Tag: Innovation

Categories
McNair Center Women

The Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing

Photo courtesy of Shelby Bice.

McNair Center Intern Shelby Bice attended the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing Conference along with 18,000 other computer scientists on October 4-6, 2017 in Orlando, Florida. 

The Grace Hopper Celebration honors the legacy of Grace Hopper, a trailblazer in computer programming who led the team that developed the first programming language, a precursor to COBOL. The conference is organized by The Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, a nonprofit organization founded in 1987 by computer scientist Anita Borg. It is an event to recruit, retain, and advance women in careers in computing and technological innovation.

The Grace Hopper Conference brings together companies ranging from small startups to tech giants. All are looking to recruit talented computer scientists and engineers. The event also includes panels on topics such as new applications for artificial intelligence and formulating an elevator pitch. In many ways, Grace Hopper resembles any other tech conference. However, there is one crucial distinction: the majority of the panelists, presenters and representatives are women.

What makes the Grace Hopper Celebration so important?

First and foremost, the Grace Hopper Celebration reminds the tech industry that female engineers not only exist, but that they are also just as hardworking and capable as their male counterparts.

When companies like Uber face backlash for low female representation, they often blame a lack of women in the industry. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reports Uber’s laughable finding that only 1,800 women engineers might be qualified to work for Uber. However, tickets for the celebration sold out within hours due to high interest from female computer scientists across the country. It seems safe to say that there are more than 1,800 women who meet Uber’s standards, regardless of their rigorousness.

The conference exposes women at different career levels to the vast array of careers in computer science. The stereotype of a lone male programmer sitting in a dark room coding video games is not an accurate depiction of computer science. Despite the many areas in which female engineers can apply their skills, many women are often unaware of available opportunities.

Grace Hopper showcases juggernauts like Google and Microsoft alongside smaller, lesser-known startups. The conference embodies the interdisciplinary and dynamic nature of computer science. For instance, Grace Hopper piqued my interest in Flatiron, a company that partners with oncologists to analyze data and recommend better cancer treatments.

McNair Center Intern Shelby Bice at the Grace Hopper Celebration (October 4-6, 2017). Photo courtesy of Shelby Bice.

Most importantly, Grace Hopper celebrates women in computer science. According to the WSJ, the percentage of female computer scientists in industry fell from roughly 37% in the mid-1980s to 18% in 2014. With only minimal gains since 2014, leaders must make a conscious effort to bring more women into the field. It’s also just as important to keep female computer scientists engaged and fulfilled throughout their careers. Many female computer scientists leave technical positions due to a lack of support from their company or, sometimes, gender discrimination. The Grace Hopper Celebration combats these negative forces by fostering an inclusive community.

Going forward

The Grace Hopper Celebration is just one step that the tech industry can take to empower women in computer science. After listening to the inspiring experiences of female computer scientists, entrepreneurs, researchers and leaders, I am confident that events like the Grace Hopper Celebration can help resolve the gender imbalance in computer science.

Grace Hopper will be coming to Houston in 2018. I look forward to attending!

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Entrepreneurship for All: Washington D.C.

Washington D.C.

Washington, D.C. is known for its politicians and bureaucrats, but it’s also where the top-20 U.S. government contractors are based. In recent decades, high-tech, high-growth entrepreneurship has been on the rise in the U.S. capital. Startup ventures, coupled with a diverse economy, largely fueled by the federal government, have led D.C. to emerge as a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem.

History of Entrepreneurship

The diversified needs of the federal government have led to a varied ecosystem. Feldman 2001 concludes that two unique conditions impacted the development of D.C.’s entrepreneurial culture: underemployed skilled labor caused by federal job cuts and the commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights from publicly funded research.

Changes in federal employment policy through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 led the federal government to outsource goods and services in an effort to reduce civil service jobs.

The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 created the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) as a mechanism whereby nonfederal entities can collaborate with federal laboratories on research and development projects. CRADAs aim to promote technological competitiveness and technology transfer to marketable products.

Biotech found a partner in the federal government through CRADAs. Proximity to federal labs has created an important biotechnology cluster attracting Merck and Pfizer among others, as well as startups MedImmune and Human Genome Sciences, later acquired by GlaxoSmithKline.

Other notable startups that emerged under the public-private sector collaboration include Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc. (SGT), who provides scientific and IT service solutions to a wide array of federal government agencies nationwide including NASA and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Government outsourcing opportunities benefitted the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry. The earliest ITC entrepreneurs were government contractors, who began working on ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet.

When the federal government removed the commercial restriction on the use of internet in 1989, former contractors became tech startups with ample opportunities to grow their ventures.

Resources in D.C.

AOL is a prominent ICT company launched in the D.C. metropolitan area during the 1990s dot-com boom. AOL is also credited for shaping the region’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Prior to its relocation to Manhattan, AOL funded Fishbowl Labs, a business incubator located at its Dulles campus. Fishbowl Labs provides resources to startups at no cost and a mentorship program through its employee network.

The company also invested in firms such as the D.C.-based tech hub incubator 1776. The incubator is modeled after 1871 in Chicago and the General Assembly incubator in New York. Notable companies currently working with 1776 include Babyscripts, Cowlar and MUrgency. 1776 organizes networking events for the government innovator community to promote the interconnectivity of startups and D.C.’s main consumer, the federal government.

Washington D.C. boasts four top universities in the immediate area with entrepreneurship programs: The Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Innovation Initiative at American University, Startup Hoyas at Georgetown University, Mason Innovation Lab at George Mason University and The Office of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at George Washington University.

Current D.C. Startups

Washington D.C.’s economy is stable and diverse. As of February 2017, the area had an unemployment rate of 2.5% and the gross product of the area was $471 billion in 2014, making it the sixth-largest U.S. metropolitan economy.

D.C.’s ecosystem has historically been linked to government agencies, but more recently, the startup community has had greater diversity. Notable startups out of D.C. include LivingSocial, iStrategyLabs and CoFoundersLab. Advertising company iStrategyLabs has created devices and advertising campaigns for 21 Fortune 500 companies. CoFoundersLab connects entrepreneurs via an online network.

The success of LivingSocial has invigorated the D.C. ecosystem with a new generation of startups. Borrowing Magnolia, a wedding dress rental business, Galley, a freshly prepared food delivery service, and online custom framing business, Framebridge, are among the ventures founded by LivingSocial alumni.

Venture Capital in Washington, D.C.

