Introduction: Review of the WTEC Program1

The Japanese Technology Evaluation Program2 was founded in 1983 as a program in the U.S. Department of Commerce aimed at gathering and disseminating information about Japanese technology in the open literature. The National Science Foundation (NSF) took over leadership 1985, giving the program a mission to promote two-way exchange of scientific and technological information between the United States and Japan. In 1989 Loyola College assumed management of the program under an NSF grant, and established the Japanese Technology Evaluation Center (JTEC). The program subsequently was re-named the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC), reflecting the fact the studies now cover many countries other than Japan. Thirty-six WTEC reports have now been completed under Loyola's management, with several more in progress. WTEC study teams have been well received by their hosts, a reception enhanced by NSF's reputation for promoting international cooperation in science and technology.

Early program reports pointed out the benefits to the United States of cooperation with Japan in research and development (R&D). The 1985 panel on opto- and micro-electronics unanimously called for the United States to "foster and continue to increase present day information exchanges for mutual benefit" (Wieder and Spicer 1985, p. xvi). The 1985 biotechnology panel recommended "cooperation and exchange of information with Japan" (Oxender 1985, p. xix).

These early studies also were motivated by competitive impulses: the perception that Japan posed a threat to the United States in certain high technology industries. The 1985 Mechatronics report called for a U.S. "national response to the Japanese challenge in the area of Mechatronics ..." (Nevins 1985, p. 1-4). The same biotechnology panel quoted above also found that "the United States is expected to face its most serious challenge from Japan" (Oxender 1985, p. xiii). The 1986 JTEC panel on telecommunications technology stated its purpose as to "compare the status of R&D in Japan's telecommunications industry ... with that of the United States so as to try to predict the future of trade competition between the two countries" (Turin 1986, p. xi).

The 1992/93 panel on satellite communications concluded that "the market share of the U.S. satellite communications industry is at risk" (Edelson and Pelton 1993a, p. 1). That study's primary sponsor at NASA concluded that the study highlights the need for "emphasis in NASA's plan on the development of advanced technologies that will contribute to future U.S. competitiveness in satellite communications" (Edelson and Pelton 1993b, p. ii). The 1995 report on electronic packaging in Japan states that its purpose is to "understand the strengths of Japan's electronics industry as a step towards improving the vitality of the U.S. electronics industry" (Boulton 1995, p. xv). A 1997 follow-on study covered electronics manufacturing technologies and related industrial strategies and infrastructure in other Pacific Rim countries. The final report from that study (Boulton and Kelly 1997) states that "the United States is competing against countries with clearly articulated industrial strategies, long-term plans supported by appropriate investments, growing numbers of partnerships, and increasingly sophisticated and skilled workforces" (p. ix).

The need for international competitive benchmarking of U.S. capabilities in key technologies is consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. As stated by the President and the National Science Foundation, one important goal of the U.S. government is to maintain U.S. world leadership in science and technology; the GPRA Act requires measurement against such goals, and the White House National Science and Technology Council has indicated that this should be done on a government-wide basis. WTEC, an inter-agency activity, is one appropriate means to this end.


One obvious question is: why are WTEC teams welcomed so hospitably overseas when their purpose is to improve the U.S. competitive position in high technology industries? The basic answer is that the WTEC program, both in its cooperative and its competitive modes, serves the interests not only of the United States, but also of the foreign agencies and companies that participate. Reasons for this fall into the following categories: governmental relationships, collegial relationships, global benefits, corporate interests, and finally the WTEC methodology.

A. Governmental Relationships

Many of the countries that are of interest to WTEC have long had special relationships with the United States stemming from alliances during the Cold War. These relationships remain highly valued in most of these countries. Despite periodic differences on trade matters, U.S. international relationships in security and in science remain important to many countries. The National Science Foundation has officially requested the cooperation of Japanese government ministries in the WTEC program, in the spirit of the 1988 U.S. - Japan Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology. As a government-to-government program, WTEC has operated in the context of the overall U.S. - Japan relationship. So far, both governments have sought to avoid linkages between trade issues and other aspects of the relationship. Similar cooperative attitudes have pertained in relations with most other industrialized countries.

