Report 1-26-11

An Empire of Innovation
The 2011 Annual
New York State Innovation Report

2
Quote
Forthcoming
Possibly From
Governor

3
I. Background and Methodology 4
II. Executive Summary: An Empire of Innovation at a Glance 8
III. Indicators
Venture Capital 10
Indicators 1, 2 and 3
Employment in High Tech Establishments 12
Indicators 4 and 5
Entrepreneurial Activity 14
Indicator 6
Patents Awarded Per 1,000 Individuals in Science & Engineering 16
Indicator 7
Academic Patents Awarded Per 1,000 Science & Engineering Holders 18
Indicator 8
Research and Development Expenditures at Universities & Colleges 20
Indicators 9 and 10
Research and Development as Share of Gross Domestic Product 22
Employed Science & Engineering Doctorate Holders 24
Indicator 14
Individuals in Science & Engineering Occupations 26
Indicator 15
Bachelor or Higher Degree Holders – 25-44 Years 28
Indicator 16
Associate Degree Holders or Higher Among Individuals 25-44 Years 30
Indicator 17
Advanced Placement Exams in High School 32
Indicators 18 and 19
4th and 8th Grade Mathematics Performance 34
IV. High-Tech Clusters 36
V. NAICS 41
VI. Looking Ahead 43
VII. Bibliography 45
VIII. Resources 51
IX. Endnotes 54
X. Index 59
Table of Contents

4
Background
In December 2009, the Task Force on Diversifying the New York State Economy
Through Industry-Higher Education Partnerships (Task Force)1
recommended the
State publish an annual statewide innovation report. The purpose is to objectively
measure “the State’s status benchmarked against previous years and against peer
states including California and Massachusetts.” An interagency team was assembled
led by the New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation
(NYSTAR) that included the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) and the
Empire State Development (ESD).
The Task Force emphasized that New York’s future rested with an “innovation ecosys-
tem” where “inventors and investors find each other with ease and collaborate free from
artificial hurdles.” It said that New York State would “build upon its status as a leader in
idea creation.” It must “establish commercialization pipelines to convert those ideas into
a more powerful, resilient economy” if it is to realize its economic potential in a highly
competitive domestic and international technology environment.
The innovation ecosystem has been described as a “collaborative and interdependent”
relationship that brings together parties to do what no single contributor could have
done on its own.2
The Task Force identified three key elements that make up the inno-
vation ecosystem: technology-dependent industries, knowledge-creating universities,
and individuals seeking opportunity.
Good ideas not turned into jobs, services, or products are comparable to ideas never
conceived. Ralph Gomory, research professor at New York University, cautioned that if
“you just do breakthrough R&D and in the end don’t make the stuff, that’s a losing argu-
ment.” He called R&D without commercialization “the innovation delusion. We can de-
sign things; others will build them.”3
According to William Dudley, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President, there must
be a better ratio between dollars invested and the number of start-up companies and
employment growth that follows. Entrepreneurship and higher education must be
“married.”4
Success in marrying these efforts cannot be gauged without data and metrics. As the
Task Force observed, the Empire State does not regularly collect information that accu-
rately measures the performance of its innovation economy. It underscored the critical
importance to “develop, maintain and publish an annual or bi-annual assessment of the
progress being made to diversify and grow the State’s economy.”
In recommending publication of an annual report, the Task Force noted that several
data elements were unavailable. “For example,” the Task Forced observed, “the main
industry classification system which exists today, the North American Industry Classifi-
cation System (NAICS), does not readily allow for comparisons of employment within
the Nanotechnology and STEM-driven Service sectors to the extent that would be de-
Background and Methodology

5
sirable.” There are also areas needing measurement, but yet don’t neatly fit in a par-
ticular cluster or category.
According to a jointly issued report by the Center for Economic Development at the
Carnegie Mellon Heinz School and the State Science & Technology Institute, “Most
classifications of technology industries rely on industry-level data that obscure the
broad range of activities and technological sophistication that characterizes the actual
firms within them.” It also noted that industries without a large technology component
can still be “generators of technology.”5
This report, as do all federal agencies, used NAICS, created by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, for employer classifications under clusters.6
As noted above, NAICS
is a valuable resource, but it has certain limitations as evidenced by an industry that
may merit several classifications, yet is only reflected in one. The classification may not
always capture the breadth and scope of an industry.
This inaugural statewide innovation report lays a foundation that is intended to evolve
and be expanded upon in future years. Tools will be sharpened to collect and publish
data that better assesses the State’s capacity “to promote economic growth through
industry higher education collaboration; the level of activity generated over a given pe-
riod of time; and the activity’s impact on the State’s economy.” This first report is an im-
portant first step in that direction.7
Methodology
Clusters and indicators used here were selected based on recommendations from an
independent advisory panel, discussions within the interagency team, best practices
used in other innovation reports8
, and information from the Kauffman Foundation and
the National Science Foundation.
The Task Force identified metrics to be collected and published “which reflect the ele-
ments of a functioning innovation ecosystem…” One key metric is the creation or main-
tenance of jobs in the innovation economy. Yet this metric cannot be used absent other
factors integral and symbiotic with job growth such as collaboration, higher education
or intellectual property commercialization.
Six categories comprised of twenty-one indicators were assembled to help provide a
snapshot of the State’s technology sector. These indicators reflect some of the areas
that influence technology development.
The six categories are:
1. Economic Impact,
2. Research,
3. Technology Development,
4. Business Development,
5. Capital, and
6. Talent.

6
High-Tech Clusters
Eight technology dependent employment clusters were also identified. A cluster is de-
fined as a sector of the innovation economy with a high proportion of technology related
employment.
• Cleantech Manufacturing
• Electronics, Imaging and Photonics
• Finance and Insurance
• Health Care
• Higher Education
• Information
• Life Sciences
• Research and Supporting Services
After reviewing this report, policymakers should be sensitive in not crafting an approach
to the innovation economy that rests solely on the clusters and indicators used here.
They offer a guide in developing a broad approach without short-changing any specific
cluster or indicator, especially those not used here or not yet identified by NAICS.
The interagency team invited representatives from the business, higher education, and
economic development sectors to serve on a panel of advisors to review and comment
on the proposed use of data, metrics, clusters, and indicators. The panel provided ob-
jective, detached feedback critical to the quality, reliability, and objectivity of this report.
The Innovation Report helps fulfill the Task Force’s call for “consistent, enduring and
concentrated effort…” to make the Empire State the international innovation hub it is
meant to be.
Indicators
An indicator provides the measurable performance data for one or more categories.
• Venture Capital Disbursed per Venture Capital Deal
• Venture Capital Deals as Share of High-Technology Business Establishments
• Venture Capital Disbursed per $1,000 of Gross Domestic Product
• Employment in High-Technology Establishments as Share of Total Employment
• Entrepreneurial Activity
• High-Technology Share of All Business Establishments
• Patents Awarded per 1,000 Individuals in S&E Occupations
• Academic Patents Awarded per 1,000 S&E Doctorate Holders in Academia
• Academic R&D per $1,000 of Gross Domestic Product
• Business-Performed R&D as Share of Private-Industry Output
• R&D as Share of Gross Domestic Product
• Employed S&E Doctorate Holders as Share of Workforce
• Individuals in S&E Occupations as Share of Workforce
• Bachelor’s Degree Holders or Higher Among Individuals 25-44 Years Old
• Associate Degree Holders or Higher Among Individuals 25-44 Years Old
• Public High School Students Scoring 3 or Higher on at Least One Advanced Place-
ment Exam

7
• Public High School Students Taking Advanced Placement Exams
• Eighth Grade Mathematics Performance
• Eighth Grade Science Performance
• Fourth Grade Mathematics Performance
• Fourth Grade Science Performance
A further cautionary note – although comparisons are made with New York State’s per-
ceived high-tech competitors, such comparisons have limitations. Each state reflects its
own culture, geography, and uses information that reflects a point in time. In some
ways, this report does and should raise more questions thus laying the ground work for
more probing, more analysis, and the development of other measurements in future
editions.
State Comparisons
New York’s performance under each indicator is compared with the states below, which
were determined to be top performing or increasingly competitive in key technology
sectors.
• California
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• New Jersey
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
Three other states were included – Georgia, Colorado, and Washington – because they
were identified as rising stars in the area of innovation technology.
ESD identified three categories – biotech, cleantech, and nanotech – to determine if a
state should be considered a competitor. If a state was especially strong in a category
or rivaled New York in more than one category then it was included.9