The D.C. startup scene is home to a number of influential venture capital firms that help invigorate the ecosystem. Venture Capital investment in D.C. has reached around $350 million in investment for years 2014 and 2016, with investment lower than $200 million in 2015.

According to a report from the Martin Prosperity Institute detailing worldwide VC investment in high-tech startups, D.C. is ranked eighth in the world with a total cumulative venture capital investment of $835 million until year 2012 (the most recent year these detailed data are available).

Data indicating the number of first-round deals in D.C. illustrate a stable ecosystem with an average of 36 first-round deals per year in the last five years.

One of the largest venture capital firms in the world, New Enterprise Associates (NEA), calls both D.C. and Silicon Valley home. In 2015, NEA’s fourteenth investment fund closed with $3.1 billion in investor capital, making it the largest venture capital fund ever raised. NEA invests in technology and health care companies around the world, but continues to support companies in D.C. such as online movie player SnagFilms and software producer Cvent. 

A diverse portfolio of venture capital firms are settled in the ecosystem to guarantee funding sustainability. Fortify Ventures, an early stage technology investment fund, nurtures investors and entrepreneurs. Fortify has received $100,000 in funding from the D.C. mayor’s office. D.C. startup, Social Tables, recently raised $13 million in Series B funding from Fortify Ventures and other investors.

Other notable venture capital firms in the D.C. area include Groundwork VC, a fund for minority founders, New Atlantic Ventures, a firm that invests in early stage startups and NextGen Venture Partners, which transitioned from an angel network into a venture capital firm this year.

D.C. venture capital investment is strong, but compared to areas such as San Francisco, which posted over six billion dollars in venture capital investment, San Jose (approximately $4 billion) and Boston (approximately $3 billion), VC investment in D.C. still has room to grow.

Startup-Friendly Government Policy

Local government policy incentivizes companies to move to or remain in D.C. The District waives corporate income taxes for the first five years and provides new-hire wage reimbursements for startups. However, D.C.’s regulatory environment still implies high costs for obtaining business licenses and permits.

Washington’s venture capital firms, angel networks and private investors cannot compete with the extensive network and resources in established ecosystems like Silicon Valley or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. According to Dow Jones VentureSource, about 50% of all venture capital invested in the United States goes to companies in Silicon Valley.

Despite Silicon Valley’s dominance, D.C.’s location, culture and resources position it as a strong ecosystem. D.C. will continue to take advantage of the resources and opportunities presented by the federal government.

Categories
Accelerators McNair Center

MassChallenge: Connecting Startups and Big Business

MassChallenge was located at One Marina Park Drive until 2014.

Corporations and startups are moving toward early stage interactions. MassChallenge, a highly successful nonprofit accelerator, has been connecting corporations and startups since its 2010  launch in Boston. MC has several US and international locations, which accelerated 372 startups in 2016.

MC delivers positive results and has been listed among the Best Startup Accelerators by the Seed Accelerator Rankings Project, led by Baker Institute Rice faculty scholar Yael Hochberg.  There are over 1,000 MC alumni, who have collectively raised more than $1.8B in outside funding, generated $700M in revenue and created over 60,000 jobs. According to a 2016 MIT study, MC startups are 2.5 times more likely than non-MC startups to hire at least 15 employees and three times more likely to raise $500,000 in funding.

With seven years of history, notable MC alumni includes Ginkgo Bioworks, which designs custom microbes to produce chemicals, ingredients and industrial enzymes. As a startup, Gingko Bioworks raised $154M in funding and signed a deal for 700 million base pairs of designed DNA — the largest such agreement ever made — with Twist Bioscience. Other remarkable graduates of the program include Ksplice, Turo, Sproxil and LiquiGlide.

An Attractive Alternative for Startups

MC is similar to other startup institutions such as Techstars and Y-Combinator. However, the nonprofit differentiates itself by not taking equity. Entrants to the accelerator must be early stage startups, defined as companies with no more than $500K of investment and $1M in annual revenue. As part of the four-month program, selected startups receive mentoring, co-working space, access to a network of corporate partners, tailored workshops and the chance to win a portion of $2M in zero-equity funding. Additional prizes are provided by partners such as The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) and Microsoft’s New England Research and Development Center.

For entrepreneurs in regions with mature ecosystems like Silicon Valley and Boston, MC is one option among an array of accelerators and informal networks. This  density of resources is called  agglomeration, a geographic concentration of interconnected entities increases interactions and the productivity. The MIT study suggests MC acts as a complement to the prior advantages of startups in established ecosystems by providing key resources and access to social capital  and also found evidence that startups founded in regions with higher access to early stage investors had on average higher quality ideas, but that their chances of success were not higher conditional on the quality of their idea.

For startups in nascent ecosystems the resources provided by MC can become the only option to pitch their ideas to investors and advance their company at no cost other than the time invested on the program. Of equal value is the endorsement received as a MC graduate inferring the quality of the startup venture.

A Model Built on Strategic Partnerships

As a nonprofit, MC depends on the support of a network of public, private and philanthropic partners, with the vast majority of their funding coming from corporations. Governments and philanthropic foundations fund MC with the goal to foster regional economic growth. Founders John Harthorne and Akhil Nigam, former consultants at Bain & Company, garnered early support from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, successful entrepreneurs and large corporations such as Blackstone, Microsoft and the nonprofit Kauffman Foundation.

MC could have faced financial challenges by providing accelerator programs at no cost and with no equity commitment. However, MC was able to become a bridge between large companies’ need for innovation and startups’ need for capital. Large companies have the scale of resources, customer information and market experience, but may lag in innovation. Startups, on the other hand, lack the resources but innovate with sometimes disruptive and successful ventures, frequently taking incumbents by surprise (Airbnb, Uber).

MC serves as a channel between startups and established companies to meet the need for fast-paced innovation. Companies like Bühler and PTC partner with MC to source high-potential startups for the development of advanced technology. Companies can also source tailored programs or tracks for specific needs.

A study done jointly by MC and innovation firm Imaginatik looked at how startups and corporations interact in new collaborative ways. The research team surveyed 112 corporations and 233 startups from various industries. 82 percent of the corporations considered startup interactions important, and 23% stated that these interactions are “mission critical.” Startups have a high interest in working with corporations with 99% stating it is important for them to interact with potential corporate customers, marketing channels and strategic partners.

Expansion

MassChallenge was located at One Marina Park Drive until 2014.

