Futures-Diagnosis

Diagnosing the future of the Internet and innovation and their social impact

BATTLE OF IDEAS 2010

This weekend sees the return of the excellent ‘Battle Of Ideas‘ annual Festival organised by the Institute of Ideas. If you haven’t got a ticket yet, its possible to purchase one on the day. It will certainly be worthwhile.

TRANSPARENCY AND PRIVACY

I will be speaking tomorrow in  a debate titled  ’Behind closed doors: privacy vs transparency?. As a taster of what I intend to say, here’s a piece I wrote for the Independent Blog, titled, ‘A transparent loss of trust’ which was published yesterday. My key point is that ‘Transparency institutionalises a climate of dishonesty because its starting point is mistrust’.

The transparency debate is becoming a critical one and has implications for the future of R&D and innovation. One only has to examine the call for greater data transparency to see how far the basic confusion between information and knowledge has gone. This has enormous implications for the future development of products and services built upon data and metadata. Understanding what lies behind the increased demand and celebration of transparency and thus, its implications, has never been more important.

Filed under: Trust, , ,

IF SCIENCE IS SO VITAL, WHY ARE SCIENTISTS SO AMBIVALENT ABOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE?

The Science is Vital demonstration and rally last  Saturday, was the first time I have been at  protest event surrounded by young people in white coats enthusiastically cheering about how vital science is to the future. Of course there were a lot of crusty, bespectacled, bearded  ’science’ types, but the presence of so many younger people and their passion was truly exciting.

The rally was very respectable but passionate. Of all the speakers, Colin Blakemore was the most poignant. His message was very simple but vital: society needs to invest in scientific research if it is to shape the unknown future. Unlike many of the other speakers, his defence of spending on science was not solely predicated on the economic benefits it might create for Britain in the future. He argued for the intrinsic value of knowledge and the human potential of solving problems we don’t even know exist yet.

DEFENSIVENESS

This was refreshing and speaks to one of the key assumptions we have incorporated into Big Potatoes: The London manifesto for Innovation. While numerous speakers flattered the British scientific community (for punching above its weight), their arguments, which centred more on the economic value of science, began to worry me. The message promoted is that science is vital not because of its intrinsic value but because of its potential economic consequences.

While economic benefits are important, there is a problem with defending science in this way. What if research does not yield immediate economic returns? What if it takes decades before ‘useless’ research becomes relevant? But most importantly, if this is the criteria by which we judge the legitimacy of science we destroy the scientific method itself: scientific relevance cannot be stipulated at the outset.

The most worrying thing about the current debate is the defensive character of the scientific community. There is a palpable lack of confidence in justifying science in terms of its capacity to develop new knowledge as a noble goal in itself  and as part of human-centred problem solving and the ability to control nature to reduce uncertainty. By constantly slipping back into justifying the pursuit of knowledge in narrow, immediate economic terms, the authority of knowledge is undermined.

A few examples of the problem

There are numerous examples of this problem. Take Europe’s Large Hadron Collider. The project justifies its existence (according to the website) by stressing that one of its byproducts may be new science ‘that can be applied almost immediately’. Does this mean that all that investment would have been wasted if the project does not deliver immediate benefits?

Take another example, the most significant development in UK biomedical science for a generation, the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. The aim of this project is :

‘to understand the basic biology underlying human health, finding ways to prevent and treat the most significant diseases affecting people today.’

While these goals can only be admired, a closer examination of the project reveals an unease about this mission. In their vision and strategy we find the following two points:

  • It will nurture a culture in which clinical and commercial translation is valued as highly as discovery research.
  • It will engage with the public to build strong relationships with local communities.

‘Commercial translation’ – making money – is ‘valued as highly as discovery research’? Can this really be true? Again, what if the research finds no applicability for the next 40 years? Does that mean UKCMRI has failed? And why build strong relationships with local communities? Is there some strong medical or research reason why UKCMRI wants to build strong relationships with the people of Camden? In fact so concerned is UKCMRI with justifying its role they promise to provide ‘community facilities’ as part of their community building exercise. Is UKCMRI going to be the UK’s premier medical research institute or a local community centre where the people of Camden can drop in for a hot cuppa?

The same unease about justifying the goals of a research project can be seen in another grand initiative undertaken by one of the UK’s top research Universities, University College London Research (UCL RESEARCH). In their research GRAND CHALLENGES which are indeed grand (Global Health, Sustainable Cities, Intercultural Interaction and Human Wellbeing) they justify their ‘Expertise’ as follows:

We are world leaders across the breadth of academic disciplines – from neuroscience to urban planning, particle physics to health informatics and environmental law – and we have an ongoing commitment to innovation and relevance.