8
The twenty-one indicators used provide a point in time regarding the State’s overall per-
formance in the innovation economy. The indicators below rank New York nationally
and with high-tech competitor states.
• Venture Capital Disbursed per Venture Capital Deal – 10th among competitor
states and 21st nationally.
• Venture Capital Deals as Share of High-Technology Business Establishments – 5th
among competitor states and 9th nationally.
• Venture Capital Disbursed per $1,000 of Gross Domestic Product – 8th among
competitor states and 14th nationally.
• Employment in High-Technology Establishments as Share of Total Employment –
11th among competitor states and 28th nationally.
• Entrepreneurial Activity – 6th among competitor states and 11th nationally.
• High-Technology Share of All Business Establishments – 12th among competitor
states and 30th nationally.
• Patents Awarded per 1,000 individuals in Science and Engineering Occupations –
4th among competitor states and 10th nationally.
• Academic Patents Awarded per 1,000 Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders
in Academia – 8th among competitor states and 11th nationally.
• Institution Fund Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Col-
leges – 2nd among competitor states and 2nd nationally.
• All Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges – 2nd
among competitor states and 2nd nationally.
• Academic Research and Development per $1,000 of Gross Domestic Product – 9th
• Business-Performed Research and Development as Share of Private-Industry Out-
put –11th among competitor states and 29th nationally.
• Research and Development as share of Gross Domestic Product – 11th among
competitor states and 35th nationally.
• Employed Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders as Share of Workforce – 6th
• Individuals in Science and Engineering Occupations as Share of Workforce – 11th
An Empire of Innovation: At A Glance

9
• Bachelor’s Degree Holders or Higher Among 25-44 Year Olds – 5th among com-
petitor states and 6th nationally.
• Associate Degree Holders or Higher Among 25-44 Year Olds – 3rd among competi-
tor states and 6th nationally.
• Public High School Students Scoring 3 or Higher on at Least One Advanced Place-
ment Exam – 2nd among competitor states and 2nd nationally.
• Public High School Students Taking Advanced Placement Exams – 2nd among
competitor states and 2nd nationally.
• Eighth Grade Mathematics Performance – 10th among competitor states and 32nd
nationally.
• Fourth Grade Mathematics Performance – 5th among competitor states and 15th
nationally.

11
New York’s Performance
• Ranked 10th among competitor states regarding venture capital disburse-
ment per venture capital deals.
• Ranked 21st nationally.
• Ranked 5th among competitor states regarding venture capital deals as
share of high-tech business establishments.
• Ranked 9th nationally.
• Ranked 8th among competitor states regarding venture capital disbursed per
$1,000 of GDP.
Importance
Venture capital activity in the Empire State has been described as “the unreal-
ized potential in leveraging the incredible amount of research and develop-
ment” 10
stemming from the scientific creation and intellectual dynamism going
on at New York’s research universities. In 2007, New York State received $1.16
billion or 4% of the national total of the $30 billion venture capital invested na-
tionally. Metro New York City11
received approximately $1.03 billion and upstate
about $137 million.12
Over ten million Americans were employed in venture capital backed busi-
nesses in 2007. “VC-backed companies generated $2.3 trillion in revenue in
2006 or 17.6 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).”13
Venture Capital

13
• Ranked 11th among competitor states as share of total employment.
• Ranked 12th among competitor states as share of all business establish-
ments.
Importance
In 2008, New York high-tech workers earned approximately $87,500, according
to the TechAmerica Foundation, “or 41 percent more than New York’s average
private sector wage.”14
The innovation economy is driven by the creation of and the advances in high
tech.15
Despite the national recession, job rates for software, electrical, and
electronics engineers remained significantly better nationally than overall em-
ployment figures.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has underscored the rate
and quality of economic recovery will be dependent in part on engineers, scien-
tists and other technology professions.16
In 2010, the TechAmerica Foundation
highlighted the view that government and the private sector are focused on
goals that are “highly dependent on technology.”17
Employment in High-Technology Establishments
Indicators 4 and 5

15
• Ranked 6th among competitor states.
• Ranked 11th nationally (tied with AK & ME).
Importance
Startup “companies aren’t everything,” according to the Kauffman Foundation.
“They’re the only thing…net job growth occurs in the U.S. economy only through
startup firms.”19
In November 2010, Valerie Jarrett, a White House Senior Advisor and Assistant
to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, observed
that, “It is the entrepreneurs who are tackling the Nation’s challenges in clean
energy, medicine, national security, and other fields. They will build the leading
industries of the 21st century.”20
Entrepreneurs are found in small and large
companies.
Entrepreneurial Activity18
Indicator 6

17
Importance
Proponents of the patent system see it as nurturing innovation and expanding
economic growth. Some believe that without patent protection there would be a
disincentive to invent since someone else could unscrupulously profit from the
creation. Absent a patent system to protect and encourage inventors there
would be fewer ideas and products to commercialize thus inhibiting economic
expansion.21
According to the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), “Innovation
drives investment, creates new jobs, and fuels economic growth.” The USPTO
issues patents, observed David J. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, to encourage “technological
advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new tech-
nology worldwide.” In addition, patents promote “the economic vitality of Ameri-
can business, paving the way for investment, research, scientific development,
and the commercialization of new inventions.” 22
Patents Awarded Per 1,000 Individuals
In S&E Occupations
Indicator 7

19
Importance
A report issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found
that “Given the importance of faculty researchers to innovation and commerciali-
zation, a university culture that is accepting of entrepreneurial activities is best
built from the ground up by researchers who promote and connect other col-
leagues both inside and outside of academe.”23
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data showed that annual patent grants to uni-
versities and colleges grew from 2,950 to 3,700 between 1998 and 2008. In
2008, just over 3,000 patents were awarded to colleges and universities in the
United States.
The top 200 R&D-performing institutions, with 96% of the total patents granted
to U.S. universities between the 1998–2008 period, dominate among universi-
ties and university systems receiving patent protection. Among the top R&D-
performing institutions that received patents between 1998 and 2008, 19 ac-
counted for more than 50% of all patents granted to these institutions (although
these included a few multi-campus systems, including the Universities of Califor-
nia and North Carolina).
Between 1998 and 2008, there were three technology focus areas among U.S.
universities in patenting: chemicals (19%), biotechnology (15%), and pharma-
ceuticals (14%). The next three highest technology areas were semiconductors
and electronics (6%), measurement and control equipment (5%), and computers
and peripherals (5%), each accounting for about 200 patents in 2008.
Academic Patents Awarded Per 1,000 S&E
Doctorate Holders in Academia
Indicator 8

21
• Ranked 2nd among competitor states regarding institution fund expendi-
tures.
• Ranked 2nd nationally.
• Ranked 2nd among competitor states regarding all R&D expenditures at uni-
versities and colleges.
Importance
In 2009, universities reported $54.9 billion in science and engineering research
and development spending. Between FY 2008 and FY 2009 this amounted to a
5.8% increase. Federal investment at the college and university level reached
$32.6 billion with a concentration in the life sciences.
Government funding sources were: Department of Defense, Department of En-
ergy; Department of Health and Human Services; National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; National Science Foundation, the US Department of Agri-
culture, and sources not elsewhere classified.24
The three areas with the high-
est R&D government investments were medical, biological sciences, and engi-
neering. Government investments in mathematics declined between FYs 2008
and 2009.25
Although the many Nobel Prizes awarded to American scientists over the years
in physics, chemistry, and medicine provide personal bragging rights, they un-
derscore the importance of government and university and college R&D expen-
ditures in health care, space exploration, homeland security, information tech-
nology, and clean and renewable energy, among other areas.
In November 2010, Department of Energy Secretary Steve Chu observed “time
is running out” for a significant increase in science and technology R&D invest-
ments, especially in energy. He said that federal “support for science R&D will
be critical for our economic competitiveness” and referred to it as a “nonpartisan
issue.”26
R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges
Indicators 9 and 10