MC communicates its impact and vision to donors by demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of alliances between startups and corporations. A solid accelerator program, global vision, robust network and a sustainable funding strategy have set up MC for success. As stated in the MC Impact Report 2016, the accelerator is committed to running 12 locations annually by 2020, including at least one on each populated continent.

Before establishing an MC accelerator, the metropolitan area is evaluated for the quality of its research universities, urban setting, level of entrepreneurship opportunity and investment capability. As government and private stakeholders partner, a sense of shared ownership becomes crucial to consolidating efforts. This engagement guarantees that the resulting ecosystems are seen as a shared legacy.

The next MC sites are yet to be announced. Currently in five locations with global impact, MC’s 2020 vision is on a path to become a tangible reality.

The author and editor would like to thank Tay Jacobe for assistance with researching and drafting this post.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Mile-High Entrepreneurship

Boulder has long been considered Colorado’s startup hub, but Denver is emerging as a strong contender. Mentoring and venture capital support have helped Denver’s ecosystem expand rapidly so that it is well on its way to becoming self-sustaining.

Denver has garnered a reputation as one of the best places for high-tech, high-growth ventures.The total number of tech startups located in downtown Denver has increased by 13% in the last two years; 4% above the national average in new startup growth. Denver has collected accolades that ranging from the Best Place for Business and Careers by Forbes to the third Best Place in the Country to Launch a Startup according to Washington D.C.-based accelerator, 1776.

History

Colorado has a history of high-growth entrepreneurship ranging from telecommunications (Dish Cable) to restaurant chains (Chipotle and Quiznos). The state’s venture capital-backed startup activity began in the 1980’s when national venture funds such as Access Ventures, Vista Ventures, Sequel Ventures and Heritage Group invested in local Denver startups. By 2000, Denver was supporting a startup ecosystem, but successful companies left the state or were sold to out-of-state purchasers. VC funding collapsed after the tech bubble burst.

In 2006 Jared Polis, Brad Feld, David Cohen and David Brown established Boulder-based Techstars, which brought the nascent startup ecosystems of Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder and Colorado Springs together. Accepting only 1% of applicants, Techstars is extremely competitive. Graduates of this three-month program average approximately $1.8 million in outside financing. In exchange for 7-10% equity, Techstars provides $18,000 in seed funding, a $100,000 convertible debt and mentorship opportunities. Denver alumni include UsingMiles, FullContact, Revolar and MeetMindful.

Techstars is not the only catalyst for the entrepreneurial community in the region. Former Denver mayor and current Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, himself an entrepreneur before entering politics, implemented policies that made supporting startups a central focus for economic recovery and growth.

Colorado’s Entrepreneur Friendly Policies

Colorado policymakers has made entrepreneurship a central focus. The state legislature has lowered tax rates and lifted regulatory burdens for the business community. Colorado taxes business at a flat rate of 4.63%, one of the lowest business income tax levels in the country.

Governor Hickenlooper has championed programs such as the Colorado Innovation Network (COIN), which works to connect the 29 Colorado research facilities with entrepreneurs. In 2014, the Colorado Impact Fund was launched, a public-private fund that estimates making 10-15 investments through 2020.

Home-Grown Resources

Since 2010, downtown Denver has added an average of almost 16,000 residents per year, resulting in a population increase of over 13% in the past five years. This remarkable growth has been accompanied with an increase in the number of homegrown startups. As a result, there is a significant number of resources available for Denver entrepreneurs.

Established in 2012, Denver Startup Week draws entrepreneurs from across the country. In 2016, Denver Startup Week attracted 12,500 people from across the country with 300 events, making it the biggest free entrepreneurial event in North America. Entrepreneurs participate in an elevator pitch competition and interact with VC fund representatives.

The Commons on Champa is a high-tech co-working space that brands itself as “Denver’s public campus for entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurs have access to networking events, panels, workshop and onsite mentors.

The Rockies Venture Club (RVC) helps to bridge the gap between Denver entrepreneurs and investors. RVC is a Denver angel group that provides educational programs. In addition, RVC hosts events where entrepreneurs and investors can meet and make deals.

The University of Denver’s entrepreneurship initiative, Project X-ITE, brings a number of resources to students. Ranked as one of the top 30 entrepreneurial universities in the United States by Forbes, Project X-ITE is a cross-disciplinary initiative focused on the intersection of innovation, technology and entrepreneurship.

The second quarter of 2018 will mark the opening of Catalyst HTI, which will serve a dual role as incubator and accelerator. Catalyst HTI will bring together entrepreneurs in technology and health care to create state-of-the art incubator and accelerator in downtown Denver. Companies such as CirrusMD and Revolar have already committed to joining the community.

Entrepreneurship for Women

In 2013, Denver was named one of the best places for women to start a business as by Nerdwallet. There are several female-focused resources in the city. Denver’s female entrepreneurs have found support from startup accelerator program MergeLane, which specifically invests in female-led companies. Recently, the Commons on Champa also launched Women on the Rise, an initiative aimed to support and celebrate the success of female entrepreneurs.

Other notable resources include The Coterie, Denver’s first women co-working community, and Women Who Startup, which hosts monthly meetings. SheSays, an international trade organization based in the UK, launched in SheSaysDenver in 2014 and counts over 1,000 women as members. SheSaysDenver provides free mentoring and events to women working in technology and business.

Venture Capital

Overall, Denver VC investment is reflective of nationwide trends, with investment decreasing after the Great Recession, and recovering around 2010. Denver firms such as the Foundry Group, Grotech Ventures and Access Ventures are anchoring investment in the ecosystem.
Local VC received a significant increase in 2015 after Welltok raised a massive $45 million round of investment. VC investment has stabilized around $500 million in investments each year since 2014. However, the 2016 Colorado Startup Report notes that the total funding raised in 2016 was distributed across more than 129 different technology companies, indicating a greater distribution of capital. The Downtown Denver Startup Report indicates that in 2015 alone, more than 165 tech startups were founded in Denver in 2015.

Data indicating the number of first round deals in Denver illustrate a stable ecosystem with an average of around 50 first-round deals per year.

Looking to the Future

Denver entrepreneurs have noted that there is a significantly lower amount of early stage fundraising in the ecosystem. However, this is a reflection of a nationwide trend of cautious investing in early-stage investment.