‘…an ongoing commitment to…relevance’? Albert Einstein would be turning in his grave at the thought of making relevance a commitment to solving grand scientific challenges. As he is famously purported to have said: ‘If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research’. But it seems that today the scientific community is uncomfortable with justifying its existence by insisting that research leads to the production of new knowledge which is different from the transfer or application of existing knowledge.

This reveals that the scientific community is uneasy with unpredictability (which ought to be its war cry). It is the fundamental unpredictability of research that nourishes experimentation, throws up new problems and opens fresh avenues of enquiry. As a result new knowledge creates not simply incremental or relevant or commercial advance but, in many cases, whole new industries.

When the scientific community feel it necessary to justify their existence on the pragmatic grounds of relevance or commercialism they shoot themselves in the foot and undermine science itself. The authority of science and scientific knowledge is undermined which can only result in an even greater demand for certainty in outcomes – an even faster move away from the pursuit of knowledge.

Science is vital, but this debate is even more so.

Filed under: Authority, Innovation, ,

Future City: Is London missing out on the potential of new technologies?

I will be participating in the Story of London Festival tomorrow evening (Thursday 8 October) at the British Library in a debate about London and the future of innovation.

This is very timely. Just today the EU has declared an ‘Innovation emergency’ recognising that Europe is now falling behind globally in the investment in and development of new research and its commercialisation. EU officials have stated their goal is having 3 per cent of EU gross domestic product invested in research and development by 2020 – a target that matches US president Barack Obama’s plans, although Europe has struggled to hit 2 per cent of GDP over the past decade. Even this seems extremely unambitious.

This highlights that there is now a growing understanding of the innovation crisis facing European, indeed Western States. It is this reality and its underlying causes that I intend to raise in tomorrow night’s debate which is based on the theme ‘London, Innovation and the Future’, focusing on London as a site of innovation and the value of innovation to the future of the city.

Distractions, toys vs problem solving

The publicity material for the debate states that ‘historically London has been the site of great innovations, and digital technologies are raising further our ability to innovate’. It asks some serious questions:

  • ‘Are we getting distracted by shiny new technologies and ignoring real innovation?
  • ‘Does London have the ambition and vision to harness such developments?’

As one of the co-authors of Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation, my answers should come as no surprise: definitely ‘yes’ to the first, and definitely ‘NO’ to the second…But for my reasons, you will have to come to the debate.

This should be an interesting evening given the topic and the speakers who are participating.

Fellow speakers:
Dr Hermann Hauser, co-founder, Amadeus Capital Partners
Iain Gray, chief executive, Technology Strategy Board
Adam Hart-Davis, writer and broadcaster
Chair: David Rowan, editor, Wired UK

I look forward to seeing some of you at the British Library at 6.30pm.

Filed under: Innovation, , ,

US CONSUMERS SPENT $2BN MORE ON CRISPS THAN THE FEDERAL GOV’T'S TOTAL INVESTMENT ON ENERGY R&D IN 2009

When we published Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation last year we never anticipated potatoes would ever  feature literally in headlines about the crisis of innovation facing the West. But the innovation debate works in mysterious ways as witnessed in the startling statistic to emerge from the report issued by the National Academies Press Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited; namely, that American consumers spend more on crisps than the Federal Government invests in energy R&D!

As journalist Janet Raloff correctly points out : ‘There’s something wrong, here, when Americans are more willing to empty their wallets for the junk food that will swell their waistlines than for investments in the engine driving the creation of jobs, economic growth and national security’. What she and this illustrates is that America is facing a crisis in innovation. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited, paints a damning picture of the decline of US innovation and graphically demonstrates the depth of the crisis it is now facing.

Before listing some examples of this crisis from the report, it is important to point out that this report was written by the same blue -ribbon panel of US research leaders who published a call to arms in 2005 called Rising Above the Gathering Storm. This Committee is chaired by Norman R Augustine, the retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation and a former Undersecretary of the Army and contains luminaries which include Craig Barrett, retired chairman and CEO of Intel, Richard Levin, president of Yale University and the Frederick William Beinecke Professor of Economics, Lee R Raymond, the retired chairman of the Board and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation and other CEOs and leading academics.

Thus, this is no lightweight report, and nor are its conclusions hysterical. Its conclusions however, could be drawn from the Big Potatoes Manifesto.