Full access to U.S. science and technology (S&T) information is important to many countries. Facilitating reciprocal access for Americans will help maintain their access to U.S. information. In this light, Japanese government agencies such as STA, MITI, and the Ministry of Education (Monbusho) have provided special resources for improving foreign access to Japanese S&T information. The Japan Information Center for Science and Technology (JICST) provides an English-language version of its JICST database (JICST-E), no doubt at considerable expense. Monbusho funds the NACSIS database and has supported special initiatives to make it available overseas. MITI and several other Japanese government agencies recently have been making a substantial amount of English-language information on Japanese S&T available on the World Wide Web. Supporting WTEC is another way that the Japanese government can help redress any perceived imbalances in the flow of S&T information. The government of France publishes information in English reviewing developments in French technology3, as does the British government (e.g., the Department of Trade and Industry) on U.K. S&T information.

The Japanese government has an interest in attracting foreign scientific talent to Japan. In fact, the Japanese government provides funds for programs administered by NSF and the Department of Commerce that pay for U.S. scientists and engineers to work in Japan. The 1995 establishment of the Techno-Growth House in Tsukuba (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1995) is one example of these outreach activities.

WTEC studies can help to increase awareness around the world of centers of excellence in the international research community. WTEC can also be helpful in this regard by identifying specific areas where international collaboration may be fruitful. Such collaborations may involve either bringing foreign talent to work in local laboratories or sending local scientists to work abroad; both of these activities are in the host country's interests.

B. Collegial Relationships

Among the qualities that we look for in selecting WTEC panelists are prior knowledge of international developments in their respective fields and personal contacts in S&T communities overseas. Personal relationships are extremely useful in opening doors and in stimulating open discussion.

We also look for senior researchers who are internationally renowned for their work; these panelists usually enjoy a warm welcome. Furthermore, foreign hosts are inclined to show famous panelists their best work.

International site visits are a part of a well-established tradition in Europe and Japan. Companies and government ministries routinely send technical delegations abroad; they understand the need to receive reciprocal visits.

C. Global Benefits

The free exchange of information is critical to progress in science and technology around the world. Countries that have operated their S&T enterprises under the cloak of secrecy (for example, the former Soviet Union) have found it difficult to keep up with the pace of technical progress elsewhere in the world because of the stultifying effect of secrecy rules and travel restrictions. Thus it is in the interests of both the United States and its international partners to promote a multilateral flow of pre-competitive scientific information.

Healthy competition among firms, and among nations, serves the best interests of both the United States and its allies. Both government and industry officials in other countries understand that a healthy U.S. economy is as important to other nations as it is to the United States. To the extent that WTEC helps U.S. R&D programs by providing better information on R&D abroad, it also helps to promote the United States as a better customer.

Similarly, in the era of the so-called Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s, it is in the interests of the United States and its allies to support Asian countries as they seek to put their economies on sound footing once again. This is all the more vital because of the many important strategic partnerships that have been developed in high technology industries between U.S. and Asian firms, as documented in numerous WTEC studies over the years. Economic disruptions in Asia -- aside from their impact on Wall Street -- threaten U.S. sources of critical technologies and components for its own high technology industries and defense requirements.

Observers of Japan should not be too hasty in downgrading their assessment of the importance of Japan's science and technology enterprise. One response by the Japanese government to the current crisis has been to dramatically increase government funding for R&D. Furthermore, Japanese corporations are continuing their investments in R&D, both at home and abroad, and have moved substantial industrial production capacity overseas as a way of insulating themselves from domestic troubles (Shelton and Holdridge 1997).

Finally, the WTEC process provides foreign hosts with an outside perspective on their R&D programs, providing them with an independent assessment attesting to the quality of their research.

