Futures-Diagnosis

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

August 1, 2010 • 12:51 pm 1

WHEN RESEARCH MAKES QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT SENSE

The call this week by Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive, for a sweeping review of the UK’s £4bn-a-year science budget to emphasise projects with the potential to bring short-term industrial benefits, has sparked a fury amongst scientists. (See ‘Common room clashes with boardroom on science budget’, Financial Times. This is precisely what we warned against in the Big Potatoes Manifesto where we argue in principle 4 ‘For Useless Research’ that research remains the bedrock upon which the flow of innovation ultimately depends – a bedrock that is increasingly being questioned and undermined in our short-termist recessionary times.

Lord Browne’s instrumentalism certainly makes re-stressing this point timely and urgent. But the correctness of this fundamental research proposition was forcibly driven home to me during my recent holiday when I had the luxury and sheer delight of reading Manjit Kumar’s tour de force Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality .

This is an absolute must for all those supporters of Big Potatoes. It describes in a remarkably entertaining and accessible fashion, the history of science’s fundamental revolution – quantum physics and mechanics – and the remarkable intellectual battle between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr and other brilliant young scientists who were at the heart of this inspiring story.

More importantly, it reveals some critical insights into the processes and interactions that led to a scientific revolution which gave rise to the innovations we now take for granted: the transistor, the computer, the World Wide Web, the communications revolution.

UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES

Kumar shows that when these great physicists formulated quantum mechanics from 1900 to 1930, they were trying to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, not invent something of great economic importance. Their quest was the sheer beauty of solving some of the most baffling and abstract theoretical questions. The implications of their quest were so far-reaching it impacted almost everything, transforming sister disciplines like chemistry, for example. Today, all chemists and material scientists are trained extensively in quantum mechanics. Biologists like Francis Crick, who won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of DNA, realized many years ago that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics ultimately govern even biology.

Quantum mechanics is necessary to engineer solid-state devices such as transistors, which are the building blocks of electronics and computers. Understanding semiconductors (the building blocks of transistors), or any material cannot be fully grasped with classical physics alone (i.e. physics known before the discoveries of quantum mechanics and relativity). Without quantum mechanics, the “information age” (and much of modern science) would not exist today. The inventions of the computer, the transistor, the World Wide Web and the laser used in fibre optics, (the basis for a global telecommunications industry) owe their existence to quantum mechanics and are worth trillions of dollars.

But to stress this point again, these were unexpected outcomes. The pursuit was science, the quest for purity and the beauty of an unassailable proof – and a closer approximation of reality.

There were three things about the book that really caught my attention, which are so germane to the debate we have started with the Big Potatoes Manifesto:

THE ‘LIMITS’ OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

Kumar relates the story about Max Planck, the father of Quantum who at the age of sixteen enrolled at Munich University to study physics because of his burgeoning desire to understand the working of nature. Planck spent three years at Munich which were to have a big impact on him, mainly because he was advised to give up physics as ‘it is hardly worth studying physics anymore’ because there was nothing important left to discover. Planck went on to become the father of quantum mechanics because, as he discovered, there was certainly a lot more to discover about how the world works. Planck reacted against the narrowness and conservatism of his peers. He defied the attitude, which we seem to accept today, that mankind had somehow reached the limits to knowledge. Instead his openness and willingness to question existing orthodoxy unleashed a scientific revolution, the creation of new knowledge and ultimately, the development of remarkable innovations that changed life in the 20th century.

PEERS COMMITTED TO THE GREATER GOOD

The second striking point Kumar brings out in his examination of the interaction of this extraordinary group of scientists was their willingness to engage each other as professionals in a common quest for truth. First, what united them was a belief in objective truth. Second, that despite different opinions (and often bitterly at odds) they were nevertheless united as pioneers committed to something greater than themselves.