Knowledge, technology and unexpected outcomes

The original Gathering Storm competitiveness report published in 2005 focused on the ability of America to compete for jobs in the evolving global economy. The new report attempts to assess what has changed in the years since the first report on American competitiveness was written. It paints a daunting outlook for America if it continues on the ‘perilous path it has been following in recent decades with regard to sustained competitiveness’.

The fundamental point the Gathering Storm report made in 2005 was the connection between knowledge, particularly technology knowledge, productivity, competitiveness and employment.

The report drew upon Nobel Laureate Robert Solow’s economic work that showed, in part, that well over half of the growth in United States output per hour during the first half of the twentieth century could be attributed to advancements in knowledge, particularly technology. This period was, of course, before the technology explosion that has been witnessed in recent decades. The National Academies Gathering Storm committee concluded in 2005 that a primary driver of the future economy and concomitant creation of jobs would be innovation, largely derived from advances in science and engineering. As the report points out,

‘While only four percent of the nation’s work force is composed of scientists and engineers, this group disproportionately creates jobs for the other 96 percent.’

In the new report, the authors draw out the intimate connection between the discovery of new knowledge through science and how this impacts upon the creation of new industries, jobs and thus economic growth.

This connection is at the core of the Big Potatoes Manifesto.

The report is so elegant in its prose that its worth quoting this section at some length:

‘When scientists discovered how to decipher the human genome it opened entire new opportunities in many fields including medicine. Similarly, when scientists and engineers discovered how to increase the capacity of integrated circuits by a factor of one million as they have in the past forty years, it enabled entrepreneurs to replace tape recorders with iPods, maps with GPS, pay phones with cell phones, two-dimensional X-rays with three-dimensional CT scans, paperbacks with electronic books, slide rules with computers, and much, much more. Further, the pace of creation of new knowledge appears by almost all measures to be accelerating. Further, the pace of creation of new knowledge appears by almost all measures to be accelerating.

‘Importantly, leverage is at work here. It is not simply the scientist, engineer and entrepreneur who benefit from progress in the laboratory or design center; it is also the factory worker who builds items such as those cited above, the advertiser who promotes them, the truck driver who delivers them, the salesperson who sells them, and the maintenance person who repairs them—not to mention the benefits realized by the user. Further, each job directly created in the chain of manufacturing activity generates, on average, another 2.5 jobs in such unrelated endeavors as operating restaurants, grocery stores, barber shops, filling stations and banks. Progress enabling products such as those mentioned above in the information fields is built upon the work of a few individuals who decades ago were investigating something called solid state physics—none of whom probably ever thought about CT scans, GPS or iPods—the latter of which can enable one to hold 160,000 books in one’s pocket—any more than one today can predict the breakthroughs a half century hence.’

Five years a go the Gathering Storm report noted four very disturbing trends underpinning America’s position with respect to each of the principal ingredients of innovation and competitiveness—Knowledge Capital, Human Capital and the existence of a creative “Ecosystem”:

  • With regard to Knowledge Capital it was noted that federal government funding of R&D as a fraction of GDP has declined by 60 percent in 40 years;
  • With regard to Human Capital, it was observed that over two-thirds of the engineers who receive PhD’s from United States universities are not United States citizens;
  • With regard to the Creative Ecosystem it was found that United States firms spend over twice as much on litigation as on research;
  • With regard to United States K-12 education,the US on average was a laggard among industrial economies—while costing more per student than any other OECD country.

So what’s changed since The Gathering Storm?

The unanimous view of the committee members participating in the preparation of the latest report is that the US’s outlook has worsened. While progress has been made in certain areas—for example, launching the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy—the rise of national debt (from $8 trillion to $13 trillion) means there is now less latitude to fix the problems. Moreover, in spite of sometimes heroic efforts and occasional very bright spots, the overall public school system—or more accurately 14,000 systems—has shown little sign of improvement, particularly in mathematics and science. Finally, and perhaps most worrying for the Report’s authors, ‘many other nations have been markedly progressing, thereby affecting America’s relative ability to compete effectively for new factories, research laboratories, administrative centers—and jobs’.

Their conclusion?

Innovate, and in order to foster innovation, strengthen the public school system and invest in basic scientific research.