D. Corporate Interests

Some companies may view WTEC as a form of free marketing. WTEC panelists now visit both U.S. and foreign firms and report on the excellent R&D and product development they see. This report is then broadly disseminated around the world. While specific products are only occasionally extolled in WTEC reports, these reports certainly contribute significantly to the overall corporate image of the companies visited.

Companies visited by WTEC are often interested in developing sales or collaborative R&D relationships with specific WTEC panelists or institutions they represent. Many WTEC panelists have existing relationships with the companies they are visiting; others have developed such relationships subsequently as a result of their involvement.

Corporate managers abroad may also be highly confident in their ability to stay ahead of international competition, even when this competition is armed with detailed information from relevant WTEC studies. WTEC hosts at some companies overseas seem more concerned about leaking confidential information to other companies in their own country than they do about sharing this information with U.S. colleagues. Japanese hosts have commented that the WTEC reports afford them an opportunity to learn about R&D activities at other Japanese companies.

E. The WTEC Methodology

WTEC uses a report review procedure that protects the confidentiality of our hosts. Although the factors described above are very important in explaining the access that Americans in general enjoy abroad, the WTEC methodology is vital to preserving that access over time. It also helps explain the extra degree of openness that WTEC panelists have observed during their visits overseas compared to their prior experiences in visiting under other auspices. Our report review procedure is one element of the WTEC methodology that is designed to preserve our access. Details of the methodology are available at:

What follows below is a discussion of the aspects related to review of draft reports and dissemination of the final results.


The WTEC mission is to inform the scientific and engineering community and policy makers of global trends in science and technology in a manner that is timely, credible, relevant, efficient and useful. Specific objectives include finding opportunities for cooperative R&D, determining who is doing the most promising work, and comparing U.S. research approaches with those abroad. One important goal is to offer insights into how U.S. research programs might be improved.

A basic principle of the WTEC methodology is that the objectives above are best achieved through assessing the outputs of international research, rather than comparing funding inputs. In keeping with the NSF's peer-review system of evaluating research proposals, the WTEC assessments are performed entirely by leading U.S. scientists and engineers. For each technology of interest, WTEC organizes a panel of about six U.S. experts. The panelists study the available literature, visit foreign laboratories, and report on the results, first orally and then in a written report. The WTEC staff assists in these activities, providing literature support, setting up the visits abroad, organizing the meetings, and editing and disseminating the reports.

A. Report Review and Editing

First draft site reports, along with literature provided by hosts, are circulated among the panelists following their return from abroad. Each site report is also sent immediately to the host for a first-tier review. We invite the host not only to correct errors but also to request deletion of any confidential material from the draft site report before it is circulated to any of the other hosts. In this way we seek to maintain a relationship of trust with each of the hosts, thus promoting an open exchange of information.

Following the oral presentation of preliminary findings from the study at a workshop, panelists prepare the analytical chapters of their final report based on input from workshop participants and comments on draft site reports. The WTEC staff assembles these chapters into a full draft analytical report. Site reports are included as appendices. This draft of the panel's full report is then sent to hosts, sponsors, and usually other U.S. readers for another confidential review. The WTEC staff and panelists work together to respond to the many changes, both substantive and editorial, that are suggested during this review process. The WTEC staff then prepares the camera-ready copy of the final report, and also converts it into hypertext markup language (HTML) and Adobe AcrobatTM for electronic dissemination.

B. Dissemination

An emphasis on dissemination has yielded a steady increase in report distribution. In addition to our workshops and printed reports, results are disseminated through presentations made by our panelists at professional society meetings and other national and international conferences. All recent WTEC reports also have been converted into hypertext, and are available at in their entirety. An average of 5,000 unique users access the WTEC Web site each week. Over 1,000 other Web pages around the world link to the WTEC Web server. WTEC also produces a CD-ROM that is updated with the release of each new report.

