Internet Update

August 2003

Q&A: Frank Samuel on Ohio's Third Frontier

Frank E. Samuel, Jr., is Science and Technology Advisor to Ohio Governor Bob Taft. In July he was appointed as one of three members of the Third Frontier Commission, the governing board that oversees the state's Third Frontier Project. The visionary initiative seeks to invest $1.6 billion in state funds over the next decade to transform the development of Ohio's knowledge economy. On November 4, Ohio voters will be asked to approve Issue 1, which will authorize $500 million in state bonds to finance Third Frontier research and development initiatives.

Frank E. Samuel, Jr.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: What is the significance of the name Third Frontier?

SAMUEL: It's a symbolic way of capturing the challenges of Ohio's third century. The first frontier was the wilderness, which led to Ohio's settlement and statehood in 1803. The second frontier was the industrial revolution, when Ohio was one of the leading powerhouses in industrial innovation. Now we're beginning the third century, and the challenge is creating new knowledge and applying it to economic growth.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: Why does Ohio need to invest in this?

SAMUEL: Ohio has a lot of intellectual assets that need to be catalyzed in different ways. We need to create more productive collaborations between research universities and the private sector. We need to help the transition of Ohio's economy from one based on manufacturing, transportation, and raw materials to one oriented to creating and applying new knowledge. The Third Frontier is meant to jump start that transition.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: What progress has Third Frontier made since Governor Bob Taft announced it in January 2002?

SAMUEL: First of all, with the support of the General Assembly, we have appropriated the money needed to fund the initiative for the first couple of years. Authorizing legislation has been passed, and a new decision-making structure has been adopted.

At the same time, we have been posting requests for proposals and making grants. By the end of June, we awarded more than $131 million in state grants for Third Frontier projects. By October 2003, we expect to have made $217 million in Third Frontier grants. We're well on our way in the programmatic sense.

Thirdly, we are forging new collaborations in Ohio that didn't exist before. The collaboration between Wright State and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the Genome Research Institute in Cincinnati is one example. The collaboration in the fuel cell area is another. We're forging new relationships between institutions and with the private sector that would not have happened without the availability of state grants. Those kinds of behavioral changes in the ways we do research will have results that go far beyond the administration of state funding. Those indirect results may become as powerful as the direct results achieved by the projects we are funding. It's a whole new way of thinking.

Finally, many people have been talking about the Third Frontier -- the Governor, members of the legislature, newspaper editorial boards all have been talking about it. Gradually, that has been raising awareness of Ohio's technology assets and the future of its technology economy.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: How will the Third Frontier impact the ways biomedical researchers do their work?

SAMUEL: The investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed grant process really is aimed at advancing the frontiers of knowledge. Obviously, that is essential. Then you have clinical researchers who conduct trials, often with private sector support, of new drugs and medical devices. The Third Frontier is aimed at something in between these two processes. We're not supporting basic research, the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. We're supporting the applications of new knowledge in the form of technology applied to products that will actually sell in the marketplace, hence our insistence that business partners be front and center in these collaborations.

This is not a novel idea. Many researchers already do this. But in terms of state funding, I think it requires research to be far more intentional and planned with respect to the private sector and private sector support.

It's going to take some changes on the part of the private sector, too. Even though this work is looking more at the applications of research in creating new products, it's still a long-term, high-risk process. It's not just a big product development department for industry that we're creating here.

In terms of allocating state grants, the research has to be more intentional and strategically planned. When we did the first round of Biomedical Trust Fund grants, we picked some areas where our expert advisors said we should focus. They were broad areas, but it wasn't like the NIH process where you say, "OK, bright people, come and give us your best ideas." We were saying, "Give us your best ideas in certain areas because that's where we think we have the most to gain." It's possible as we go on that we will focus our RFP's more and more in areas where we think we can create real competitive advantage in creating and applying new knowledge.

There will be some in the academic community who say that we can't know where the search for new knowledge will lead, that it can't be predicted or controlled. I agree with all that, but on the other hand, if you are going to put state tax dollars to work, it has to meet objectives identified by knowledgeable people and evaluated by their peers. That's why we've involved the National Academy of Sciences in the grant review process.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: Does the National Academy of Sciences also evaluate the business potential of proposals?

SAMUEL: Yes. We made it clear that in addition to distinguished scientists, they had to provide reviewers who were experienced in business and understood what it took to turn research results into a product or technology that could be made and sold. There have been some very distinguished business people on our panels.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: What can biomedical researchers contribute to this effort?

SAMUEL: They can bring the best possible science they can do. That is still the bedrock of this initiative. Secondly, they can bring creative, interactive approaches to developing relationships with the private sector. It requires new ways of thinking and working. Not all researchers will find this congenial, but I think many will. Finally, as the partnership at GRI demonstrates, researchers need to work across institutional lines to reach these practical results.

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE: What are the challenges for Ohio to achieve success with the Third Frontier?

SAMUEL: The competition for this kind of economic development is tough and will only get tougher. On the other hand, because of the support we've had from the General Assembly, we have appropriated all the money we asked for, and we are spending it at a thoughtful yet vigorous pace. Other states are cutting back. We're setting the stage to compete quite well.

Staying the course is the first thing we have to do. It's not easy given the current budget environment.

Secondly, we have to understand, no matter where we're located in the state, that we're competing on a national, even an international, stage. This is not about being the best in Ohio or the upper Midwest. It's about being the best in a particular project area as judged by national standards and national experts.

Staying the course also means that we have to convince Ohio voters to pass Issue 1 on the November 4 ballot. Although we're already making substantial investments in Third Frontier programs, the additional $500 million authorized by Issue 1 will be crucial to Ohio's success.

School of Medicine | Research Affairs | Contact Us | Contents