23
• Ranked 9th among competitor states for academic R&D per $1,000 of gross
domestic product.
• Ranked 11th among competitor states for business-performed R&D as share
of private-industry output.
• Ranked 11th among competitor states for R&D as share of state gross do-
mestic product.
Importance
Research and Development (R&D) is fundamental to the creation of new mar-
kets, products, and services.
Greater priority must be given to research and development investments, ac-
cording to Michael Greenstone, Director, The Hamilton Project and Senior Fel-
low, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, speaking before a Joint Con-
gressional Committee of Congress in 2010. He identified expanded R&D as a
reliable means to end economic stagnation stemming from the “Great Reces-
sion” as well as helping to further a green economy.27
In December 2010, Congress sent the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010 to the President. The bill, according to the Committee on Science
and Technology, “aims to maintain our national economic and scientific leader-
ship by: supporting basic research; improving science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) education; and fostering innovation, especially the develop-
ment of new energy technologies.”28
The President signed the bill into law
January 4, 2011.
Research and Development

25
Importance
The National Science Foundation (NSF) reported that 49,562 research doctor-
ate degrees were awarded by U.S. academic institutions in 2009, an increase of
1.6% over the previous year.29
Mark K. Fiegener of NSF’s Human Resources Statistics Program said that doc-
torates “awarded by U.S. academic institutions in 2009 represent the highest
number ever reported in the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED). In total,
33,470 S&E doctorates were awarded in 2009 (67.5% of all doctorates) …”
Fiegener further noted that the rate of “definite [employment] commitments
among doctorate recipients in physical sciences, social sciences, education,
health, and professional fields exceeded 70% in every year from 2007 to
2009.”30
New York ranked in the 1st quartile (45.1%-25.3%) of Science and Engineering
advanced degrees (masters and doctoral) as a share of all science and engi-
neering degrees conferred from 2007-2009. According to the Science and En-
gineering Indicators 2010 report, the “largest absolute increases in the produc-
tion of advanced S&E degree holders between 1997 and 2007 occurred in Cali-
fornia, Illinois, Texas, and New York.”31
Science and engineering is now globalized. Advanced degrees in the area will
have a direct impact on the growth and innovation of high tech economies. Ac-
cording to a report by the National Science Board, “it is beyond dispute that so-
ciety is – and will become even more – dependent on science and technology”
that will “depend on a cadre of individuals with a high level of scientific training
and education.”32
Employed S&E Doctorate Holders
as Share of Workforce
Indicator 14

27
Importance
Patents and inventions rely heavily on persons educated in math, science, and
engineering. According to Kei Koizumi, Assistant Director for Federal Research
and Development with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the United
States is in a strong position in the global market. He further noted, however,
that “U.S. dominance of world science and engineering has eroded significantly
in recent years, primarily because of rapidly increasing capabilities among East
Asian nations, particularly China.”33
Employment in science and engineering (S&E) occupations in the United States
grew from roughly 182,000 in 1950 to 5.5 million in 2007, according to the Na-
tional Science Foundation. It represented an annual growth rate of 6.2%,
“nearly 4 times the 1.6% growth rate for the total workforce older than age 18
during this period.”34
With their masters degrees, doctorates, and paychecks nearly twice the national
average, employees in the S&E labor force can boost tax revenue, housing val-
ues, and consumption of goods and services in the communities where they live
and work. In 2005, median annual earnings for individuals in S&E occupations
were $59,000, compared with $28,000 for people in all occupations nationwide.
Individuals in S&E Occupations
as Share of Workforce
Indicator 15

29
Importance
By 2020, eight out of ten new jobs will require workforce training or higher edu-
cation. In the last twenty years, the United States went from first place in col-
lege graduation rates to twelfth.35
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Govern-
ment identified that a low “college enrollment and degree levels” will negatively
impact a state’s economy.36
It further noted that community interaction, knowl-
edge creation, and knowledge transfer coupled with traditional educational
goals are a foundation to the innovation economy. Science, engineering, and
mathematic PhD or Master degrees are now a key component in advancing the
innovation economy.
Bachelor’s or Higher Degree Holders
25-44 Years
Indicator 16

31
• Ranked 3rd among competitor states.
Importance
In September 2009, President Obama visited Hudson Valley Community Col-
lege and highlighted its role to help shape the workforce in the innovation econ-
omy. Community colleges now play an increasingly important role in preparing
students with job skills required for emerging technologies. Hudson Valley dem-
onstrated how programs such as TEC-SMART are answering the needs of fast-
emerging high-tech skilled industries.37
According to the United States Department of Labor, 50% of jobs in 2016 will be
in “middle skill” positions. These are jobs that often require more than a high
school diploma, but less than a four year degree.
The need to have knowledgeable human capital and skilled labor has never
been greater. The call for solar installers, smart grid technicians, and wind tur-
bine specialists, for example, are increasingly in demand. Community colleges
can be positioned to meet this need.38
In addition, associate degrees in the innovation economy are serving a different
purpose than traditional four year degrees. Community colleges are offering af-
fordable training for timely marketable skills.39
Internationally, the U.S. ranks
twelfth in the percentage of adults 25-34 with an associate’s degree or higher.
“Workers … need an in-depth knowledge of the theories and principles of sci-
ence, engineering, and mathematics underlying technology,” according to an
economist for the federal government. It is “a knowledge generally acquired
through specialized post-high school education in some field of technology lead-
ing up to an award ranging from a vocational certificate or an associate’s degree
to a doctorate.”40
Associate Degree Holders or Higher
Among Individuals 25-44 Years
Indicator 17

33
• Ranked 2nd in share of students scoring 3 or higher on at least one exam
among competitor states.
• Ranked 2nd in AP among competitor states.
Importance
Advanced Placement (AP) Exams41
help students improve writing skills, study
habits, sharpen problem-solving abilities, and deepen their knowledge base in
many areas including math and science.42
They can play an important role in
acquiring specialized post-high school education.
More than 90 percent of four-year colleges in the United States and colleges in
more than 60 countries give student credit, advanced placement or both on the
basis of AP Exam scores. Overall, however, twelfth grade U.S. students are
ranked near the bottom in math and science internationally.43
By entering college with AP credits, students have time to move into upper level
courses, pursue a double-major or study abroad. AP students are more likely to
graduate from college in four years. In addition, AP Exams help students qualify
for scholarships. Thirty-one percent of colleges and universities look at AP ex-
perience when considering applications.
The number of students taking AP Exams and scoring proficient is growing in
the State. According to the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), AP
courses, offered in 37 subjects, are add-ons to a high school’s curriculum. The
standardized tests are taken in May, and a growing number of colleges offer
course credit to students who earn a certain score.
Advanced Placement Exams in High School

35
• Ranked 10th in Eighth Grade Mathematics among competitor states.
• Ranked 5th in Fourth Grade Mathematics among competitor states.
Importance
America is clearly at a crossroads. According to recently reported national sta-
tistics:
• 68 percent of American 8th grade students are unable to read at their grade
level.44
• Compared to other industrialized nations U.S. students are ranked 25th in
math and 21st in science out of 30.45
• The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress in math tests
showed that 4th graders in the U.S. were not improving.46
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute President, Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., has
identified a “Quiet Crisis” not only in New York State, but throughout this country
which calls for advancing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) disciplines to prepare the next generation to “create, innovate, and
compete in a global marketplace.”47
Planting the seeds to encourage and inspire students today to pursue careers in
STEM is the primary way to meet the challenges faced in nanosciences, health
care, clean and sustainable energy, climate and environment changes, and the
creation of other jobs within the innovation economy.48
JobsRated.com reported
that seven of the ten top rated jobs require a mathematics background.49
According to Brookings, citing a study by the National Bureau of Economic Re-
search, “each year of additional average schooling attained by a population
translates into at least a two percent increase in economic output.”50
4th and 8th Grade Mathematics Performance

36
To stimulate discussion and analysis of the State’s technology economy, presented
here are eight technology industry clusters. Each of these clusters is a group of related
industries that either produce or employ technology intensively. These clusters are re-
lated, but not identical to, the industry clusters used by Empire State Development
(ESD) for business development purposes.
The technology clusters are a mix of manufacturing and service industries. Their rela-
tive importance varies from region to region across the State. Total statewide employ-
ment in the technology clusters is roughly 2.8 million.
All employment and wage data presented in this section were compiled by the New
York State Department of Labor’s Division of Research and Statistics. Data come from
the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
“Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so
much to so many in so short a time.”
Bill Gates
Chairman, Microsoft
High-Tech Clusters

37
Cleantech Manufacturing Technology Cluster
The increased economic emphasis on green jobs, pollution reduction and renewable
energy is reflected in the composition of the cleantech manufacturing technology clus-
ter. This cluster is a large group of manufacturing industries in chemicals, materials
processing, industrial machinery, instruments, and transportation equipment. Total
statewide employment in the cluster is about 135,000.
Electronics, Imaging and Photonics Technology Cluster
This cluster reflects New York’s traditional strengths in computers, communications
equipment and photonics, optics and imaging. Included in this cluster will be the Global
Foundries semiconductor manufacturing facility in Malta, Saratoga County, which when
it opens in 2012 will be the most technologically advanced semiconductor manufactur-
ing facility in the world and the largest leading-edge semiconductor foundry in the
United States. Total statewide employment in the cluster is about 65,000.