One measure of the value of WTEC reports is how overseas hosts view them. WTEC reports are in demand in Japan. At last count, Japanese corporations were purchasing more WTEC reports from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)4 than any other category of NTIS customer. A summary of one WTEC report was reputedly used as part of a funding justification submitted to the Japanese Diet. European and Asian users regularly download large sections of WTEC reports. The ready access that foreign users have to the WTEC reports via the Web enhances WTEC's image abroad as a fair broker of international S&T information.

Another measure of the value of the WTEC reports is the interest expressed by professional societies in publishing these reports. Two of the reports summarized in this volume were published by professional societies. Interest in WTEC by commercial publishers has also been increasing. The final report from the Korean electronics study was published by CRC press; the final report from the current WTEC panel on nanotechnology will be published by Kluwer Academic Publishers.


Of course, our primary purpose is to serve the interests of the United States. Measuring how well we achieve that purpose is no small task. Survey responses from workshop participants and report recipients are overwhelmingly positive. But finding out how our reports are used, either by our direct clients in the U.S. government or by U.S industry, is very difficult indeed. We disseminate the findings of our studies as widely as possible, leaving it to others to draw policy conclusions or take appropriate action.

In evaluating the merits of the WTEC program, however, it is still a worthy exercise to find out what we can concerning the uses these findings have been put to. The WTEC staff is not privy to internal discussions within the U.S. government agencies that sponsor our studies. Paul Herer cites a few recent examples in his Foreword to this report. Some additional examples are listed below.

In December 1997 the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) asked WTEC for information on areas of materials science R&D that would provide opportunities for cooperative research between Japan and the United States. WTEC polled panelists from relevant studies. The resulting synthesis "Centers of Excellence in Advanced Materials R&D in Japan," was presented at OSTP on December 12, 1997 attended by representatives of the OSTP staff, the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins University. WTEC's strongest recommendation was for expanded cooperation in superconductivity, taking advantage of Japan's large program.

WTEC completed a study in May of 1997 documenting the rapid development of advanced electronics manufacturing technologies and infrastructure in Pacific Rim countries (Boulton and Kelly 1997). This study was co-funded by the National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (NEMI), a consortium of U.S. electronics firms. The Department of Commerce (DOC) asked WTEC to prepare a follow-on analysis of the policy implications for the U.S. government of these developments. The final report from that analysis is now under final review for in-house publication as an official DOC report.

In the fall of 1994 the Electronics Subcommittee of the President's Council on Science and Technology asked WTEC to update a number of older JTEC studies relevant to electronics and extract information from new studies for publication as part of the final report of the Subcommittee's Foreign Technology Assessment Group. WTEC's contribution was subsequently published by the Department of Energy in support of the National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative.

In 1989 Mildred Dresselhaus, the chair of the JTEC superconductivity panel, was asked to brief the President's Science Advisory (then D. Allan Bromley) concerning the results of that JTEC study and their implications for the U.S. superconductivity research program. The President subsequently announced a renewed U.S. initiative in high-temperature superconductivity research and applications.

Two follow-on WTEC studies on superconductivity have since been completed, confirming that U.S. government funding initiatives in high Tc superconductivity R&D begun in the early 1990s have paid off . The WTEC report on power applications of superconductivity (Larbalestier 1997) concludes that, thanks to a small Department of Energy program (highly leveraged by industry co-funding), the United States now leads the world in many of the most important potential high power applications of high temperature superconducting materials, including motors and superconducting magnetic energy storage. Similarly, the 1998 report on electronic applications of superconductivity concludes that the United States leads in all aspects of rf and microwave applications of high temperature superconducting materials. This latter finding can be attributed both to important work funded by DARPA in the microwave applications area and to intense entrepreneurial activity in the United States. Both of these findings differ significantly from the more pessimistic assessments of the 1989 Dresselhaus panel.

The 1991/92 JTEC study on display technologies, conducted during the height of the U.S. - Japan trade dispute over the import of flat panel displays into the United States, was expedited by JTEC at the request of the principal sponsor in the Department of Defense (DOD). Informed sources at DOD informed us later that this JTEC report (Tannas and Glenn 1992) was instrumental in helping justify and guide the research emphasis of the DOD (DARPA) display program and the subsequent accelerated DOD display initiative announced early in the Clinton Administration.

