Improving Science and Technology Innovation in the United States

Posted by: Mark Marich on June 11, 2010 Source: Policy Dialogue on Entrepreneurship

PDE staff were on hand for a forum on improving U.S. science and technology innovation and investment hosted by the Brookings Institution on June 8. Our report of the event follows:

The United States is falling behind.  For the past 50 years, the nation has led the world in science and technology innovation, but now there are signs that the country is slipping. For instance, last year was the first time non-U.S. innovators filed more patents than Americans.  The U.S. is also lagging behind other countries in the percent of GDP spent on research and development. To address these concerns, the Brookings Institution’s inaugural A. Alfred Taubman Forum brought together leaders from government, higher education, and business to discuss the nation’s next steps towards solutions.

After opening remarks by William Antholis and Darrell West of the Brookings Institution, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer discussed the role of technology in government and the necessity of staying with the times. He characterized the difference between consumer culture and government culture as the difference between “there’s an app for that” and “there’s a form for that,” emphasizing the need for a shift in the government to embrace more of a consumer culture mentality in adapting to new technology and ideas.  This need has spurred several government initiatives including the i6 Challenge (a $12 million innovation competition), the 2010 Health 2.0 Developer Challenge (a grassroots, data-powered movement, bringing together health and technology professionals for the sake of innovation), and the NHIN Direct Initiative (to promote simple, effective, secure sharing of health information).

Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer, discussed the Obama administration’s efforts to foster a more open government through accountability, transparency, and public participation.  As part of the push for openness, the administration created an online “dashboard” so citizens could see how their tax dollars were being spent.  They also created data.gov a site that strives to make public data available to everyone.  Kundra noted the benefit of having a platform like data.gov is that it allows others to create content.  He used the example of Apple’s App Store, whose value lies in harnessing the innovative power of the public.

Phil Weiser, Senior Advisor to the Director for Technology and Innovation, echoed the importance of bringing ideas into the government from outside, using the example of how Facebook games harness user participation.  He also highlighted the government’s Smart Grid technology as a measure for energy efficiency.

Ruth Simmons, the President of Brown University, mentioned the slipping competitiveness of the U.S. in science and technology.  She called for an overhaul of engineering curricula across the country, emphasizing the need to get rid of the “weeding-out process” typical of engineering programs and instead instill a culture of nurture.  Additionally, she mentioned that scientists often find themselves hindered or discouraged altogether by policy and bureaucracy.

Eva Feldman, Director of the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute discussed the Foundation’s commitment to seeking out innovative, high-risk, high-reward medical research to fund.  She expressed the value of an entrepreneurial mindset and venture-capital-style investments for medical innovation.

Michael Holston, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Hewlett Packard, explained that innovation brings benefits but also creates privacy issues.  He mentioned a shift towards cloud computing, which will mean more interconnectivity and information sharing.  According to Holston, that sort of environment means that the gap between consumer knowledge and privacy protections needs to be closed.

Richard Howard, Deputy Chief Technologist of NASA, expressed the need for NASA to embrace risk and encourage early-stage innovation.  He said they need to encourage more of a creative culture where failure, rather than being avoided, is accepted as a necessary step towards success.  Further, he highlighted spending for NASA as part of a broader national goal of spending for science and technology innovation.

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, discussed the COMPETES Act (which he originally introduced) and the need for the U.S. to be competitive in science and technology.  He called research and development spending the beginning of a loop because it would lead to innovation, which would lead to revenue, which would allow more R&D spending.  He mentioned the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and the danger of having the same thing happen with technology if appropriate action is not taken.  He also discussed the importance of bringing women and minorities into technical fields, calling this the simplest measure because it involves such a vast, relatively untapped source.  Finally, he said that, in terms of science and technology, the U.S. government needs to stop talking and act.

Judging from the speakers, the government has taken some important strides to embrace entrepreneurial innovation, but there is still plenty of work ahead. For more views presented at the event, access the transcript, here.

[Reported by Yaphi Berhanu; edited by Cristina Fernandez]