The modest federal increases for basic research are cheering those worried about the United States' innovation capacity.
The buzzword "competitiveness" is back in the air, with President Bush proposing an American Competitiveness Initiative in his State of the Union address this month, and bipartisan legislation on a parallel track in the U.S. Senate. Both proposals would boost funds for basic research at agencies such as the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation.
The Senate legislation was based on a National Innovation Initiative, produced by a Washington think tank called the Council on Competitiveness, which is led by CEOs, university presidents, and labor leaders. Their initiative was chaired by Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, and Bill Brody, president of Johns Hopkins University.
Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the council, says these federal proposals are a critical step toward responding to foreign competition. She talked with Technology Review about the pressing need to stay competitive through innovation -- and how the private sector can partner with government to improve the nation's "innovation capacity."
Technology Review: "Competitiveness" covers a lot of ground. What's the core issue today?
Deborah Wince-Smith: The core point is that today, America finds itself at a unique and delicate tipping point, characterized by two unprecedented shifts. First, the world is becoming dramatically more interconnected and competitive, and second, innovation itself -- where it comes from and how it creates value -- is changing.
TR: In other words, the United States faces stiff new technology competition?
DWS: We can't compete on low wages or standardized commodity products or services. The only way we can succeed in the future is through innovation -- creating the high-value products and services that people are willing to pay for in global markets. Luckily, America still has the world's strongest innovation "ecosystem." We have the building blocks for innovation -- talent, investment, and infrastructure -- but there are many things we must to do to keep this innovation ecosystem alive and productive. At the same time, countries like China and Korea and Brazil are realizing they also have to invest in this capacity. The rapidity with which other parts of the world are investing in innovation makes this a race that has no beginning and no end.
TR: What should we be worried about?
DWS: Countries around the world are increasing their production of science and engineering students, ramping up R&D spending, building world-class infrastructure, and focusing on niche areas where they can compete. In many respects, this is great -- it increases our global capacity to innovate and to meet the challenges we face in areas like health care and energy. But there is a risk that some of the resources that the United States has come to depend on -- the best and brightest students in the world, corporate R&D investment, new startup companies -- will choose to locate overseas rather than in the United States.
TR: How has the federal government performed?
DWS: Over the past decade or so, we as a nation have tended to under-invest in the physical sciences and engineering -- the very disciplines that underpin the innovations and technological advances from which we benefit today. What we have to read into this going forward is very clear: we need an extremely robust R&D portfolio -- in the physical sciences and engineering and the health sciences. We must, as a nation, invest in the frontiers of science, technology, and engineering. We're talking about the imperative of the federal government getting back as a growth investor.
Guest (Jim)
Bush Adm meddling with science and technology
The entire community of scientists and technologists should be quaking in their boots when the Bush administration says they're going to support them.
Their idea of "science" is only those that support their political agenda and others are treated like heretics.
Guest (Solomon)
Yes no where in the discussion of this innovation eco-system was there a mention of muzzling scientists who put forward data that contradicts their political agenda. I am of course refering to the NASA scientist who was stopped from speaking and presenting on global warming. Then add the evolution and intelligent design debate.
Guest (kitk)
Liberals always whine about budgets. They are convinced that the only real money is government tax money, and that no progress can be made without it. Of course, the US is built out of privately funded and market based progress, and out-performs the rest of the world.
Guest (John Bill)
American Competitive Initiative = Outsourcing
The problem isn't can we compete, but rather why are we giving tax incentives for US corporations to send jobs to China and India. These traitorous CEO's are not only sending the jobs overseas, they are sending them all our know how, thus eliminating any advantages we may of had. Now they can do anything we can, but at $.40 cents an hour. Can we compete? Not with the Bush and the republicans in office.
Guest (Steve)
The current dynamic is that companies are in "bidness" (that's the way Dub and his buddies say it) to return value to their shareholders. They're most definitely NOT "American" - they could not care less about "America", except as it affect their ability to make profits.
OTOH, the current dynamic is that the Federal guvmint has no bidness getting involved with things that reek of communism - like the NIST, or student assistance for higher-level education.
Wake up and smell the coffee, MIT Review! Unless something huge happens - and quickly, the United States is doomed to "2nd World" status.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Owen N. Martinez)
Manufacturing is still a plus!
It is true that manpower is less expensive in the less developed countries, but the trend is toward manufacturing which uses less and less manpower. Economic development is based on exporting goods or services outside of the given country or area, thus increasing net income from outside, circunventing the shifting of income from one part of the local economy to the other.
There are substantial manpower resources in the U.S. and in particular, in my Puerto Rico, that are under-utilized.
Let us look at all the alternatives available, including manufacturing, to raise the economic conditions and standard of living of all our citizens and authorized inmigrants.
Reply
Guest (Joe Blank)
We Can't Count On A Polarized Government
So long as party interests dominate political agendas, don't expect too much meaningful legislation.
Without teamwork across party lines, the U.S. will never take the necessary steps to improve educational programs and incent the corporate risk taking that are both required to foster innovation.
Reply