According to a letter sent to JTEC by John T. Bosma (Bosma 1993), the same JTEC display study was also instrumental in assisting The Air Force Phillips Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratory get funding for a $12 million laboratory aimed at flat panel display and HDTV research, as part of the overall U.S. government display initiative.

The Bosma letter also indicates that the WTEC satellite communications study was used by Phillips and several Department of Energy laboratories as a rationale for planning future technology development programs in collaboration with U.S. satellite communications companies. This was confirmed by a subsequent letter to JTEC from William T. Brandon of the Mitre Corporation (Brandon 1994). Mr. Brandon's letter discusses several other ways in which the WTEC study was used, within both the U.S. government and industry. MITRE convened a meeting of six U.S. companies to discuss the formation of a private satellite technology consortium, based in part on the WTEC study's finding that the U.S. is falling behind in technologies for the next generation of communications satellites.

Also partly in response to WTEC's 1993 satellite communications report, an industry group known as the Satellite Industry Task Force (SITF) was formed, and subsequently briefed the Vice President and the OSTP, recommending that (a) NASA funding in satellite communications be substantially increased and (b) that the WTEC report be updated and expanded to cover U.S. activities more explicitly. WTEC is now in the final stages of completing that study.

WTEC's contributions to U.S. industry are just as important as its impact on U.S. government policy. U.S. companies are understandably reluctant to cite specific impacts that study results may have on their internal planning. However, in the past we have received unsolicited letters praising our work from Optical Semiconductors, Inc. (March 1995), Westinghouse Electric Corporation (September 1994), Semiconductor Systems, Inc (February 1994), the Mitre Corporation (February 1994; see above), and Gehrett and Company (Nov. 1993). Perhaps even more significant is the fact that commercial users (i.e., users with Internet addresses ending in the suffix ".com") are by far the largest single group of users of the WTEC Web site.


WTEC panelists have often expressed admiration for the way in which Japanese companies cooperate so effectively with each other in some domains (e.g., cooperative research in pre-competitive R&D), yet compete so fiercely with each other in the marketplace. Both the cooperation and the competition are in the best interests of all concerned: cooperation in research (often encouraged by the government) helps avoid duplication of efforts; competition in products forces the companies to improve product lines, streamline management, and invest in downstream R&D to keep up. It is this strong competitive environment within Japan that makes Japanese companies such strong competitors internationally.

Similarly, it is in the best interests of both the United States and its major trading partners to cooperate in R&D while we compete freely in the marketplace.

Thus, the WTEC program serves the best interests of both the United States and its trading partners abroad. The program identifies opportunities for cooperation and helps the U.S. high technology sector compete more effectively. It provides the factual basis and analytical framework for informed policymaking in industry and government.

Other countries maintain comparable efforts to assess and learn from the latest U.S. technology. A report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO 1993) concluded that the Japanese government spends far more to keep track of U.S. technology than does the U.S. government in assessing developments in Japan. Internal foreign technology monitoring activities in both U.S. and foreign corporations are probably on a larger scale than government efforts. European nations also allocate significant resources to monitor foreign technology.

Some may say that this is a zero sum game: advantages gained by one nation in foreign technology assessment are at the expense of another nation. This is not the case. The results of our kind of information gathering benefit all the parties involved. International information exchange promotes continued progress in science and technology.

This point was driven home when the WTEC office received visitors from a major European corporation that maintains a technology monitoring office in Tokyo. The subject of the 1994 JTEC study on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) came up during this meeting. This JTEC study was at least partially motivated by concern that the MITI micromachine initiative might pose a competitive challenge to the United States. The MEMS panel found that, although the United States is ahead in many important MEMS technologies and applications, there are also many promising developments in Japan, both in laboratories funded by the MITI Micromachine Center (MMC) and at private corporations. However, after the study was completed, one of the panelists commented that WTEC had picked the wrong country to study, asserting that the real competition will come from Europe. [WTEC is now considering a proposal to evaluate European MEMS R&D in cooperation with MCC.]