And the need for this is now compelling. Since 2005 the US’s position has deteriorated as the following examples quoted from the report illustrate:

  • Thirty years ago, ten percent of California’s general fund went to higher education and three percent to prisons. Today, nearly eleven percent goes to prisons and eight percent to higher education;
  • China is now second in the world in its publication of biomedical research articles, having recently surpassed Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, Canada and Spain;
  • The United States now ranks 22nd among the world’s nations in the density of broadband Internet penetration and 72nd in the density of mobile telephony subscriptions;
  • In 2009, 51 percent of United States patents were awarded to non-United States companies;
  • The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education;
  • Of Wal-Mart’s 6,000 suppliers, 5,000 are in China;
  • There are sixteen energy companies in the world with larger reserves than the largest United States company;
  • IBM’s once promising PC business is now owned by a Chinese company;
  • The legendary Bell Laboratories is now owned by a French company;

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. (computer manufacturing) employs more people than the worldwide employment of Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Intel and Sony combined;

  • No new nuclear plants and no new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States in a third of a century, a period characterized by intermittent energy-related crises;
  • Only four of the top ten companies receiving United States patents last year were United States companies;
  • The world’s largest airport is now in China;
  • In 2000 the number of foreign students studying the physical sciences and engineering in United States graduate schools for the first time surpassed the number of United States students;
  • Federal funding of research in the physical sciences as a fraction of GDP fell by 54 percent in the 25 years after 1970. The decline in engineering funding was 51 percent;
  • GE has now located the majority of its R&D personnel outside the United States;
  • Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is now lower than when the first personal computer was built in 1975;
  • In the 2009 rankings of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation the U.S. was in sixth place in global innovation-based competitiveness, but ranked 40th in the rate of change over the past decade;
  • China has now replaced the United States as the world’s number one high-technology exporter;
  • Eight of the ten global companies with the largest R&D budgets have established R&D facilities in China, India or both;
  • During a recent period during which two high-rise buildings were constructed in Los Angeles, over 5,000 were built in Shanghai;
  • In a survey of global firms planning to build new R&D facilities, 77 per cent say they will build in China or India;
  • Sixty-nine percent of United States public school students in fifth through eighth grade are taught mathematics by a teacher without a degree or certificate in mathematics;
  • Ninety-three percent of United States public school students in fifth through eighth grade are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the physical sciences;
  • The United States ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering;
  • The United States graduates more visual arts and performing arts majors than engineers;
  • The total annual federal investment in research in mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering is now equal to the increase in United States healthcare costs every nine weeks;
  • In less than 15 years, China has moved from 14th place to second place in published research articles (behind the United States);
  • For the next 5-7 years the United States, due to budget limitations, will only be able to send astronauts to the Space Station by purchasing rides on Russian rockets;
  • China’s Tsinghua and Peking Universities are the two largest suppliers of students who receive PhD’s—in the United States;
  • Since 1995 the United States share of world shipments of photovoltaics has fallen from over 40 percent to well under 10 percent—while the overall market has grown by nearly a factor of one hundred;
  • By 2008, public spending in the United States on energy R&D had declined to less than half what it was three decades ago in real purchasing power. By 2005, private investment had declined to less than one-third of the total;
  • A single Japanese automobile model constitutes about half of the U.S. hybrid market;
  • Japan has 1524 miles of high-speed rail; France has 1163; and China just passed 742 miles. The United States has 225. China has 5612 miles now under construction and one plant produces 200 trains each year capable of operating at 217 mph. The United States has none under construction;
  • Roughly half of America’s outstanding public debt is now foreign owned—with China the largest holder;
  • There are 60 new nuclear power plants currently being built in the world. One of these is in the United States;
  • Between 1996 and 1999, 157 new drugs were approved in the United States. In a corresponding period ten years later the number dropped to 74.57;
  • Youths between the ages of 8 and 18 average seven-and-a-half hours a day in front of video games, television and computers—often multi-tasking;
  • In 2007 China became second only to the United States in the estimated number of people engaged in scientific and engineering research and development;
  • In January 2010, China’s BGI made the biggest purchase of genome sequencing equipment ever;
  • In May 2010, a supercomputer produced in China was ranked the world’s second-fastest;
  • According to the ACT College Readiness report, 78 percent of high school graduates did not meet the readiness benchmark levels for one or more entry-level college courses in mathematics, science, reading and English.

It doesn’t bear thinking about what a similar audit of the UK and many other European countries would reveal. For anyone skeptical about the claims made in the Big Potatoes Manifesto, this report should be a wake-up call. It reveals the consequences of a business culture that has become risk-averse and which is driven by short-term pragmatism and instrumentalism.

Filed under: Innovation, R&D and Innovation, , ,

About futures-diagnosis

Categories

Archive

Follow me on Twitter

My del.icio.us tags

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 755 other followers