This is illustrated by the example of Max Planck’s endorsement of Einstein for membership of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1913 despite fundamentally disagreeing with his position on light-quanta. Planck’s proposal contained the following paragraph:

‘In sum, it can be said that among the important problems, which are so abundant in modern physics, there is hardly one in which Einstein did not take a position in a remarkable manner. That he might sometimes have overshot the target in his speculations, as for example in his light-quantum hypothesis, should not be counted against him too much. Because without taking a risk from time to time it is impossible, even in the most exact natural sciences, to introduce real innovations’ (p52)

Not only do we see a remarkable willingness to recommend a fellow scientist despite disagreeing with him but the clear connection between disagreements and risk as critical to scientific advance.

What a stark contrast with today where contestation is regarded as a religious infraction against ‘truth’ (as in the ‘Climategate’ debacle) and where risk is consciously prevented by concentration on what we already know or what Lord Browne thinks can be safely developed. Planck reveals what science is really about in contrast with today’s instrumentalism and manufacture.

THE BEAUTY AND NOBILITY OF SCIENCE

The third and final striking point in the book is the nobility of the young scientists involved in this rich period of scientific discovery. For them, as in the example of Ernest Rutherford, exploiting their research for financial gain was seen as a distraction from the really important goal of making a scientific reputation for themselves. Rutherford who had started working on the detection of ‘wireless’ waves (radio waves) chose instead to pursue his academic passion (in contrast to others working in this field like the Italian Guglielmo Marconi who amassed a fortune).

This is not to suggest that exploiting scientific discoveries were wrong or that the people who did were somehow flawed. Far from it. It highlights how the pursuit of science requires those types of individuals who regard it as a noble calling and are given the freedom to pursue it regardless of measurable outcomes (as we would have it in today’s crude management-speak). Kumar reveals how the young men at the centre of the quantum revolution were driven not only by their own self- belief (and no doubt, huge egos), but also by the pursuit of something greater than material wealth – a belief in scientific and human progress.

Of course that is precisely what is being questioned today, which is why the media concentrates its attention on the exploiters of science rather that present-day pioneers. So the founders of Google are feted for creating Google whereas in the past we would be looking for the scientific contribution they might have made towards humanity’s body of knowledge. Today we celebrate exploitation rather than the wonder of science underpinning these achievements.

The question this raises is how we will ever create a culture that places greater value in the pursuit of knowledge rather than on its results?

As the world discovered through Max Planck, everything had not been explained. Kumar’s book is a great reminder that there is no such thing as natural limits and that the worst dimension of a culture of limits is that it constrains the thing we have an abundance – human ingenuity, perseverance and the noble ability to rise above petty egos, jealousies and parochialism to benefit humanity as a whole.

Kumar’s book is definitely Big Potatoes and should be read widely.

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

May 28, 2010 • 9:34 am 1

OECD’S INNOVATION STRATEGY – SOME BIG BUT PITTED POTATOES AT LAST!

The publication of the OECD’s Innovation Strategy this week provides strong support for the Big Potatoes position that future innovation remains fundamental to resolving the global economic crisis we are facing.

The OECD report is to be welcomed despite the confusion at its heart about the role of R&D. As can be seen from the Wordle text cloud below, the report places great emphasis upon research, science and knowledge, longer-term thinking and perspectives and most welcome of all, an insistence on the enduring importance of R&D.

Before dealing with the key confusion at the heart of the report about the role of R&D, it is worth noting a few key findings which make this a refreshing and welcome contribution to the public debate about innovation:

  • Innovation, productivity and Economic growth: The report’s key finding is that future growth must ‘increasingly come from innovation-induced productivity growth. As it states: ‘Innovation – the introduction of a new or significantly improved product, process or method – holds the key to boosting productivity’;
  • Longer-term thinking vs short-term pragmatism: The report argues for increased investment in future long-term sources of growth, such as education, infrastructure and research. It argues this must remain a continuing priority  as countries seek to move beyond the current crisis. It correctly points out that while cutting back public investment in support of innovation may provide short-term fiscal relief, it will hurt long-term growth;  ’a continuing strong baseline of investment is essential if productivity benefits are to accrue and a return to growth is to be achieved’. Moreover, it highlights that while improving the efficiency of government spending will always be necessary, innovation in the delivery of public services is long overdue;
  • Science remains an essential ingredient of innovation: the investment in research and the development of knowledge is suggested as the cornerstone of future innovation;

Science continues to be an essential ingredient of innovation. Modern innovations, from the transistor to the Internet search engine, have drawn on scientific knowledge. Most basic research is still is done in the public sector, predominantly by higher education establishments or by public research institutions. Data on science-patent linkages show that the role of science in innovation continues to increase, and that sectors such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors rely heavily on scientific research, which is becoming increasingly multi-disciplinary in nature.