When we related this anecdote to our European guests that day, their response was that early U.S. leadership in the MEMS field was one of the main motivations for the acceleration of European R&D funding for MEMS. Similarly, the MITI program, and perhaps also the unrelated efforts at some Japanese companies, also may be motivated to some extent by a concern that the Americans or the Europeans would "steal a march" on Japan in this arena, developing a dominant position in the huge potential markets for MEMS devices and downstream products.

The net effect of all this is a rapid acceleration around the world of R&D in MEMS field. So, much as the U.S. - Soviet "space race" of the 1960s, predicated in part on incorrect U.S. assessments of the size of the Soviet ICBM force, greatly speeded up the pace of innovation in aerospace technology, so the (possibly) mistaken notion around the industrial world that "the competition" is ahead in MEMS is in fact promoting the accelerated development of MEMS worldwide.


As discussed briefly at the beginning of this introduction, the ongoing GPRA exercise in the U.S. government underscores the need for cost-effective foreign technology assessment activities. In the current political climate, R&D programs sometimes are difficult to justify to the taxpayers. Accurate assessments of overseas R&D activities provide information to government decisionmakers that they need in order to evaluate their performance against the national goal of maintaining U.S. leadership in science and technology. Such assessments can be helpful in formulating strategies to encourage the development of promising new technologies. Similarly, decisionmakers in U.S. industry and the financial community need accurate information on R&D activities abroad in order to optimize the allocation of scarce R&D resources.

It is difficult in almost any democracy to explain why scarce resources should be allocated to research and development at the expense of social programs or tax cuts. In corporate boardrooms, proposals for R&D spending face a virtual gauntlet of stockholders demanding improved quarterly earnings and Wall Street raiders threatening hostile takeovers. Technology assessment activities like WTEC underscore the countervailing threat: that important markets, continued economic progress, or even national security could be undermined by unwise downsizing of R&D activities.

Directly and indirectly, cost-effective WTEC research helps stimulate investments in R&D that benefit the United States by fostering high technology industries and employment. The whole world benefits from competition in high technology R&D, both through economic multiplier effects and the development of new products and services.

The most important lesson that WTEC draws from Japan is the value of foreign technology assessment itself. At least since the Meiji Restoration, this has been one key to Japan's success. Japanese delegations have traveled the world now for over a century, studying and learning from foreign S&T developments. Continued international exchange of scientific and technological information along these lines will be instrumental to our mutual success in the next century.

We hope that the abstracts included in this report aptly demonstrate the breadth and depth of excellence in science, technology, and industry that can be found around the world, and that decisionmakers in U.S. government and industry, as well as those abroad, will benefit from this information.


Boulton, William and Michael J. Kelly. Electronics Manufacturing in the Pacific Rim. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, May 1997. NTIS PB97-167076.

Boulton, William (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Electronic Manufacturing and Packaging in Japan. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, February 1995. NTIS PB95-188116.

Bosma, John T. "Our Discussion of JTEC's Report on U.S. Competitiveness in Satellite Communications" (unpublished letter). Sandia Park, NM: Meinel/Bosma Research, September 1993.

Brandon, William T. "Observed Impacts of the National Science Foundation Study" (unpublished letter). Bedford, MA: The Mitre Corporation, February 1994.

Diefendorf, Judd (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Advanced Composites in Japan. Baltimore, MD: Japanese Technology Evaluation Center, Loyola College, March 1991. NTIS PB90-215740.

Edelson, Burton and Joseph Pelton (eds.). NASA/NSF Panel Report on Satellite Communications Systems & Technology, Executive Summary. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, July 1993. NTIS PB93-231116.