Denver does have early stage VC investors, but in many cases, does rely on angel investors to supply funding. The University of Colorado’s Silicon Flatiron recommends the continued support of Colorado and Denver super-angel funds, also known as Micro-VCs, which are about $2-$10 million in size and specialize in early stage investing.

In the coming years, it is likely that Denver’s ecosystem will reach critical mass and consolidate as an attractive option for local and out-of-state entrepreneurs. With a strong and growing infrastructure for entrepreneurship, Denver’s startup growth and success is likely to continue.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Development of Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

On May 4, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner stated his support for building a data science center. The next day, he endorsed plans for an Innovation District. How would these types of development promote entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth in Houston?

The Basics

What are Research Parks, like the proposed data science center, and Innovation Districts?

Research Parks promote research, technological development and commercialization by creating a high density of universities and research institutions within a small area. By placing many innovative researchers and developers in close proximity, Research Parks encourage growth of new companies and collaboration across fields, driving technology-based economic development.

The Brookings Institution defines Innovation Districts as dense areas that bring together research institutions, high-growth firms and startups through thoughtfully designed and resource-rich commercial and residential spaces.

Research Parks and Innovation Districts slightly differ in their implementation, but both spaces aim to accomplish similar goals; they want to create physical hubs for innovation and entrepreneurial development. Typically, developers build Research Parks on new land, cultivating previously undeveloped space. Innovation Districts, however, use old land. This land was previously developed but is no longer in use.

Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Silicon Valley is a well-known Innovation District.

Both Research Parks and Innovation Districts are generative and can be helpful in stimulating local economies. Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto and Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham are some of the most well-known examples in the United States. Research Triangle Park is the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world. Stanford Research Park played a key role in the creation of Silicon Valley.

Successful Innovation Districts include Kendall Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, South Lake Union in Seattle and Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati.

What Makes These Areas Special?

Research Parks and Innovation Districts are highly productive areas. Innovation leads to new ideas and job creation. According to the Association of University Research Parks, each job in a Research Park generates approximately 2.57 additional jobs. Thus, the more than 300,000 Research Park employees in the United States lead to 700,000 additional jobs.

Innovation Districts can also produce strong results. By placing many innovators in close proximity to one another, they facilitate collaborative interactions. As Innovation Districts vary greatly in size and productivity, an accurate estimate for job creation is unavailable.

Key Factors: The Capital Stack

Layered financial tools known as a “capital stack” are necessary to promote the development Research Parks and Innovation Districts. For a capital stack that attracts investors, an area must have access to multiple types of equity, incentives and debt to provide flexibility to developers and innovators.

Developers may be able to secure planning grants through the U.S. Economic Development Administration to create the Research Park or Innovation District. These are “designed to leverage existing regional assets and support the implementation of economic development strategies that advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.” Even though Innovation Districts are built on previously developed land, the government still issues planning grants because they “advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.”

Tax credit bonds are also common debt instruments. Instead of taking on loans, municipal governments sell bonds, which provide tax credits in lieu of interest payments. Some examples are Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Economic Bonds and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.

Equity is also an important necessity. Investment can be incentivized from a variety of sources, like New Market Tax Credits. These give tax credits to investors who make equity investments in Community Development Entities in developing and low-income communities. Housing and Urban Development community development grants and state or federal tax relief programs can also incentivize investment.

Key Factors: Social Factors

The final piece of the puzzle to create a Research Park or Innovation District is social organization. In order to facilitate collaboration and innovation, physical, intellectual and social resources need to be readily accessible.

Networking assets—“the relationships between actors—such as individuals, firms and institutions—that have the potential to generate, sharpen and accelerate the advancement of ideas”—are essential for the development of Innovation Districts. The lines of communication between developers, researchers and sources of funding must be open and easily accessible. This synergy is enhanced in Innovation Districts through the close proximity of ecosystem participants and access to shared meeting and collaboration spaces.

The Potential for Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

Many cities have developed Innovation Districts in effort to grow local entrepreneurship and innovation. Turner’s announcement of the planned Innovation District earlier this month mentioned the 40,000 jobs created by Chicago’s efforts to spur innovation. Turner noted, “It is now time for us to be more competitive, to further diversify and expand our economy. What Chicago can do, Houston can do better.”

In 2015, the University of Texas bought 332 acres of land in southwest Houston with the hopes of developing it into a small Research Park. However, in March 2017, UT Chancellor William McRaven canceled the site’s plans for development. The Houston Chronicle cites timing and lack of transparency as the main causes for the cancellation.

However, there may still be potential for a Research Park in Houston. Mayor Turner also expressed support for the proposed data science center, urging the University of Houston to take the lead. The Chairman of the University of Houston Board of Regents, Tilman Fertitta, has spoken positively about this idea, mentioning excitement about the prospect of collaborating with Rice University, Texas Southern University, Texas A&M University and the University of Texas through the development of a data hub.

Bill Gropp, the acting director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, recently stated that there is far more demand for Research Parks than there is supply. It is clear that the development of a Research Park or Innovation District would stimulate the economy and create jobs. If Houston wants to take advantage of these opportunities, the time to act is now.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Gateway to Entrepreneurship: St. Louis

You probably know St. Louis as the Gateway to the West, but the city is emerging as a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem. For decades, St. Louis followed the economic development model of attracting and keeping large out-of-town companies with generous tax breaks and subsidies. In the 1990’s, political and business leaders became frustrated with the slow economic growth under these policies and began implementing entrepreneur-friendly policies.

While the city has not abandoned tax breaks and other subsidies to attract big companies, it has adopted an entrepreneurship model driven by state and private efforts. This model appears to be working. Data from the Census Bureau show 9.7 percent of businesses in St. Louis are startups less than three years old. St. Louis can now boast the second best rate of startup growth in the country.

Venture Capital

St.LouisFirstRounds
Author’s calculations based on data from SDC Platinum VentureXpert

It is widely believed that an ecosystem should be producing 30 to 35 deals per year to beconsidered stable. St. Louis saw three consecutive years of 30 or more first-round deals from 2013 to 2015. While 2016 reflects a poor year for St. Louis VC investment and first rounds, this decline reflects a nationwide trend.

StLouisVC
Author’s calculations based on data from SDC Platinum VentureXpert

 

 

St. Louis boasts sizable venture capital investment. Like many ecosystems, St. Louis suffered from the dot-com bust in the early 2000’s, but a strong pattern of VC investment seems to be emerging. How has St. Louis achieved venture capital growth?

History

The first entrepreneurship-focused programs established in St. Louis were the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and Skandalaris Entrepreneurship Program.