The role of R&D and open innovation – some confusion

While the report highlights the critical role of R&D it nevertheless makes too many concessions to today’s prejudice that  innovation is really about everything apart from R&D. In the spirit of the cult of innovation without R&D they argue:

‘innovation today encompasses much more than research and development (R&D), although R&D remains vitally important. Innovation rarely occurs in isolation, it is a highly interactive process of collaboration across a growing and diverse network of stakeholders, institutions and users. Moreover, the emergence of new and important players has added to the complexity of the multifaceted international landscape of innovation’.

When was innovation not a ‘highly interactive process of collaboration’, for example? Invention and pure research could be based upon isolated and discrete interactions, but innovation has always been a collaborative endeavour. As evidence for this assertion the report argues that while R&D remains vitally important, ‘many highly innovative firms do not engage in R&D at all. (See their Figure 3 reproduced below – apologies about the size – the blue columns represent firms that innovate without spending on R&D, the grey columns those with in-house R&D).They argue that increasingly, firms in services and manufacturing create value through a wide range of complementary technological and non-technological changes and innovations. The final assertion is that as the complexity and costs of engaging in innovation have increased, so has collaboration. Partnerships and crowdsourcing are on the increase to the extent apparently ‘that firms that collaborate on innovation spend more on innovation than those that do not, an indication that collaboration is more a means to extend the scope of a project or complement firms’ competencies than simply a means to save on costs. In most countries, collaboration with foreign partners is at least as important as domestic co-operation, a sign of the formation of global networks of innovation.

This growth of global innovation networks is certainly a phenomenon that is worth deeper analysis. But the main problem with this argument and the evidence provided is that while many innovative firms may not be spending on R&D they are nevertheless living off the gains of past R&D efforts. The report does not provide a breakdown of what sector these non-R&D spending innovative firms are in. But to some extent that does not really matter. As they say themselves recognise (see the set out quote above) the transistor, the Internet were the result of scientific endeavours, in other words, research efforts, that today underpin so much of the global information economy. Everything innovative forms do today rests upon the legacy of past R&D successes and failures.

By stressing the importance of non-R&D led innovation, the OECD report falls into today’s cult of innovation everywhere but in R&D we criticise so centrally in the Big Potatoes Manifesto. While we certainly need to deepen our understanding of what is happening at the level of innovation networks, crowdsourced collaboration and ‘open-innovation’, it remains vital to insist upon returning R&D to poll position if innovation is to do what the report so correctly highlights – get us out of the current economic mess we’re in.

Filed under: Economics of Innovation, Science and Innovation, ,

April 15, 2010 • 3:49 pm 1

THE GREEN PARTY MANIFESTO: A NO INNOVATION DEAL

I couldn’t help but publish a similar text analysis and cloud of the Green Party’s Manifesto launched today titled (and clearly in competition with the Lib Dems) ‘Fair is worth Fighting For’. The New Green Deal apparently represents harmony for the future. But a quick analysis shows that in 18,867 words the following are not regarded as critical to that future:

  • ‘Innovation’ is not mentioned once;
  • ‘Research & Development’ is never mentioned; ‘research’ as in animal research or environmental protection or sustainable development is mentioned four times;
  • ‘Productivity’ is not mentioned at all, ‘productive’ once, while ‘counterproductive’ is mentioned three times; and,
  • ‘Recession’ is mentioned twice.