38
Finance and Insurance Technology Cluster
Not immediately recognized as high-tech, finance and insurance are defined as a tech-
nology cluster due to its intensive use of information technology for trading, back office,
research, communications, and other core functions. New York has a particularly
strong presence in securities and related industries. Total statewide cluster employ-
ment is about 680,000. The cluster’s location quotient of 1.51 indicates a high level of
employment concentration.
Health Care Technology Cluster
Health care becomes increasingly technology-intensive each year, and stands to be-
come even more high-tech through the application of information technology to record-
keeping and data-intensive procedures such as medical imaging. Health care is de-
fined as ambulatory health services and hospitals. Academic medical research is cap-
tured in the higher education technology cluster. Total statewide cluster employment is
about 850,000.

39
Higher Education Technology Cluster
As a major source of innovation and knowledge, higher education is an obvious tech-
nology cluster. In addition to colleges and universities, the cluster includes professional
schools, business and computer schools and technical and trade schools. Academic
medical research is also captured in this cluster. Total employment in the cluster state-
wide is about 325,000. The cluster’s location quotient of 1.85 – the highest for all 8
technology clusters - indicates a high level of employment concentration.
Information, Communications and New Media Technology Cluster
New York City in particular is a major global player in the media industries. The infor-
mation, communications and new media technology cluster includes traditional publish-
ing, software, motion picture, recording, television, radio, and cable. Also included are
telecommunications industries and data processing and related services. Statewide
total employment is about 300,000. The cluster’s location quotient of 1.38 indicates a
high level of employment concentration.

40
Life Sciences Technology Cluster
Life sciences includes pharmaceuticals as well as medical equipment and supplies, in-
cluding electro-medical and electrotherapeutic apparatus. The cluster benefits from
New York’s extensive university capabilities in biomedical research. Statewide total
cluster employment is about 41,000.
Research and Supporting Services Technology Cluster
This cluster combines scientific R&D industries with related industries, including com-
puter systems design, consulting, and architecture and engineering services. New
York is home to major corporate research facilities for Corning Corporation, Eastman
Kodak, General Electric, IBM, Xerox and other employers. Total cluster employment
statewide is about 405,000.

41
Cleantech Manufacturing
3251 Basic Chemical Mfg
3252 Synthetics Mfg
3253 Agricultural Chemicals Mfg
3255 Paints, Coatings & Adhesives Mfg
3256 Soap and Cleaning Compounds Mfg
3259 Other Chemicals Mfg
3271 Clay Product and Refractory Mfg
3323 Architectural and Structural Metals Mfg
33241 Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Mfg
3329 Other Fabricated Metal Product Mfg
3334 Heating, AC, Ventilation, Refrigeration Equipment Mfg
3336 Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Mfg
3345 Instruments Manufacturing (except 33451)
3351 Electric Lighting Equipment Mfg
3352 Household Appliance Mfg
3353 Electrical Equipment Mfg
3359 Other Electrical Equipment and Component Mfg
3361 Motor Vehicle Mfg
3362 Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Mfg
3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Mfg
3364 Aerospace Product and Parts Mfg
3365 Railroad Rolling Stock Mfg
3366 Ship and Boat Building
3369 Other Transportation Mfg
Electronics, Imaging and Photonics
3341 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Mfg
3342 Communications Equipment Mfg
3343 Audio and Video Equipment Mfg
3344 Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Mfg
3346 Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media Mfg
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Mfg
333314 Optical Instrument and Lens Mfg
333315 Photographic and Photocopying Equipment Mfg
Finance and Insurance
5211 Monetary Authorities
5221 Depository Credit Intermediaries
5222 Nondepository Credit Intermediation
5223 Intermediation-Related Activities
5231 Securities and Commodities Brokers
5232 Securities and Commodity Exchanges
NAICS Codes

42
5239 Other Financial
5241 Insurance Carriers
5251 Insurance and Employee Benefit Funds
5259 Other Investment Pools and Funds
Health Care
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
622 Hospitals
Higher Education
6112 Junior Colleges
6113 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools
6114 Business Schools and Computer and Management Training
6115 Technical and Trade Schools
6116 Other Schools and Instruction
6117 Educational Support Services
Information, Communications and New Media
5111 Newspaper, Periodical, Book, and Directory Publishers
5112 Software Publishers
5121 Motion Picture and Video Industries
5122 Sound Recording Industries
5151 Radio and Television Broadcasting
5152 Cable and Other Subscription Programming
5171 Wired Telecommunications Carriers
5172 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
5174 Satellite Telecommunications
5179 Other Telecommunications
5182 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services
5191 Other Information Services
Life Sciences
3254 Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
3391 Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing
Research and Supporting Services
5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services
5414 Specialized Design Services
5415 Computer Systems Design
5416 Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting
5417 Scientific R&D

43
This report is issued in the midst of challenging fiscal times for most states but in a
global era of exciting times for innovation.
The fortunes of people, states, and countries are interconnected as they attempt to deal
with bottom line budget realities and oceans of opportunities at the same time.
Sam Palmisano, IBM’s Chair and CEO, made an important observation about Amer-
ica’s economic prowess in the world. What he says is equally applicable to how the
Empire State is positioned in the national economy and global market place.
He noted that, “if competitiveness in the innovation economy was a card game, and all
the leading countries were at the poker table, and I could have the hand that anyone
was dealt, I want the hand that has been dealt America.” Similarly, New York has been
given a much stronger hand than most states or countries but our success is depend-
ent on how we play our hand.
This document provides a snapshot of where we stand today using recognized meas-
ures of performance benchmarked against leading competitor states.
For a state with a rich history of economic leadership, the report points to areas in tech-
nology where we are lagging. Where we are leading, it points to the need for a more
effective strategy to capture the job producing potential of this leadership.
This document strives to capture an accurate portrayal of where New York stands using
indicators which were available to us. There are metrics not used, regional factors not
included, and measurements still needed to be developed. All of these factors should
be considered in next year’s Innovation Report.
As noted earlier, we believe this inaugural document is an important building block to
expand each year to more fully monitor the overall health and well-being of New York’s
innovation economy. In addition to offering data that may indicate possible areas for
improvement, the Innovation Report suggests opportunities that, if taken advantage of,
will contribute to the vitality and long-term strength and expansion of the innovation
economy.
Few could have predicted fifty or even twenty-five years ago the scientific and techno-
logical breakthroughs we enjoy today. It is these breakthroughs that have reshaped the
state’s, nation’s and the world’s economy. Although every chapter in history has held
promise for new discoveries, we now live in an unprecedented age where discovery
has been accelerated by new technology tools and communication capabilities.
IPads, iPhones, the Kindle, and flat screen televisions, among many other things, are
inventions we now take for granted. We expect major upgrades in performance not in
years but in months.
Organ transplants, once seen as major but rarely used medical breakthroughs, are
Looking Ahead

44
common place. Mapping the genome, once thought as an end, is now seen as only a
beginning of another exciting era of life science.
Today, cord blood stem cells are being used to treat approximately eighty diseases
from cancer to leukemia. This medicine is showing great promise in the area of regen-
eration for brain injuries and cerebral palsy. A microelectronic retinal implant has been
invented to restore the vision of individuals with macular degeneration.
This is an exciting time to be alive. It is an exciting time for New York. Every genera-
tion has built upon the ingenuity and creativity of the generation before it. This genera-
tion of New Yorkers is no different.
Few states or countries have the educational strengths, intellectual capital, entrepre-
neurial foundation, world-renowned researchers or world class companies found here.
This is New York’s promise and its future. We must capture the potential that is ours.
“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.”
Steve Jobs
Chairman and CEO, Apple Inc.