The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center provides support for plant scientists who work directly with the agriculture technology startups. The Danforth Plant Science Center cofounded the Ag Innovation Showcase, the premier agricultural technology and innovation showcase in the nation.

The Skandalaris Entrepreneurship Program began in 2001 at Washington University, but expanded in 2003 to the Skandalaris Center for Interdisciplinary Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The Skandalaris Center provides entrepreneurial training, networking opportunities and a mentoring program.

When the Great Recession hit in 2008, St. Louis suffered. The “corporate jewel” Anheuser-Busch laid off hundreds at their St. Louis headquarters. St. Louis’ per capita personal income shrunk by 5 percent. The metro unemployment rate reached over 10 percent. Despite Danforth Plant Science Center and Skandalaris Entrepreneurship Program, there still was not much positive entrepreneurial output. Researchers and politicians blamed the national economy and the greater time required to establish agriculture-focused startups.

The St. Louis entrepreneurial ecosystem remained largely unsupported until 2012 when the nonprofit Information Technology Entrepreneurs Network (ITEN) began to catalyze the ecosystem. Jim Brasunas, a former telecommunications manager turned entrepreneur, founded ITEN by utilizing the public-private investment fund, Missouri Technology Corporation (MTC).

While ITEN was founded in 2008, many of the programs were not active until two or three years after its founding. Many entrepreneurs credit the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem to Brasunas and ITEN.

Resources

St. Louis has the requisite components of a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem; highly ranked universities, research-focused centers, accelerators, incubators and venture capital funds. However, the strong private-public partnerships and women-focused accelerators make SSt_Louis_nightt. Louis’ ecosystem unique.

In 2012, MTC put a significant amount of seed money into a new economic development model, Arch Grants. Arch Grants runs a global competition to identify potential entrepreneurs from almost any industry sector. Arch Grants then provides entrepreneurs with $50,000 equity-free grants and pro bono support services if they agree to build their businesses in St. Louis. Over 100 startups have been awarded Arch Grants including RoverTown, which was named the fastest growing tech startup in St. Louis.

Accelerators

Accelerators are key components of any healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem, and St. Louis has a plethora of accelerators. Capital Innovators is a 12 week accelerator program that provides $50,000 in seed funding to startups. The accelerator focuses on IT and consumer product startups, such as LockerDome, Bonfyre and Fluent.

Another notable accelerator is BioSTL. The investment arm of BioSTL, BioGenerator, has worked to grow bioscience startups in the region since 2001. MediBeacon, BacterioScan and Galera Therapeutics are among the startups that have gone through BioGenerator.

SixThirty is St. Louis’ largest and most famous accelerator with corporate partners like State Farm and the St. Louis Regional Chamber. The accelerator provides up to $100,000 in funding and sponsors two cohorts per year. SixThirty’s expertise is venture capital and revenue acceleration for startups that are at the late-seed stage.

St. Louis’ agricultural-technology industry is back, and Yield Lab, opened in 2014, focuses on accelerating this industry. Its nine month AgTech program provides early-stage companies with $100,000 in funding and looks to add value to companies that from a nonfinancial standpoint. The Yield Lab opened a second accelerator in St. Louis’ sister city, Galway, Ireland in January of 2017. Graduates of the Yield Lab include S4, Arvengenix and Holganix.

In 2012, St. Louis ranked a disappointing 25th in a national survey of women’s entrepreneurship. Prosper Women Entrepreneurs (PWE) was born when community leaders realized that the region could significantly improve its economy and entrepreneurial ecosystem if women reached their entrepreneurial potential.

Women now own a higher share of startups in Missouri than in any other state. PWE offers support to a woman-owned company focusing on technology, health care IT and consumer startups. Graduates of PWE include Appticles, Bandura System and SixPlus.

Co-Working Spaces

In addition to accelerators, St. Louis has a significant number of co-working spaces such as Exit 11 Workspace and Hive44.

Founded in 1999, CIC St. Louis is the most famous of the St. Louis co-working space. CIC focuses on biotechnology and bioscience startups. $2.1 billion in VC has been raised by companies originally based at CIC and more than 800 companies call CIC home.

Venture Capitalists

St. Louis has a significant number of venture capitalist firms. While venture capitalist firms invest around the country and world, it is important to have firms in ecosystems as they often provide VC stability. Advantage Capital Partners, BioGenerator and RiverVest Ventures appear to serve as long term midsize anchor funds for St. Louis. Cultivation Capital raised its first fund in 2012. Lewis and Clark Ventures emerged in 2014 and are a midsize fund.

Looking to the Future

St. Louis is emerging as a stable and strong startup ecosystem in the Midwest. Efforts to increase private and public support for resources, as well as funding and tax credits for research, will facilitate St. Louis’ continued growth.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs Startup Ecosystems

How to Make Texas More Startup-friendly

profileOver the last decade, Blake Commager (@commagere) has raised over $12 million in venture capital funding, started seven companies and sold five—including the first version of Facebook Causes and some of the most popular apps on Facebook, such as Zombies and Vampires. Born and raised in Midland, Texas, Commager graduated from Rice in 1999 and moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 2003.

Commagere is the CEO of MediaSpike and an angel investor, advising several startups in the Bay Area. His varied experience in the tech startup space, from founder to investor and mentor, gives him a comprehensive perspective on the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem. As Commagere worked at a startup and tried to start a company in Austin before moving out to Silicon Valley, I was interested in learning why he chose to move out to the Bay Area and what Texas could do to better support startups.

Iris Huang: What brought you to the Silicon Valley?

Blake Commagere: I had always been interested in solving the problem of address book updating. In 2003, a friend of mine and I were working on our own company in Austin, and while doing competitive analysis, we found out Plaxo, a startup in Mountain View, California, was trying to solve the same problem. I liked their solution and they already had funding so I moved here to join the company.

I also felt the pressure to move to the Bay Area. By virtue of having a high concentration of tech talent, the Bay Area created a gravitational pull for even more tech talent. You see that with a lot of industries—they blow up largely in a few cities and as the ecosystem develops around them, the momentum increases, which makes it harder for other cities to compete. The more talent it has, the more successful the industry becomes in the region, the more new talent comes. The concentration of talent creates a virtuous cycle—in the Bay Area, the former successful startup founders become the next generation angel investors and venture capitalists, who fund and help more startups succeed.