Never mind the future where there will be no innovation, no R&D, no productivity, the present recession is hardly recognised. The Green Deal vision is the best articulation of today’s culture of limits which every other political party has copied and make core to their Manifestos. Never mind innovation, or growth, or increasing productivity, the future is ‘local’ – mentioned 74 times. Parochial low expectations ‘fairly’ distributed.

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

April 14, 2010 • 11:11 am 0

THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MANIFESTO: FAIRLY PREDICTABLE

So the Liberal Democrats published their Manifesto today which has no name but has four slogans instead, all prefaced by ‘fair’: taxes, chance, future, deal. Can you guess what it is yet? The text cloud is depressingly similar to the Tories and Labour Party.

The same text analysis is even more depressing. In a manifesto of close to 22,000 words:

  • ‘Innovation’ is mentioned five times;
  • ‘Research & Development’ is mentioned twice while ‘research’ gets a whopping 7 mentions;
  • ‘Productivity’ doesn’t even get a mention, while
  • ‘Recession’ is mentioned only five times.

An interesting observation about the text cloud is the prominence of ‘Liberal’ and ‘Democrats’.  Does this suggest a lack of confidence about the electorates ability to remember who they are?

As mentioned before, I will publish a more substantial analysis of these Manifestos now that they have been published. This will form part of a speech I will be presenting at a public meeting on innovation and the General Election, on Tuesday 27 April, 18:30 at The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG. This has been jointly organised by the authors of BIG POTATOES: The London Manifesto for Innovation and the R&D Society.

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

April 13, 2010 • 3:42 pm 1

THE TORY MANIFESTO: INNOVATION NOT INVITED

The Conservative Party launched their ‘Invitation to join the government of Britain’ Manifesto today. Like Labour, this makes pretty depressing reading for those concerned with the recession, innovation and future funding for research. Surprising that a party that claims to want to end big government (and raise individual choice), ‘government’ is the largest word in the text cloud above. (This text cloud has the same settings as the Labour Party one published on this blog yesterday).

Breaking down the Tory manifesto results in a similar desultory picture. In a Manifesto which is close to 30,000 words:

  • ‘Innovation’ is mentioned only eight times;
  • ‘Research & Development’ is mentioned as a couplet only twice, while ‘Research’ appears seven times;
  • ‘Productivity’ comes up seven times, and
  • ‘Recession’ four times.

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

April 12, 2010 • 10:20 pm 1

THE LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO: A FUTURE WITHOUT INNOVATION

As a quick analysis of the Labour Party’s election Manifesto published today, I’ve generated a word cloud from the text of the Manifesto using Wordle. The cloud gives greater prominence to words that appear most frequently. For those who are interested, I have set this at a cut-off point of 500 words and arranged the results in alphabetical order (from left to right). This is a crude representation of the content of the Manifesto. But it says a great deal.

The Manifesto is approximately 30,000 words.

  • The term ‘innovation’ appears 11 times throughout;
  • ‘Research and Development’ appears once (under the section on Investing in science and research, Section 1 on Growth);
  • ‘Productivity’ appears 3 times – once coupled with ‘innovation’ but only in reference to the effect of ‘stronger employee engagement’ (whatever that may mean);
  • ‘Recession’ appears 12 times (mostly descriptive, with eight references to the current situation);
  • All the above terms thus do not even appear in this cloud (which as stated above has a cut off point of 500 words).

The words a that stand out, particularly ‘new’, ‘people’, ‘work’, ‘care’, ‘britain’ express the vacuous character of the Manifesto and the absence of real content. The crude emphasis upon ‘new’ is a sure sign of the absence of anything new.

I intend doing a similar analysis of all the other Party Manifestos as they are published this week. Once they are all done, I will write a more substantial piece on the content of what they are saying with respect to the recession, innovation and the future of economic growth. This is being done in relation to Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation and will be presented as part of my speech at the ‘Innovation, R&D and the General Election’ public meeting at the Royal Society on the evening of 27 April 2010.