45
Acs, Zoltan J., and Laszlo Szerb. “Global Entrepreneurship and the United States.”
SBA.Gov/Advo. September 2010.
Albers, Judith J. and Theresa B. Mazzullo. “Venture Capital and Seed Activity in NYS:
Perception, Reality, and Unrealized Potential. Part One.” ExcellNY.com, Febr-
uary 2009.
Albers, Judith J, Theresa B. Mazzullo, Samir H. Navani, and Vivek Pandey. “Venture
Capital and Seed Activity in NYS: Statistics for Upstate and Downstate 2005-
2008. Part Two.” ExcellNY.com, May 2009.
Allen, Brad. “Angel Investors are a Godsend in Filling Funding Gap for Small Compa-
nies,” MinnPost.com, September 27, 2010.
Anderson, Nick. “International Test Score Data Show U.S. Firmly Mid-Pack.” Wash-
ingtonpost.com, December 7, 2010.
Armario, Christine. “Less than Half of Students Proficient in Science.” WTEN.com
(posted from Associated Press). January 25, 2011.
Babco, Eleanor. "Skills for the Innovation Economy: What the 21st Century Workforce
Needs and How to Provide It," Commission on Professionals in Science and
Technology, June 2004, CPST.org.
“Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority Keystone Innovation Zones.” Penn-
sylvania Department of Community & Economic Development, August 2010.
Blumenstyk, Goldie. “Report Urges Universities to Be More Realistic in Tech-
Transfer Hopes and Deals.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 4,
2010.
Briggs, Tyler. “Picking the Brain of Local Business and Education Leaders.” Evening
Tribune.com, October 24, 2010.
Britt, Rhonda. “Universities Report $55 Billion in Science and Engineering R&D
Spending for FY 2009; Redesigned Survey to Launch in 2010,” InfoBrief – Sci-
ence Resources Statistics, NSF.gov, September 2010.
Budiardjo, Anto. “Top U.S. Government Official Recognizes Collaboration as Key
Smart Grid Drive.” TheEnergyCollective.com, October 25, 2010.
Cardullo, Mario W. "Intellectual Property - the Basis for Venture Capital Investments,"
WIPO.Int, printed from website on January 4, 2011.
Cometa, Michelle. “Toyota Foundation Awards Engineering College Grant for K-12
Stem Program.” Rochester Institute of Technology, November 2, 2010.
Bibliography

46
DeVol, Ross C., Kevin Lowden, and Benjamin Yeo. State Technology and Science In
dex 2010 – Enduring Lessons for the Intangible Economy, Milken Institute,
January 2011.
“DOE Chief: U.S. Is in Trouble without More Energy R&D” Reuters.com, November 29,
2010.
“The Economic Importance of Patents,” European Patent Office, EPO.org, printed from
website November 22, 2010.
“Educate to Innovate.” WhiteHouse.gov.
Fiegener, Mark K. “Numbers of Doctorates Awarded Continue to Grow in 2009; Indica-
tors of Employment Outcomes Mixed.” November 2010.
NSF.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11305.
Fischer, Karin. “America Falling: Longtime Dominance in Education Erodes.”
Chronicle.com, October 5, 2009.
Fixler, Dennis. “Accounting for R&D in the National Accounts.” Bureau of Economics
at the Department of Commerce. Paper presented in San Francisco January
2009.
Gardner, Walt. “Shortage of Math and Science Graduates Is a Myth.”
Blogs.EdWeek.org, December 10, 2010.
Gillum, Jack and Toppo, Greg. “Failure Rate for AP Tests Climbing.” USAToday.com.
February 4, 2010.
Gittell, Ross and John Orcutt. New Hampshire in the Innovation Economy: A Plan to
Increase Innovation and Technology-Based Economic Development in New
Hampshire – Initial Report. EPSCOR.unh.edu. April 2010.
Glenn, David. “For Innovation to Occur, Colleges Need a Big Push, Scholars Say.”
Chronicle.com. June 3, 2010.
Gomer, Greg. “Boston Ranked #1 (again) as Top city of the Global Innovation.” BostIn-
novation.com. September 1, 2010.
Gonen, Yoav. “NY Kids Lag in Science.” NYPost.com, January 26, 2011.
“Good but Oversold?” InsideHigherEd.com, March 30, 2010.
Hecker, Daniel D. “High-Technology Employment: A Broader View,” Monthly Labor
Review, June 1999.
_____________. “High-Technology Employment: A NAICS-Based Update,” Monthly
Labor Review, July 2005.

47
_____________.“ Tapping State College Research and Development Capacity in Sup-
port of State Economic Development,” American Association of State Colleges
and Universities, October 2008.
“The Importance of Research and Development (R&D) for U.S. Competitiveness and a
Clean Energy Future.” Brookings.edu. July 27, 2010.
2009 Index of the New York City Innovation Economy, Center for an Urban Future.
“Innovation Cities Top 100 Index.” Innovation-Cities.com, September 1, 2010.
Koizumi, Kei. “Science and Engineering Indicators 2010: A Report Card for U.S. Sci-
ence, Engineering, and Technology.” WhiteHouse.gov. (science and engineer-
ing today blog). January 18, 2010.
Lahart, Justin. “U.S. Maintains Science Lead, But Asia Gains Some Ground.”
WSJ.com. January 16, 2010.
Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas – the Fate of the Commons in a Connected
World (New York: Vintage 2002).
Lee, Don. “U.S. Hard-Pressed to Stem Domestic R&D Losses.” LATimes.com. Sep-
tember 13, 2010.
Linhorst, Michael and Neuharth-Keusch, Dani. “N.Y. Fed President Pushes for Univer-
sity, Business Partnership.” CornellSun.com, October 26, 2010.
Litan, Robert E., Mitchell, Lesa, and Reedy, E.J. “Commercializing University Innova-
tions: A Better Way.” National Bureau of Economic Research (April 2007).
Lohr, Steve. “In Higher Education, a Focus on Technology.” NYTimes.com, October
10, 2010.
Louis, Tristan. “Why New York Is Going to Replace Silicon Valley as the Center of the
Tech Universe.” BusinessInsider.com. 6 Part Series. January 10, 2011.
Marshall, Eliot. “Universities Are Trying Too Hard to Cash in on Discoveries, Says
Academy Panel.” ScienceMag.org, October 7, 2010.
Matthews, Christine M. “Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions
and the Labor Force.” Congressional Research Service (CRS.gov). March 23,
2010.
Measley, Travis and Caitlin Mangum. “Which City Will Be Silicon Valley 2.0? Austin
and New York Aggressively Recruit Tech Companies.” ABCNews.com, August
26, 2010.
Miller, Michael J. “Forward Thinking – Global Foundries: Will Upstate New York Be the
Next Silicon Valley?” Blogs.PCMag.com, March 29, 2010.

48
Mills, Karen G., Reynolds, Elisabeth B., and Reamer, Andrew. “Clusters and Competi-
tiveness: A New Federal Role for Stimulating Regional Economies,” Metropoli-
tan Policy Program at Brookings Institution, April 2008.
Montlake, Simon “Asia’s Next Economic Tiger? Hint: It’s Not India or China,” CSMoni-
tor.com. September 20, 2010.
National Science Board. “The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s
Potential.” August 14, 2003.
“New Report Examines University Management of Intellectual Property.”
EurekAlert.org, October 4, 2010.
New York in the World – A Project of the Levin Institute. LevinInstitute.org. State Uni-
versity of New York. 2010.
“Number of Doctorates Awarded Continued to Grow in 2008.” MedicalNewsToday.com,
November 29, 2010.
“Number of Doctorates Awarded Continued to Grow in 2009.” November 22, 2010.
NSF.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118111.
“NVIDIA Tesla GPUS Power World’s Fastest Supercomputer,” MarketWatch.com, Oc-
tober 28, 2010.
“NY’s Long Island Seeks Innovation Cluster.” TheNextSiliconValley.com, January 10,
2011.
Paddock, Richard C. “Booming China Lures Key Professors Home from U.S.” AOL
News.com. September 23, 2010.
Paytas, Jerry and Berglund, Dan. “Technology Industries and Occupations for NAICS
Industry Data.” Released jointly by the Carnegie Mellon Heinz School Center
for Economic Development and State Science & Technology Institute, March
2004.
Quinn, Gene. "Why Patents Matter for Job Creation and Economic Growth," IPWatch
Dog.com, January 4, 2011.
Raskin, Max. “Startup Fever: College Students Have it Bad.” Businessweek, Oc-
tober 18, 2010.
“Remarks by the President on Higher Education and the Economy at the University of
Texas at Austin,” August 9, 2010, WhiteHouse.gov.
Robelen, Erik W. “Growing Popularity of AP Exams Brings Trade-Offs.” EdWeek.com,
October 28, 2010.
“Schools Not Making the Grade, Poll Shows.” MSNBC.com. September 26, 2010.