The concentration of talent in the Bay Area has two main advantages:

The sheer concentration of talent and ecosystem make the process of building a startup easier, not a lot easier, but even if it’s just 2 percent easier, that makes all the difference. Given how hard it is to build a company, anything that makes it a little easier can be incredibly important. The high concentration of talent in the Bay Area makes it easier for startups to hire good employees. Startups will also have an easier time meeting people who can provide advice and introduce them to investors.

The large tech community in the Bay Area also provides a lot of emotional support, which turns out to be extremely important for startup founders. What’s unique about entrepreneurship is the combination of the high level of stress and lack of experience and resources. It’s very intimidating as an entrepreneur when you have a dozen things you have to do today but you have no idea how to do any of them. No business school teaches you what you need at a startup day to day. Sometimes other founders can’t help you either, but at least, you can commiserate with them. For example, after you pitch to a dozen VCs and no one wants to invest, you can talk to your community—they’ve all been through the pain so they understand how you feel. The therapeutic value of the commiseration is really important. You won’t feel so lonely, which, in addition to the hardship of building a company, could be overwhelming.

IH: How can Texas cities become more friendly to founders?

BC: A good ecosystem for startups cannot be developed overnight. It takes several entrepreneur/venture capital cycles—maybe over 20 years.

Someone should have a laser focus on building the tech community so entrepreneurs no longer feel alone in their journey. What entrepreneurs are trying to do is just too overwhelming to do on their own. They will leave for somewhere that has a supportive community if they can’t find the mentorship and network locally. In Austin, most of the time meetings happen by chance. Serendipity is unreliable—someone needs to build a tight knit community and make sure the support network is well-organized.

Someone has to bring capital there. No matter how great the idea is, you need to have money to fund it and make it happen. The number of VC firms and the amount of VC funding in Texas are limited (Note: total VC funding in Austin is $834 million, as compared to $25 billion in Silicon Valley according to the MoneyTree Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers). In Silicon Valley, there are so many funds; a startup can be rejected by a dozen of the top VC firms and still be able to raise funds from hundreds of other VCs. However, in Austin, if you pitch to Austin Ventures and they say no, your fundraising is over.

Also, with a small number of VCs, their time is limited so they can only invest in a small number of companies. Imagine if there are 100 great startups that deserve to be funded but there are only six general partners in your region. Simply for lack of VCs, some of these companies won’t get what they need to survive.

IH: Why is it necessary to raise VC funds locally?

BC: Silicon Valley VCs are unlikely to invest in startups in Texas. VCs have strong motivation to invest in nearby companies because the nature of venture capital investing—95 percent of startups fail—forces them to use their time wisely. VCs usually take board seats at the startups they invest in. Every board seat they take is an opportunity cost, preventing them from taking others. When VCs invest in startups in other cities, they have to travel for board meetings. So the time they spend on that board seat is longer and the opportunity cost for that investment is higher. That’s why you can’t expect Bay Area VCs to invest in Texas startups and when they do, the bar might be three times higher for Texas startups than Bay Area startups.

Funding is not the only value VCs provide for startups; their professional network plays an important role in helping startups succeed as well. However, VCs’ network is geographically dependent. If the startups are far away, they will not be able to benefit from VCs’ powerful network. This lowers their chance of success. This also discourages VCs from investing outside their primary cities.

Raising a fund to start a VC firm in Austin or Houston could be challenging—the new VCs will have to take the extra step to convince potential limited partners that “there is a reason and opportunity to invest here,” instead simply joining all the other VCs are in the Bay Area. However, this is what has to happen. Ideally, the new VCs have built their career and network in Texas for many years, which gives them the motivation and ability to raise a fund locally.

IH: How can Texas cities retain local talent?

BC: It all comes back to the availability of VC funding. Frequently I see announcements that a city is hoping to make the city more attractive to startups with programs for office space or professional services. None of that is a big expense compared to your employee costs. Some people argue that since everything is more expensive in the Bay Area, it makes sense to stay in Austin or Houston. For example, with $1 million funding, you might be able to hire 10 employees in Houston, but in the Bay Area, you can only hire 5 employees with similar credentials. However, this is an unrealistic comparison. In Houston, you are more likely to get $0 funding so really you can’t hire anyone while in the Bay Area, you might be able to get $1 million and hire 5 employees.

Each entrepreneur has their own timeline—when they need to raise funding, if there’s no funding available in Austin or Houston, they either have to shut down their startups or move to the Bay Area and raise money here. Right now everyone just follows the gravity and moves to the Bay Area because that’s the easiest. Texas is losing the tech talents and startups that create so many jobs to the Bay Area. It is very important to break the cycle. Step one is to stop the talent drain with VC funding and keep startups here. As the ecosystem matures, the long-term goal is to make it as easy to raise funding in major Texas cities as in the Bay Area.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Medical Device Startups and the FDA

Does the FDA approval process impede innovation? Medical devices must be reviewed for safety and effectiveness by the Food and Drug Administration before being marketed in United States, which encompasses 43 percent of the global market for medical devices. Startups in the medical device industry are often dissatisfied with this approval process, favoring the FDA’s European Union peer, CE Marking. Some founders even believe the time consuming and expensive FDA process “holds back the entire industry.”

Classification of Medical Devices

The FDA classifies medical devices based on their associated risks. Class I devices, like enema kits and elastic bandages, have minimal potential for harm and are typically exempt from the regulatory process. Devices that present medium risk, like contact lenses, are classified as Class II and carefully reviewed. Class III devices, such as pacemakers and replacement heart valves, are the highest risk devices, subject to the most regulatory controls.

Blood Pressure Cuff -- Class II

The FDA categorizes devices based on their function, not their underlying technologies. These categorizations may cause unnecessary delays by imposing regulatory requirements on technologies that have already been tested. Ariel Dora Stern of Harvard Business School found that for devices based on the same technologies, those placed in already existing product categories took less time to approve than those placed in new categories.

Premarket Processes

There are two FDA processes required of medical devices in different classifications:  Premarket Notification 510(k) and Premarket Approval (PMA).

Most Class I and Class II devices can be marketed after receiving 510(k) clearance. It demonstrates that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a device already on the market. Those devices that can be paired with substantial equivalents or “predicate devices” do not require a PMA. The 510(k) clearance tends to take around 200 days and costs much less than PMA.

PMA is required for new Class III high-risk devices. Companies need to submit evidence that provides reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective. The PMA can take more than 450 days and include the ongoing costs of clinical trials among other expenses.

