The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 77–82 | Cite as

Small is beautiful — Technology as if people mattered

  • J. S. Bortman


Two of the barriers that hamper the federal technology transfer process include thebigness of the federal government — the person or group with a problem not being able to penetrate the federal bureaucracy and theappropriateness of the technology being unsuited to solve the problem.

Special efforts are being made at NADC and other federal R&D laboratories to communicate with state and local agencies on a person-to-person basis, which is a key to overcoming the “bigness” problem. As communications improve, the problems of local communities can be better understood and appropriate resources can be applied to them.

Hopefully, with the establishment of active technology transfer programs at all levels of the federal government and an understanding of the barriers that have hampered the process, we will see changes that will benefit all of us. As Dr. Rene Dubos has been credited with stating, “We must not ask where science and technology are taking us, but rather how we can manage science and technology so that they can take us where we want to go.”


Economic Growth Local Community Transfer Process Technology Transfer Federal Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schumacher, E.F.,Small is Beautiful, (New York: Harper and Row, 1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. President,Message to Congress on Science and Technology, March 16, in Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, March 20, 1972, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Intergovernmental Use of Federal R&D Laboratories, Report by the Committee on Federal Laboratories of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, (Washington: National Science Foundation, 1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comptroller General of the United States,Means for Increasing the Use of Defense Technology for Urgent Public Problems, (Washington: U. S. General Accounting Office, December 1972).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics,Public Technology, Report of the Honorable George P. Miller, 92nd Congress, Second Session, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Council of State Governments,Inter-governmental Uses of Federal R&D Centers and Laboratories, (Lexington, KY, April 30, 1973).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The National Governors Council on Science and Technology,Action Recommendations on Intergovernmental Science and Technology Programs, Mellon Institute of Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, (Pittsburgh: May 1972).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Academy of Engineering,Technology Transfer and Utilization, (Washington: National Academy of Engineering, 1974).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCormick, R.H., and Metcalf, H.F.,A Case Study in the Transfer of Maintenance Technology, Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP), (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quigg, P.W.,The New Technologists, Audubon Magazine, National Audubon Society, Vol. 78, No. 1, January 1976, pp. 122–128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Technology Transfer Society 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Bortman
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Air Development CenterWarminster

Personalised recommendations