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

March 30, 2010 • 6:33 pm 1

McDONALD’S OPENS HAMBURGER UNIVERSITY IN SHANGHAI

According to Associated Press, McDonald’s inaugurated its first Hamburger University in China this week, not to train a new Chinese generation to flip burgers, but  as business managers to attract and retain ambitious young talent.

This move is easy to understand even though the idea of Chinese people eating McDonald’s is not.

The human resources dimension of innovation is often a forgotten question in the panoply of innovation issues. As China has grown the issue of a trained middle management has become a pressing problem for foreign as well as indigenous companies. China is McDonald’s Inc.’s fastest-growing global market. Its ‘eating out’ market, roughly estimated to be worth $300billion -a-year, is growing at 10 per cent a year which is huge compared to the USA where it is only expanding at 2 to 3 percent per annum.

But the problem they face is holding on to staff who are young, ambitious and are lured by numerous opportunities created by China’s rapid growth.

McDonald’s has more than 60,000 employees in more than 1,100 restaurants in mainland China (after 20 years in the country) and according to The Wall Street Journal, it plans to expand to 2,000 outlets in three to five years, creating 10,000 new jobs. They have invested $250 million in Shanghai’s Hamburger University – the company’s seventh worldwide – which aims to become the ‘Harvard’ of the food industry.

Ronald McDonald will not be teaching flipping burgers and making fries, but management and how to run businesses effectively. There’s nothing particularly new about this, but the fact that McDonald’s is effectively setting up a management institute to solve its immediate and longer-term human resources problem, highlights that they are thinking big and planning for the longer-term. Whatever you might think about their products, and given the short-term character of innovation today, then this is at least worthy of note and recognition.

If innovation is a subject close to your heart, please visit Big Potatoes and get involved.

Filed under: Necessity and Innovation, , ,

January 19, 2010 • 3:40 pm 2

R&D IN 2010: GOING EAST – ITS OFFICIAL

According to the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, the US while leading most areas of science and technology, has experienced a gradual erosion of its position. This is primarily because of the rapidly increasing capabilities among East Asian nations, such as China, and the fruition of the European Union’s efforts to boost its relative competitiveness in R&D, innovation and high-tech.

The data begins to tell a ‘worrisome’ story: Science and technology are no longer the province of developed nations

The report, which a top White House official called the ‘State of the Union for science, engineering, mathematics and technology,’ is required to be submitted to the president and Congress by Jan. 15 of every even numbered year, with the most previous report issued in 2008.

‘Not just about where we stand, it’s about where we are headed’

The report notes some important shifts that indicate that the US’s leading position is now facing serious challenges:

  • 2007 was the year China caught up to the U.S. in the number of researchers and doctoral degrees in natural sciences and engineering;
  • While the U.S. continued to be the largest R&D performing nation – representing one-third of total world investment – Asia has narrowed the gap, largely due to the sustained annual increases by China;
  • China is now the third-largest R&D performer in the world behind the U.S. and Japan and is moving ahead of Germany, France and the UK;
  • For several Asian economies, including South Korea, Taiwan, China and Singapore, increases in R&D investment have been accompanied by notable increases in the rate of growth in the number of researchers;
  • While the U.S. continues to lead the world in research output, China has become the second most prolific contributor to the world’s peer-reviewed science and engineering research articles, which is up from 14th place just 10 years earlier;
  • The U.S. economy had the highest concentration of knowledge and technology intensive (KTI) industries, such as biotech, among major economies; While those industries accounted for 38 percent of the U.S. gross national product (GDP) in 2007, China’s KTI industries created 23 percent of GDP – up from 21 percent in 1992;
  • Productivity growth has been higher in China and other Asian nations than in the developed economies;
  • The U.S., the EU and Japan – with similar shares of high-value patents – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the total world’s patents – Asia’s patent share increased from 1 percent in 1997 to 6 percent in 2006, with South Korea accounting for almost all of that growth;
  • The U.S. share of patent applications in 2008 declined to 51 percent, with gains for second- and third-ranked Japan and the EU;
  • The U.S. has a comparatively higher-than-average share of patents in aerospace and the four health areas of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical equipment and medical electronics, with Asia relatively weaker in those technologies. However, Asia’s patent share has risen over the past decade with pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

SHIFTS IN INVESTMENT?