The clinical study stage often takes as long as the initial concept development stage. Josh Makower, Aabed Meer and Lyn Denend at  Stanford University surveyed over 200 medical device companies and found that it took the companies an average of 31 months from first communication with the FDA to receive 510(k) clearance and 54 months for PMA. 81 percent of survey respondents believed that the FDA has a difficult time with novel technologies. Stern also found that the first device in any given category took 34 percent longer to receive approval than the next device in that category, leading to an average delay of 7.2 months.

Hefty Expenditures

Makower et al. found the average total cost to bring a low- to moderate-risk 510(k) product from concept to clearance was $31 million, with $24 million spent on FDA-related activities. For a higher-risk PMA product, the cost became $94 million, with $75 million spent on FDA requirements. Approximately 50 percent of medical device exits (acquisitions or IPOs) are under $100 million; 75 percent are under $150 million. As the cost of getting to market approaches the average exit value, the funding equation looks less attractive to venture capitalists.

Obstacles to True Innovation

It is likely that companies sometimes compromise and pursue the less risky yet also less innovative 510(k) route. They make relatively simple extensions to low-risk product lines already in existence. The FDA typically evaluates more than 4,000 510(k) notifications and about 40 original PMA applications each year. This means that only one percent of devices are innovative, new medical technologies that require clinical data to get FDA approval.

Challenges Facing Small Companies

Startups face particular challenges in navigating the FDA regulatory process. More than 80 percent of the 6,500 medical device companies in the U.S. have fewer than 50 employees. According to the industry-wide survey, 72 percent of small companies submit new products. Only 35 percent of large companies do this. The total average review time for small companies is 330 days, as opposed to 177 days for large companies. However, Stern found that privately-held firms with revenues under $500 million made up only 14 percent of FDA submissions for follow-on devices and 7 percent for novel devices.

CE Mark or FDA?

The EU represents 31 percent of the global medical device market, which has a projected value reaching $544 billion by 2020. Access to both the American and European markets gives startups 74 percent of the global market, worth $400 billion. Attempting both FDA approval and CE Mark approval simultaneously is not feasible for most companies

In 2012, a Boston Consulting Group study found that most PMA medical devices were available in Europe 3 years earlier than in the U.S. Makower et al. found it took medical technology firms an average of seven months to get CE Mark clearance and 11 months to get PMA for the EU. Approximately two-thirds of small medical device companies obtained clearance in Europe first. The number one reason is the unpredictability of 510(k) requirements, according to a comprehensive industry-wide survey conducted by John H. Linehan and Jan B. Pietzsch at Northwestern University.

The difficulty of obtaining FDA approval also makes it harder for startups to raise VC funding. In 2012, BCG interviewed venture capitalists on medical device investments and found that some investors would not invest in a medical device startup unless the company received a CE Mark and promised consequent revenues in Europe.

Conclusion

The value and importance of FDA approval are undeniable. However, policymakers should examine whether the lengthy and expensive FDA approval process is necessary. The FDA might consider reducing the length of the process for all applicants. It might also help if the FDA accommodates startups’ specific needs. This can be done by granting subsidies to small businesses, offering expedited paths to truly novel and needed technologies and providing equipment or space for conducting clinical trials to innovative startups.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Weekly Roundup on Entrepreneurship 3/31

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about entrepreneurship this week:

Business Groups Hope Trump Can Change Health Law by Administrative Action

Jeffrey Sparshott, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

Juanita Duggan, CEO of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, described the unraveling of the American Health Reform Act as “a dismal failure.”

Despite several nationwide organizations like the National Retail Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers pushing lawmakers to support the plan, Republicans could not build a consensus for the bill.

Not all small business owners favored the GOP bill. According to Tom Embley, CEO of Precision AirConvey Corp., a Newark manufacturing company that employs 40 workers, the proposed plan wouldn’t have done “anything to lower costs” for his firm.

More Than Obamacare Repeal, Small Businesses Want Congress to Rein in Costs

Stacy Cowley, Reporter, The New York Times

The New York Times’ Cowley reports on health care reform as told from the perspective of small businesses. While small businesses have been some of the most outspoken critics of the ACA since its passage in in 2010, the group as a whole is actually fairly divided on the issue; according to Manta and BizBuySell, approximately 60 percent of small business owners want the ACA to be repealed.

As Cowley points out, “every business is uniquely affected by the complex law.” She spoke to small business owners across the country, representing a variety of regions and industries. Two themes were common: The lack of sustainability of the status quo and the need for bipartisan reform. One thing Congress’s recent health care drama did accomplish was to reveal small businesses’ growing disdain for Congress’s inability to find common ground and deliver policy stability.

Early-Stage Investment for Software Startups Holds Steady

Alex Wilhelm, Editor In Chief, Crunchbase News

A recent Crunchbase report reviews the performance of younger SaaS companies after a year of relatively illiquid market for late-stage SaaS startups in 2016.

SaaS, or software as a service, refers to “firms that sell software products on a recurring basis.” As Wilhelm notes, SaaS firms constitute an “important part of the modern startup landscape.” According to Crunchbase analysis, early and mid-stage SaaS startups experienced relatively tame Series A and B funding rounds last year, despite the sector as a whole putting on a poor showing for enterprise IPOs when compared to 2015.

Wilhelm suggests that the better-than-expected fundraising aggregates indicate investor confidence that “the late-stage and public markets would figure out SaaS, or a blind willingness to follow a plan that was supposed to work.”

Kushner to Oversee Office of American Innovation at White House

Michael C. Bender, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

President Trump recently announced the opening of a new White House office, the Office of American Innovation (OAI). The new White House office, tasked with mimicking “private-sector efficiency inside the federal government,” will be led by Jared Kusher, senior policy advisor and son-in-law to President Trump. The office will oversee a number of ambitious task forces, including the taskforce that will be headed by Governor Chris Christie to address the opioid epidemic.

According to Press Secretary, the OAI will address both long-term and urgent needs, such as” modernizing information technology” and “streamlining the Department of Veteran Affairs.” Additionally, the office will conduct communications with many executives, including prominent Silicon Valley CEOs who visited the White House in recent months.

 

Ask a Female Engineer: How Can Managers Help Retain Technical Women on Their Team?