49
“A Science or Engineering Bachelor’s Degree is Good for You.” EurekAlert.org. Au-
gust 14, 2006.
“Science Policymakers Need Metrics to Make Informed Decisions, Subcommittee
Hears.” Press Release – September 23, 2010. Science.House.gov.
“Secretary Duncan: Schools Must Become Centers of Communities,” Interview with
Gwen Ifill, PBS Newshour, December 7, 2010.
Shaffer and Wright. “A New Paradigm for Economic Development – How Higher Edu-
cation Institutions Are Working to Revitalize their Regional and State Econo-
mies.” The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government (RockInst.org). March
2010, p.54.
Skorton, David. “Transform New York’s Campus Research into Economic Growth.”
Syracuse.com, January 23, 2011.
Skorton, David. “Building an Innovation Ecosytem,” Cornell Alumni Magazine. 12 Janu-
ary 2010.
Sonnert, Gerhard, Tai, Robert H. and Klopfenstein, Kristin, A Critical Examination of the
Advanced Placement Exam Program (Cambridge: Harvard Education Press,
2010).
Steib, Aspen. “The Next Silicon Valley? It May be New York.” CNN.com, June 7,
2010.
“12 STEM Program.” October 25, 2010, RIT.edu.
Superville, Darlene. “Obama Holds 1st Summit on Community Colleges at White-
House.” October 5, 2010. Associated Press. Google.com.
Task Force on Diversifying the New York State Economy through Industry-Higher Edu-
cation Partnerships. Final Report. December 14, 2009.
Tam, Pui-Wing and Tuna, Cari. “Silicon Valley 3.0: Tech’s New Wave.” WSJ.com. Oc-
tober 21, 2010.
Torrance, Andrew W. and Bill Tomlinson, “Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts,”
10 COLUM. SCI. & TECH: L. REV. 130 (2009).
“Turning Up the Volume on the ‘Quiet Crisis’.” Commission on Independent Colleges
and Universities, CICU.org.
“Upstream, Downstream in an Innovation Ecosystem.” Tuck Today,
Tuck.Dartmouth.edu/today/ideas/adner.html. (Printed August 22, 2010).
“The U.S. Economy Still Needs Highly Skilled Foreign Workers.” Immigration Pol-
icy.org. February 13, 2009.

50
“U.S. High-Tech Industry Sheds 245,600 Jobs in 2009 – Most Recent State Data Show
2008 Gains in New York as Recession Unfolded,” April 28, 2010, TechAmerica
Foundation.org.
“US Urged to Triple Energy R&D Investment,” Royal Society of Chemistry, RSC.org,
December 6, 2010.
Vance, Ashlee. “China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.,” NYTimes.com, Octo-
ber 28, 2010.
Veilleux, Neil, Gibbons, Eugenia, and Rickerson, Wilson. “New York and the Regional
Energy Innovation Cluster (E-RIC), SiteSelection.com, Vol. 2, Issue 07, October
20, 2010.
Ward, Robert B. and Dadayan, Lucy. “Twenty-First-Century Manufacturing: A Founda-
tion of New York’s Economy.” Manufacturing Research Institute of New York
State (MRINYS.org). September 2010.
Wheary, Jennifer. “U.S. Should Hail Young Scientist.” Newsday.com, December 9,
2010.
Witehurst, Grover J. Policy Brief - "Spurring Innovation through Education: Four Ideas,"
June 2010, No. 174, www.Brookings.edu.
“World’s Largest Solar Plant Get U.S. OK,” MSNBC.com, October 25, 2010.
Wortham, Jenna. “New York Isn’t Silicon Valley. That’s Why They Like It.” NY
Times.com, March 6, 2010.

51
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
420 public college and university members promoting the value of public institutions.
www.AASC.org
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
Facilitates bringing together engineering educators to partner on furthering excellence
in research, teaching, and public service.
www.ASEE.org
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM)
Helps to advance academic technology transfer globally.
www.AUTM.net
BioNY
A one-stop shop for information designed to enable and enhance collaboration between
New York’s academic and industrial life science community to further the growth of the
State’s Biotechnology sector.
www.BioNY.org
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Principal Federal agency responsible for measuring labor market activity, working con-
ditions, and price changes in the economy. Collects, analyzes, and disseminates eco-
nomic information.
www.BLS.gov
Center for an Urban Future
Think-tank committed to improving the overall health of New York City and serving its
long-term interests. Although CUF’s interests are diverse, it has issued a New York
City focused innovation economy index.
www.NYCFuture.org
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology
Collects, analyzes, and publishes information on America's science and engineering
workforce.
www.CPST.org
Connect a Million Minds (CAMM)
A five-year program to inspire students to pursue careers in science, technology, engi-
neering and math (STEM).
www.ConnectAMillionMinds.com/overview.php
Empire State Development (ESD)
New York’s primary agent for economic development through job growth and strategic
investment on an international scale.
www.empire.state.ny.us/
Resources

52
The Innovation Economy
Engages leaders from business, government, and universities to discuss the role of in-
novation and the importance of education in keeping the U.S. economy competitive.
www.TheInnovationEconomy.org
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE US)
Promotes policies that nurture the professional environments of U.S. engineers and
scientists.
www.IEEEUSA.org.com
Junior Engineering Technical Society
Promotes engineering and helps students discover their potential for the profession.
Increases student awareness and interest in engineering and technology-based profes-
sions.
www.JETS.org
The Levin Institute
Conducts research, sponsors seminars, and publishes white papers to further New
York’s economy in the global economy.
www.LevinInstitute.org
Mathematical Association of America
Largest professional society that advances mathematical sciences.
www.maa.org
Moody’s Economy
Independent provider of economic data, analysis, and forecasting.
www.Economy.com
National Science Foundation
Federal agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-
medical fields of science and engineering.
www.NSF.gov
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government
Public policy think-tank of the State University of New York.
www.RockInst.org
New York Math Circle
Dedicated to enriching and supplementing Mathematical education in New York City. It
seeks to stimulate the enjoyment, appreciation and knowledge of Mathematics in class-
rooms and through courses for teachers.
www.NYMathCircle.org
New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL)
Promotes economic growth by creating, maintaining, and supporting an overall State
workforce second to none. It is an invaluable resource for statistical information that
helps to measure the economy’s health.
www.labor.ny.gov/home

53
New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR)
Supports economic growth in science, technology and innovation that leverages aca-
demic, corporate, and institutional research and partnerships.
www.nystar.state.ny.us
New York State Higher Education Initiative
Represents public and private academic and research libraries. Its mission is to enable
policymakers the benefit of the collective and individual intellectual resources housed at
its member libraries which includes metrics and statistics.
www.NYSHEI.org
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Advisory group of acclaimed scientists and engineers who work with the White House
and offer policy recommendations on science, technology, and innovation.
www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Publishes the MoneyTree Report, a quarterly study of venture capital investment activ-
ity in the United States.
www.PwcMoneyTree.com
Small Business Association TECH-Net
Search engine for scientists, researchers and state, federal and local government offi-
cials. It is a potential "link" to investment opportunities for investors and other sources
of capital.
http://Tech-Net.SBA.gov
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)
Promotes interactions between mathematics and other scientific and technological
communities.
www.siam.org
TechAmerica Foundation
Non-profit, non-partisan think-tank informs and educates on the potential of technology
innovation.
www.TechAmericaFoundation.org
U.S. Patent and Trade Office
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the Federal agency for
granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks. The USPTO advises the President of
the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, and U.S. Government agencies on in-
tellectual property (IP) policy, protection, and enforcement; and promotes the stronger
and more effective IP protection around the world.
www.USPTO.gov

