Celeste Biever of the New Scientist went to the Biologic Institute in Seattle, Washington and was not welcomed with open arms. Here is her account. If this link does not work or is behind a subscription wall, try the NCSE review. As Ms. Biever notes:
The message is clear. If ID supporters can bolster their case by citing more experimental research, another judge at some future date might conclude that ID does qualify as science, and is therefore a legitimate topic for discussion in American science classrooms. This is precisely the kind of scientific respectability that research at the Biologic Institute is attempting to provide. "We need all the input we can get in the sciences," Weber told me. "What we are doing is necessary to move ID along."
This will be ID's greatest challenge. All along, the founders and promoters of ID have resisted calls to operationalize the science behind it. For evidence of this see the post below about William Dembski. This is a problem that was examined at length by Howard van Till.