Cadran Cowansage, software engineer at Y Combinator Blog

Y Combinator’s Cowansage attempts to understand why women tend to step out of technical positions more frequently than their male counterparts. Cowansage asked several female engineers about their past decisions to leave their technical position at a specific company or the industry entirely. Interestingly, many of the responses don’t specifically address gender-driven workplace conflicts or discrimination. Instead, many of the women attribute their departures to irreconcilable differences with company management.

Startups often lack formal HR departments. Impartial organizational roles, like senior HR employees, who are distanced from the executive team are valuable resources; these positions offer employees an outlet for voicing their complaints without fear of jeopardizing their job status. Additionally, many women left their previous engineering positions due to lack of shareholder attention to the project they were dedicated to. Another commonly voiced problem during the interviews was rejection of requests for a promotion or raise. The interviews revealed that many women were willing to leave their company when they learned that employees with less experience were earning higher salaries or bonuses.

Startups Increasingly Turning to Debt Financing Despite Dangers

Mikey Tom, Reporter, PitchBook

PitchBook’s Tom shares some insight from  2016 Annual VC Valuations Report. According to the report, median early-stage valuations and the tally of firms that exited the market at a lower valuation than their most recent valuation reached an all-time high. As Tom points out, “rather than raising a new equity round at a sub-optimal valuation or seeking a premature liquidity event,” startups are increasingly relying on debt financing for cash. In fact, excluding 2016, the number of startups composed of debt has increased since 2008. Notably, many of the massive tech unicorns, like Airbnb and Uber, raised billion dollar loans in recent years.

Tom acknowledges the attractiveness of debt financing for many startups, but he forewarns founders of the dangers of accumulating too much debt: “if a startup is unable to achieve the amount of growth it forecasts, the debt ends up acting as more of a time bomb than growth equity.”

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Congress Turns Its Attention to Entrepreneurship and Innovation—But Does It Take Effective Action?

U.S. Capitol west side by Martin Falbisoner

AnnesGraphLegislation passed during the first three months of  the 115th Congress pays disproportionate attention to entrepreneurship and innovation. McNair Center research shows that in a typical congressional session, less than 2 percent of legislation introduced is relevant to E&I issues. As of March 23, three of the ten bills that have become law during the 115th Congress directly address entrepreneurship and innovation.

A focus on entrepreneurship and innovation issues does not alone make for effective policy. Of the three E&I bills that have become law, only one, the Tested Ability to Leverage Exceptional National Talent (TALENT) Act supports a proven program, the Presidential Innovation Fellows. The other two laws, the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act and the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Act, are devoid of meaningful changes to public policy.

TALENT Act: Codifying a Proven Program

The TALENT Act is the most likely of the three bills to have real world impact. This bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23), codifies the Presidential Innovation Fellows program begun as an executive order under President Obama. This bill was part of McCarthy’s Innovation Initiative, a suite of legislation introduced in the 114th Congress. In an interview with Fortune, McCarthy described his goal for the initiative as, making government “effective, efficient and accountable.”

The McNair Center’s Julia Wang explains that Innovation Fellows are embedded in government agencies, working to effect internal change. Projects include making information about clinical trials for cancer drugs available to patients in a searchable website as part of the Cancer Moonshot, developing an interagency data portal for child welfare and creating Uncle Sam’s List, which enables government agencies to in-source services from other federal agencies.

Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship and Innovation

The lag in women’s participation in entrepreneurship and innovation is a matter worthy of public policy attention as the McNair Center’s Tay Jacobe details; however, the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act and the INSPIRE Act do little to address these issues.

Women in the NSF I-Corps

nsf-i-corps-oct-20111
The 2011 pilot I-Corps program was a mixed gender group, although women do appear to be in the minority.

The Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act directs the National Science Foundation to “encourage its entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women.” The NSF’s premier entrepreneurship program is the Innovation Corps (I-Corps). I-Corps uses Steve Blank’s Lean Launchpad method to train NSF-funded scientists to turn their research findings into entrepreneurial ventures. Scientists who successfully complete the I-Corps program can receive additional support for their ventures. NSF’s Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/SBTT) programs financially support I-Corps.

When the bill was debated during the 114th Congress, the bill’s sponsor, Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-CT5), and the bill’s cosponsors did not present any evidence that the current NSF programs were failing to enroll women scientists and engineers. A picture of the 2011 pilot I-Corps program on Steve Blank’s blog shows a mixed gender group, although women do appear to be in the minority.

Several premier research universities, including Rice University, host I-Corps programs. The federal government requires that all participating universities are in compliance with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs, in order to receive funding.

Hidden Figures No More: Women in STEM at NASA

The INSPIRE Act directs NASA to continue support of three current initiatives. All of these programs seek to encourage girls and young women to pursue careers in STEM. Two of these initiatives—NASA Girls and NASA Boys and Aspire to Inspire—provide interested students with virtual contact with NASA mentors. The third—the Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER)—is a week-long program for middle school girls at Maryland’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

Sponsored by Representative Barbara Comstock (R-VA10), this legislation directs NASA to continue supporting these programs, but does not mention expansion. The INSPIRE Act did not appropriate funds to support these programs, but funds were appropriated for NASA’s Office of Education in the agency’s fiscal 2017 budget, which became law on March 21.

President Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 eliminates funds for the NASA Office of Education , although NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot promises that the agency will  “continue to use every opportunity to support the next generation through engagement in our missions and the many ways that our work encourages the public to discover more” even if funds are not appropriated for the Office of Education.

The INSPIRE Act requires NASA to submit a plan to Congress on outreach to women. This will encourage communication between female K-12 students and retired astronauts, scientists, and engineers. In the floor debate, both Comstock and cosponsor Esty cited the importance of visible role models in motivating  young women to pursue STEM.

Nonetheless, the bill’s narrow scope will limit the effects of the INSPIRE Act. If Congress removes NASA Education Office funding in fiscal year 2018, INSPIRE, which received bipartisan support, will only result in a report on educational activities that the agency would have difficulty funding.

Impact

All three acts passed Congress with bipartisan support. This suggests a shared interest in furthering government innovation and expanding access to careers in entrepreneurship and STEM. This support also implies that political leaders are prioritizing action on the rapidly expanding high-tech, high-growth sector. This sector now accounts for one fifth of the U.S. economy.

Would Congress be willing to go beyond the limited scope of these bills to effect truly innovative public policy? Past congressional sessions have devoted little attention these issues. However, Majority Leader McCarthy’s Innovation Initiative, including all three of the discussed bills, suggests that this neglect will not continue.