54
1 David J. Skorton, President of Cornell University Chaired the Task Force. Task Force
Members were: Samuel Aronson, Director of Brookhaven National Laboratories; Sanjoy Baner-
jee, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Director of the City University of New York Energy
Institute; Edward M. Cupoli, Professor and Head of the NanoEconomics Constellation, College
of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, University at Albany SUNY; Richard Daines (ex-officio),
Commissioner, New York State Department of Health; John Dyson, Chairman of Millbrook Capi-
tal Management Inc.; David D. Elliman, Founder, Principal and Chief Investment Officer of the
Elmrock Group of Companies; Shirley Ann Jackson, President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti-
tute; Dennis M. Mullen, Chairman & CEO Designate, Empire State Development; Edward Rein-
furt, Executive Director of the New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innova-
tion NYSTAR; Linda S. Sanford, Senior Vice President for Enterprise on Demand Transforma-
tion and Information Technology at IBM; Julie A. Shimer, President and CEO of Welch Allyn;
David R. Smith, President of SUNY Upstate Medical University; Wendell P. Weeks, Chairman
and CEO of Corning Incorporated; and Christopher Todd Wynn, Vice President of Abatis Capi-
tal.
2 See in general “Upstream, Downstream in an Innovation Ecosystem,” Tuck Today,
Tuck.Dartmouth.edu/today/ideas/adner.html. (Printed August 22, 2010).
3 Don Lee, “U.S. Hard-Pressed to Stem Domestic R&D Losses,” LATimes.com, Septem-
ber 13, 2010.
4 Michael Linhors and Dani Nauharth-Keusch, “N.Y. Fed President Pushes for University,
Business Partnership,” CornellSun.com, October 26, 2010. In general, see also Judith J.
Albers, Theresa B. Mazzullo, Samir H. Navani, and Vivek Pandey, “Venture Capital and Seed
Activity in NYS: Statistics for Upstate and Downstate 2005-2008,” Part II of II, ExcellNY.com,
May 2009. The ExcellNY white paper documents that New York is not “optimizing the potential
that exists for translating cutting-edge research into investable opportunities.” The report further
concluded that New York’s economy could be “transformed into a globally competitive knowl-
edge-based economy through new cutting-edge technology start-up companies.”
5 Jerry Paytas and Dan Berglund, “Technology Industries and Occupations for NAICS
Industry Data,” released jointly by the Carnegie Mellon Heinz School Center for Economic De-
velopment and State Science & Technology Institute, March 2004. See also Daniel E. Hecker,
“High-Technology Employment: a NAICS-based Update,” Monthly Labor Review, July 2005.
6 See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
7 In September 2010, the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcom-
mittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing evaluating how research is helping
the government to make information-based decisions in setting math, science, and engineering
policy. According to a press release issued by the Subcommittee, “it remains difficult to actually
measure the economic impact, social benefits, and effectiveness of federal research and devel-
opment investments.” There is an ongoing goal to improve the collection and analysis of data
“leading to better science metrics for quantifying returns on federal R&D investments.” Currently,
the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are collaborating on a pro-
ject called “Science and Technology for America’s Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Re-
search on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS).” In many ways, the
2011 New York State Innovation Report is a first step in doing something similar. See in gen-
eral, “Science Policymakers Need Metrics to Make Informed Decisions, Subcommittee Hears,”
Press Release – September 23, 2010, Science.House.gov.
Endnotes

55
8 Several innovation reports were reviewed. The 2009 Index of the Massachusetts Inno-
vation Economy by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the John Adams Innova-
tion Institute proved especially useful.
9 Although Colorado, Georgia, and Washington are included, they are not considered
competitor states at this time, but each reflect strength in a certain area that merited inclusion.
In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, California is diversifying its technology econ-
omy “bolstering [Silicon Valley’s] status as the world’s innovation hotbed.” See Pui-Wing Tam
and Cari Tuna, “Silicon Valley 3.0: Tech’s New Wave,” WSJ.com, October 21, 2010.
10 Judith J. Albers and Teresa B. Mazzullo, “Venture Capital and Seed Activity in New
York State: Perception, Reality, and Unrealized Potential,” Part I of II, February 2009, Ex-
cellNY.com.
11 Ibid. Metropolitan New York includes northern New Jersey and Fairfield County, Con-
necticut.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 “U.S. High-Tech Industry Sheds 245,6000 Jobs in 2009 – Most Recent State Data Show
2008 Gains in New York as Recession Unfolded,” April 28, 2010, TechAmericaFoundation.org.
15 According to Patrick Kilcoyne, an economist in the Division of Occupational and Admin-
istrative Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “high-tech has always denoted a very am-
biguous and amorphous concept. An industry or an occupational field that is commonly known
as high-tech one year could be using technology or skills that are considered to be standard
only a few years later.” Nor is using “new technologies” a good gauge of high tech since “not all
of the people employed at firms in these industries are producing technical products or making
use of advance technology to perform their duties.” In his article, “High-Tech Occupations by
Metropolitan Statistical Area,” Kilcoyne writes that high tech occupations are defined as
“consisting of workers who typically or necessarily utilize new technologies – those that are
changing the ways in which people live and work – in order to perform their duties.” See
www.bls.gov/oes/2001/tech.pdf printed from website in December 2010.
16 See in general Denise Dubie, “High-tech Employment Grows,” Networkworld.com, April
28, 2010.
17 “U.S. High-Tech Industry Sheds 245,6000 Jobs in 2009 – Most Recent State Data Show
2008 Gains in New York as Recession Unfolded,” April 28, 2010, TechAmericaFoundation.org.
18 See Goldie Blumenstyk, “Report Urges Universities to Be More Realistic in Tech-
Transfer Hopes and Deals,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, 2010. A report by
the National Academy of Sciences disagrees with the “free-agency” approach supported by the
Kauffman Foundation for technology transfer.
19 “Job Growth in U.S. Driven Entirely by Startups, According to Kauffman Foundation
Study,” Kauffman.org, July 7, 2010.
20 “Celebrating National Entrepreneurs’ Day,” The White House Blog – posted by Valerie
Jarrett, WhiteHouse.gov, November 19, 2010.

56
21 Lawrence Lessign, The Future of Ideas – the Fate of the Commons in a Connected
World (New York: Vintage, 2002), p. 205. Not everyone, however, agrees that evidence exists
to show that patents further innovation. See Andrew W. Torrance and Bill Tomlinson, “Patents
and the Regress of Useful Arts,” 10 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 130 (2009).
22 See http://www.uspto.gov/about/bios/kapposbio.jsp and http://www.uspto.gov/about/
stratplan/ar/2010/USPTOFY2010PAR.pdf. In addition, the European Patent Office observed
that the “impact of patents on innovation and economic performance is so complex that a fine-
tuned patent system is crucial to ensure maximum benefit for a country’s firms and its overall
economy.” It further observed that “the more patents filed, the higher the level of innovation in a
country.” “The Economic Importance of Patents,” European Patent Office, EPO.org, printed No-
vember 22, 2010.
23 Robert E. Litan, Lesa Mitchell, and E.J. Reedy, “Commercializing University Innova-
tions: A Better Way.” National Bureau of Economic Research (April 2007).
24 Ronda Britt, “Universities Report $55 Billion in Science and Engineering R&D Spending
for FY 2009; Redesigned Survey to Launch in 2010,” InfoBrief – Science and Resources Statis-
tics, NSF.gov, September 2010.
25 Ibid.
26 “DOE Chief: U.S. Is In Trouble without More Energy R&D,” Reuters.com, November 29,
2010. See also David Skorton, “Transform New York’s Campus Research into Economic
Growth,” Syracuse.com, January 23, 2011.
27 “The Importance of Research and Development (R&D) for U.S. Competitiveness and a
Clean Energy Future,” Brookings.edu., July 27, 2010. See also http://jec.senate.gov/public//
index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=2923464e-7129-4c95-875e-e031e314fffd
28 See “Chairman Gordon’s Landmark Innovation Legislation is Sent to the President’s
Desk,” Press Release, http://science.house.gov/, December 21, 2010.
29 Mark K. Fiegener, “Numbers of Doctorates Awarded Continue to Grow in 2009; Indica-
tors of Employment Outcomes Mixed,” NSF.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11305, November 2010.
30 Ibid.
31 Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, Chapter 8 State Indicators – advanced S&E
Degrees as Share of S&E Degrees Conferred, NSF.gov/statistics/seind10/c8/c8s2o20.htm#c8.
32 National Science Board, “The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s
Potential,” August 14, 2003, p. 21.
33 Kei Koizumi, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2010: A Report Card for U.S. Sci-
ence, Engineering, and Technology,” WhiteHouse.gov. (science and engineering blog), January
18, 2010.
34 http://www.NSF.gov.
35 “Remarks by the President on Higher Education and the Economy at the University of
Texas at Austin,” August 9, 2010, WhiteHouse.gov.

