Silicon's Snake Oil: The Unholy Union of Money and Science

The Golden Age of Technology Transfer: A Descent into Chaos

The federal laboratories, once the bastion of innovation and technological superiority, have become the playground of commercial interests. Paige George, the executive director of the Federal Laboratory Consortium, and David Lee, the FLC vice chair, are cheerleading this development, touting it as a "golden age for technology transfer in national security." But what does this mean, exactly?

For David Lee, the director of Army DEVCOM, this means that companies are coming to them with technologies that they think might be of interest to the warfighter. And what does the lab do? They "make room" for these technologies, as long as they fit within the lab's mission. This is not a one-way street; the lab is not simply licensing out technologies to companies. No, this is a partnership, where the lab provides expertise and facilities to companies, allowing them to test their ideas and bring them to fruition.

But what about the labs' own mission? What about the technologies that they are working on? Do they have the resources and expertise to focus on these areas? David Lee is evasive on this point, stating that sometimes they will see a great technology, but it's not quite something they're interested in. They will then call another lab and say, "Hey, listen, this company's got great technology, would you want to look at it because it falls within your portfolio and your lane and your mission?" This is not a system; it's a free-for-all, where the labs are simply pawns in a game of commercial interests.

And what about the companies themselves? Are they truly innovators, or are they simply looking for ways to cash in on government funding and contracts? The answer, of course, is that it's a mix of both. Some companies are genuinely interested in developing new technologies, while others are simply looking for ways to make a quick buck. And what about the labs themselves? Are they truly focused on their own mission, or are they simply serving as a conduit for commercial interests?

Paige George is adamant that the labs are not just licensing out technologies, but are actively working with industry to solve real problems in the national security space. She points to the OSTP report, which calls out the need for federal laboratories to open their doors to industry. But what does this mean, exactly? Is it a one-way street, where the labs are simply serving as a resource for companies, or is it a two-way street, where the labs are actively working with companies to develop new technologies?

The answer, of course, is that it's a complex issue, and one that is driven by a combination of factors. The federal laboratories are not just passive players in this game; they are actively shaping the direction of technology transfer. And what about the companies themselves? Are they truly innovators, or are they simply looking for ways to cash in on government funding and contracts? The answer, of course, is that it's a mix of both.

In the end, the "golden age of technology transfer" is nothing more than a euphemism for the corrupting influence of commercial interests. It's a game where the stakes are high, and the players are constantly adapting and evolving to stay ahead of the curve. And what about the labs themselves? Are they truly focused on their own mission, or are they simply serving as a conduit for commercial interests? The answer, of course, is that it's a mix of both.

In conclusion, the "golden age of technology transfer" is a complex issue, driven by a combination of factors. It's a game where the stakes are high, and the players are constantly adapting and evolving to stay ahead of the curve. And what about the labs themselves? Are they truly focused on their own mission, or are they simply serving as a conduit for commercial interests? The answer, of course, is that it's a mix of both.