that they require.4. Consulting and/or mentoring for entrepreneurs - An entity that provides assistance including, but not limited to, obtainingfunding, writing a business plan, and intellectual property law. These services must be advisory. For example, the entity mayshow startups where and how to access venture capital funding, but it may not facilitate a meeting.5. Liaisons with angels and venture capital - An entity that liaises between angel investors, venture capital, and entrepreneurs.The entity does not directly disburse funds.6. Marketing STI for the state - An entity that actively markets a state’s STI resources. This marketing must include facts andfigures detailing the state’s STI capacity and/or assets.7. Legislative committee - A legislative entity responsible for considering and approving legislation regarding STI public policy.These entities must have “science”, “technology” or “innovation” in their titles.8. Strategic plan - A state-level strategic plan created in the past ten years providing a vision and framework to expand a state’sSTI capacity.9. Advisory body - An entity that advises members of the state government regarding STI public policy. It must have a dedicatedperson in a leadership role as well as the word(s) “science”, “technology” or “innovation” in the titles.Analysts conducted Internet searches to survey the presence or absence of the five STI policy mechanisms in each state. The datacollection was then validated internally and through surveys allowing each policy mechanism to self-validate. The internal validationconsisted of checking that each policy mechanism satisfied a certain set of criteria.The following set of criteria was applied universally to all policy mechanisms:•§The entity must be partially state-funded and/or operated.•§The entity must have a focus on STI. The entity’s charter does not have to be entirely focused on STI, but a partial focus isnecessary.•§The entity or the program/service in consideration must be active within the past two years, specifically January 2010 - present.•§The entity’s program or initiative cannot cater only to university affiliated entrepreneurs.•§The entity cannot be focused on one industry sector of the STI domain. For example, an entity providing service only toentrepreneurs in clean energy is not included in OPAR’s data set.Additionally, each type of policy mechanism had an additional set of criteria. The criteria specific to each policy mechanism isdescribed in the description of that mechanism. Once each mechanism had been internally validated, the research team sent outsurveys verifying the information collected on each mechanism.124 OPAR 2012 STI Policy Review

www.opar.gtri.gatech.eduOPAR’s mission is to engage scientists, technologists, and policymakersin authentic dialogue in order to improve public policy outcomes.