57
36 David F. Shaffer and David J. Wright, “A New Paradigm for Economic Development –
How Higher Education Institutions are Working to Revitalize their Regional and State Econo-
mies,” the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government (RockInst.org), March 2010, p. 49.
37 “President Obama Delivers Remarks at Hudson Valley Community College,” Washing-
tonPost.com, September 21, 2009.
38 Brian Bagby, “White House Hosts First Ever Community College Summit,”
HCTides.com, October 14, 2010.
39 See in general Darlene Superville, “Obama Holds 1st Summit on Community Colleges
at White House,” October 5, 2010, Associated Press, Google.com. According to the Undersec-
retary of Education only 25% of community college students will earn a certificate or an associ-
ate’s degree or move on to a four year institution. There is also a growing need to provide in-
coming students with remedial education.
40 Daniel E. Hecker, “High-Technology Employment: a NAICS-based Update,” Monthly
Labor Review, July 2005. See also Hecker, “High-Technology Employment: a Broader View,”
Monthly Labor Review, June 1999.
41 Offerings in Advanced Placement Exams include biology, calculus AB, calculus BC,
chemistry, computer science A, environmental science, physics B, physics C, and statistics.
42 There is, however, some controversy regarding the use of Advanced Placement Exams.
See in general Jack Gillum and Greg Toppo, “Failure Rate for AP Tests Climbing,” USATo-
day.com, February 4, 2010; “AP: Good but Oversold?” InsideHigherEd.com, March 30, 2010;
Gerhard Sonnert, Robert H. Tai, and Kristin Klopfenstein, AP: A Critical Examination of the Ad-
vanced Placement Exam Program (Cambridge: Harvard Education Press, 2010); and Erik W.
Robelen, “Growing Popularity of AP Exams Brings Trade-Offs,” EdWeek.com, October 28,
2010.
43 “Turning Up the Volume on the ‘Quiet Crisis,’” Commission on Independent Colleges
and Universities, CICU.org.
44 “Schools Not Making the Grade, Poll Shows,” MSNBC.com, September 26, 2010.
45 Ibid.
46 See “Educate to Innovate” at WhiteHouse.gov.
47 “Turning Up the Volume on the ‘Quiet Crisis,’” Commission on Independent Colleges
and Universities, CICU.org. See also Yoav Gonen, “NY Kids Lag in Science,” NYPost.com,
January 26, 2011 and Christine Armario, “Less than Half of Students Proficient in Science,”
WTEN.com (posted from the Associated Press), January 25, 2011.
48 In 2010, New York State was one of nine states and the District of Columbia awarded
Race to the Top funding. This investment will support innovative strategies to develop math and
science, recruit talented STEM teachers and encourage students.
49 The seven jobs are actuary, accountant, biologist, statistician, mathematician, software
engineer, and computer systems analyst. See College Connections, Sep/Oct 2010, Vol. 4, No.
1, CICU.org
50 Grover J. Whitehurst, Policy Brief – “Spurring Innovation through Education: Four
Ideas,” June 2010, No. 174, www.Brookings.edu.

59
Advanced Placement Exams 7, 9, 33
Advisory Panel 5, 62
American Association of State Colleges and Universities 51
Associate degree 6, 9, 31
Bachelor degree 3, 6, 9, 29
Brookings Institution 23, 35
Carnegie Mellon Heinz School 5, 54 fn.5
Center for Economic Development
China 27
Chu, Steve 21
Clusters 5, 6, 36, 39
Community College 31
Competitor States 43, 55 fn. 9
Cornell University 54 fn. 1
Dudley, William 4
Ecosystem 4, 5, 54 fn. 2, 51, 57 fn.51
Empire State Development (ESD) 4, 7, 36, 51
European Patent Office 56 fn.22
Fiegener, Mark K. 25
Gomory, Ralph 4
Greenstone, Michael 23
Gross Domestic Product 11, 23
Hamilton Project 23
Hudson Valley Community College 31
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 13
Interagency Team 61
Jackson, Shirley Ann 35, 54 fn.1
Jarret, Valerie 15
Kappos, David J. 17
Kauffman Foundation 5, 15
Koizumi, Kei 27
Levin Institute 52
Manufacturing Research Institute of New York State 58 fn. 56
Mathematics 21, 31, 35, 53
Methodology 5
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) 19, 35
National Science Foundation (NSF) 5, 21, 25, 52
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government 29
New York City 11, 39
New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) 4, 36, 52
New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR) 4, 53
New York State Higher Education Initiative (NYSHE) 53
New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) 33
New York University 4
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 4, 5, 6, 41
Obama, Barack 31
Office of Management and Budget 5
Index

60
Office of Science and Technology Policy 27
Palmisano, Sam 43
Quiet Crisis 35
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) 35
Skorton, David 54 fn. 1
Smart Grid 31
State Science & Technology Institute 5
STEM 4, 23, 35, 51
Science and Engineering 21, 25, 27
Task Force on Diversifying the New York State
Economy through Industry-Higher Education Partnerships 4
TEC-SMART 31
TechAmerica Foundation 13
U.S. Department of Labor 31
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 17, 53
“Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship.
The act that endows resources with a new capacity to create
wealth.”
Peter F. Drucker
2002 Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Winner

61
New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR)
www.nystar.state.ny.us
Edward Reinfurt
Executive Director
Paul P. Jesep
General Counsel
Edward J. Hamilton
Executive Deputy Director
John Naioti III
Report Designer
Mary Lou Higgins
Writer/Researcher
Susan Bartle
Writer/Researcher
New York State Department of Labor
www.labor.ny.gov
Kevin Jack
Statewide Labor Market Analyst
Daniel Crosley
Economist
New York State Department of Economic Development
www.empire.state.ny.us
James R. Held, Ph.D., CCR
Director, Center for Policy and Planning
Sharon Rutter
Director of Technology Policy Development
The interagency team is grateful to the John Adams Innovation Institute which
produces the Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy. The Institute gra-
ciously met with the Interagency Team and provided invaluable insight and
source material that contributed to this report.
Interagency Team

62
Julian L. Alssid
Executive Director
Workforce Strategy Center
www.workforcestrategy.org
Kent Gardner, Ph.D.
President
Center for Governmental Research (CGR)
www.cgr.com
Linda Dickerson Hartsock
Director Center for CleanTech Entrepreneurship
The Tech Garden
www.thetechgarden.com
David Hochman
Executive Director
Business Incubator Association of New York State, Inc.
www.bianys.com
Terri Standish-Kuon, Ph.D.
Vice President Communication & Administration
Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities (CICU)
www.cicu.org
Franklin Madison
Technology Program Director
ITAC/SATOP program
www.itac.org
Angela Wright
SUNY Research Foundation
www.rfsuny.org
Advisory Panel

63
“Innovation is fostered by information gathered from
new connections; from insights gained by journeys into
other disciplines or places; from active, collegial networks
and fluid, open boundaries. Innovation arises from ongoing
circles of exchange, where information is not just
accumulated or stored, but created.
Knowledge is generated anew from connections
that weren't there before.”
Margaret J. Wheatley
President, The Berkana Institute

Report 1-26-11

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Report 1-26-11

Similar to Report 1-26-11 (20)

Report 1-26-11