The report notes that overall spending on R&D in the U.S. was $398 billion in 2008 – up from $373 billion in 2007, or a growth rate of 6.7 percent. Importantly, the business sector accounting for 73 per cent of R&D performance and funding. The academic sector was the second-largest performer of U.S. R&D, with an estimated $51 billion in 2008, or just under 13 percent of the U.S. total.

But the federal government, the second-largest funder of U.S. R&D, provided an estimated $104 billion, or 26 percent, of the U.S. total in 2008. With the financial crisis this will definitely change.

The report confirms what has been argued in this blog for some time: namely, that science and technology activities are shifting toward Asian economies. What we are seeing is a relative decline in the US. But unlike other areas, R&D declines cannot be simply reversed. It is difficult to see how a decline in R&D capacity can be arrested other than a radical revamp which so far, is noticeable by its absence in the US and Europe.

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

November 12, 2009 • 12:39 pm 4

The rise of ‘China R&D plc’ – tomorrow’s global innovator

A new research report from Thomson Reuters titled, CHINA, Research and collaboration in the new geography of science highlights how significant the R&D shift is from West to East.

The report notes the following key trends:

  • China now ranks just behind the USA and Japan in terms of volume it allocates for Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD). China is now ranked above all the individual member states of the EU and is the largest contributor to GERD in non-OECD countries;
  • China’s output increased from just over 20,000 research papers in 1998 to nearly 112,000 in 2008, The nation doubled its output since 2004 alone. China surpassed Japan, the UK and Germany in 2006 and now stands second only to the USA;
  • China is heading to overtake the USA in output within the next decade;
  • China’s research is concentrated in the physical sciences and technology. Materials science, chemistry and physics predominate. Looking toward the future, rapid growth can be seen in agricultural sciences and life sciences fields such as immunology, microbiology, and molecular biology and genetics;
  • The USA stands out in terms of collaboration with China., US-based authors contributed to nearly 9 percent of papers from China-based institutions between 2004 and 2008;
  • But, regional collaboration expansion is notable, especially with Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia.

As the report authors note these trends are of enormous importance:

China’s new areas of investment take it along a different path. What is evident in the Thomson Reuters data is the pattern of rapid growth now in areas where China has had less presence in the past: biological and medical sciences. If growth is as rapid and substantial and the outcomes are as effective as they have been in other fields then the impact of this new research on gene and protein research and process innovation will be profound and pervasive.

China is not hanging about

The report demonstrates that China is not sitting around waiting for initiatives to come from the West or anywhere else. It’s just getting on with it. The research China is undertaking in the physical sciences and technology, with Materials Science, Chemistry, and Physics predominant might be seen as a pattern of the past. After all, these are areas of China’s traditional core strength rooted as they are in an economy which still has a preponderance of heavy industry and primary manufacturing. But the levels of investment in materials and related physical sciences is providing China with a strong innovation platform for modernizing these industries today and more so in the future.

More importantly, looking to the future, the notable growth areas are grouped in areas like Agricultural Sciences (the highest growth area which is understandable for the world’s most populous nation and its future food demands). But new areas are emerging too: life-sciences such as Immunology, Microbiology, and Molecular Biology & Genetics are expanding the most rapidly in terms of research paper output.

Long-term view not short-term pragmatism

The overwhelming picture the report presents is a country that is looking to the long-term. The levels of investment in higher education attests to a strong belief in the need to provide indigenous research capacities. The growth of China’s Higher education system over the past 25 years mentioned in the report is impressive:

  • The current number of students studying in Chinese universities has reached 25 million, a five-fold increase in only nine years;
  • There are more than 1,700 standard institutions of higher education;
  • 6% of them are Project 211 institutions (targeted as top universities), which take on the responsibility of training four-fifths of doctoral students, two-thirds of graduate students, half of students abroad, and one-third of undergraduates;
  • These institutions offer 85% of the State’s key subjects, hold 96% of the State’s key laboratories, and utilize 70% of scientific research funding.