Edelson, Burton and Joseph Pelton (eds.). NASA/NSF Panel Report on Satellite Communications Systems & Technology, Volume I: Analytical Chapters. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, July 1993. NTIS PB93-231116.

Holdridge, Geoffrey (ed.). JTEC/WTEC Annual Report and Program Summary, 1993/94. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, March 1994. NTIS PB94-155702.

King, Judson (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Separation Technology in Japan. Baltimore, MD: Japanese Technology Evaluation Center, Loyola College, March 1993. NTIS PB93-159564.

Larbalestier, David (ed.). WTEC Panel Report on Power Applications of Superconductivity in Japan and Germany. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, September 1997. NTIS PB98-103161.

Nevins, James (ed.). JTECH Panel Report on Mechatronics in Japan. McLean, VA: SAIC, May 1985. NTIS PB86109378.

Oxender, Dale (ed.). JTECH Panel Report on Biotechnology in Japan. McLean, VA: SAIC, May 1986. NTIS PB85-249241.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). "Machine Translation Technology Will Aid U.S. Competitiveness" (press release). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. January 1993.

Rich, Elaine (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Machine Translation in Japan. Baltimore, MD: Japanese Technology Evaluation Center, Loyola College, January 1992. NTIS PB92-100239.

Rowell, John M. (ed.). WTEC Panel Report on Electronic Applications of Superconductivity in Japan. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, July 1998. NTIS PB98-150139.

Shelton, R.D. and Geoffrey M. Holdridge. "Sleeping Tiger? Japan's Continuing Advances in Science and Technology." Fifth International Conference on Japanese Information in Science, Technology, and Commerce; Library of Congress, Washington, DC; July 31, 1997.

Tannas, Lawrence E. and William E. Glenn (eds.). JTEC Panel Report on Display Technologies in Japan. Baltimore, MD: Japanese Technology Evaluation Center, Loyola College, June 1992. NTIS PB92-100247.

Turin, George (ed.). JTECH Panel Report on Telecommunications Technology in Japan. McLean, VA: SAIC, May 1986. NTIS PB86-202330.

U.S. Department of Commerce. "Techno-Growth House, Tsukuba City" (press release). Washington, DC: Office of International Technology Policy, June 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Government of Japan. "Collaborative Topics (Civil Industrial Technology)" (handout at the Plenary Session of the U.S. - Japan Common Agenda, May 11, 1995 Loy Henderson Conference Room). Washington, DC: Office of Japan Affairs, May 1995.

U.S. Department of Defense. "Clinton Administration Provides Additional $30-40 Million in Plan to Improve Competitiveness of U.S. Electronic Packaging Industries" (press release). Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), March 1994.

Wang, Daniel (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Bioprocess Engineering in Japan. Baltimore, MD: Japanese Technology Evaluation Center, Loyola College, May 1992. NTIS PB92-100213.

Wieder, Harry and William Spicer (eds.). JTECH Panel Report on Opto- and Microelectronics. McLean, VA: SAIC, May 1985. NTIS PB85-242402.

Wiederhold, Gio (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Database Use and Technology in Japan. Baltimore, MD: Japanese Technology Evaluation Center, Loyola College, April 1992. NTIS PB92-100221.

Wilkins, Dick J. (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Advanced Manufacturing Technology for Polymer Composite Structures in Japan. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, April 1994. NTIS PB94-161403.

Wise, Kensall D. (ed.). JTEC Panel Report on Microelectromechanical Systems in Japan. Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, September 1994. NTIS PB95-10244.


All JTEC and WTEC final reports, including several not specifically cited above, are available at url "": along with information on ordering them from the National Technical Information Service.

1 Adapted from "Introduction: Review Of The History, Methodology, And Results Of The WTEC Program," G. Holdridge. (

2 In the early years the program was known by the acronym "JTECH."

3Technologies "France," Agence pour la Diffusion de l'Information Technologique (ADIT). Unique format periodical.

4 NTIS, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is the archival distributor of WTEC reports.

Published: Summer 1998; WTEC Hyper-Librarian