An Asia-Pacific research base?

The report notes that the USA still stands out in terms of frequency of collaboration and co-authorship of research papers, with US-based authors contributing to nearly 9% of papers from China- based institutions between 2004 and 2008. It notes that the roster of contributing nations has remained largely stable between the five-year periods, although Italy and Russia have slipped slightly in recent years, while Sweden and the Netherlands have moved higher. Aside from Japan, Singapore currently occupies the highest rung of regional collaborators.

And it is this expanding regional research base that is really worth noting. As the report notes ‘Asia-Pacific nations are entirely happy to work with another’s (sic) excellent research bases now. They no longer depend on links to traditional G8 partners to help their knowledge development’.

This report highlights that China is rapidly developing a research capacity and a regional collaboration network that means it is developing an innovation capacity for the future which will no longer depend upon technology transfers from the West. It is not a question of quantity. China’s research into new materials will not only solve its problems, but perhaps provide the know-how to innovate for the entire world in this and other spheres.

As research spending declines in the West, this report highlights that we are going to be looking to the East to innovate to solve many of the key problems we will encounter in the Twenty First Century.

Filed under: Innovation, Science and Innovation,

September 30, 2009 • 12:42 pm 2

WATER ON THE MOON – A TONIC FOR INDIAN ASPIRATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF INNOVATION

Luna3 The discovery of significant quantities of water on the surface of the Moon by India’s first unmanned lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 is certainly something to celebrate. This is remarkable for two reasons: first because it has rekindled the dream of establishing a manned Moon base and further exploration deeper into space, particularly to Mars, and second, because it was the result not of a NASA lunar mission, but an Indian one.

Scientists have been baffled for four decades by the fact that rock samples brought back from the moon by the Apollo lunar missions showed evidence of the existence of water on the Moon. They were not sure if this was because there was water on the Moon or that this was the result of contamination from the Earth’s atmosphere. Now there is no question: water ice exists on the Moon – the ‘holy grail for lunar scientists for a very long time’, as  Jim Green, director of the Planetary Science Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington put it. In a statement put out by NASA, he went on to explain how this extraordinary discovery came about:

“This surprising finding has come about through the ingenuity, perseverance and international cooperation between NASA and the India Space Research Organization.”

This cooperation was significant: NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper, or M3, instrument reported the observations. It was carried into space on Oct. 22, 2008, aboard the Indian Space Research Organization’s Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft. Data from the Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer, or VIMS, on NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, and the High-Resolution Infrared Imaging Spectrometer on NASA’s Epoxi spacecraft contributed to confirmation of the finding. The spacecraft imaging spectrometers made it possible to map lunar water more effectively than ever before.

So while NASA still played a significant role in this discovery, the fact that it was an Indian spacecraft is equally significant. India’s lunar programme is a result of the space race emerging between it and China. But whatever the domestic motivations underlying this competition, it highlights how significantly the space exploration field has shifted from West to East. While President Obama contemplates cutting back spending on the US space effort, India and China are surging ahead. We are thus in an era of transition: while a lot of the specialised technological innovation remains the preserve of NASA (given its past investment, innovation and experience), the drive towards pushing the boundaries of exploration are now increasingly coming from the East.

LOOK EAST

This reflects the global shift in economic power from West to East which the current recession has so sharply brought into focus. But more pertinent for the future of innovation, it reveals that this is now accompanied by a significant shift in Eastern aspirations, vision, and a willingness to take risks and push the boundaries of the known further. It suggests that in the same way that the US Space Programme had the unexpected outcome of solving thousands of problems for humanity in the 20th century (see NASA’s spin-off site here), the future of unexpected innovations and problem solving will increasingly come from the East this Century. But far from this representing a problem or being seen as a threat, this should be welcomed, and regarded, as Rob Killick succinctly argues, as an inspiration to us all.

Filed under: Risk and Innovation, Science 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.