Is America's innovation engine running out of steam? And if so, can the government refuel the system by rearranging NIH money or spending more on R and D?
It is easy to feel or believe that innovation is flagging because by calling for a commitment to increase innovation it sounds like we are really doing something. That is, we identify a problem based on what we want to talk about rather than any real assessment of whether the problem is a cause of a great concern.
If we want to define innovation as discovery of new ideas or new concepts then it is absurd to say innovation is flagging. However if we define innovation as combining different technologies to produce new technologies that improve living standards (longer life, more wealth, better health, more convenience, etc) then the answer would be yes. America's approach to innovation is flagging. We are not producing new products using new techniques that democratize new goods and services as fast as we used to.
I won't go into all the factors of why that is so now. Rather, it is important to note that increasing government investment in innovation is not the answer. The idea that pumping more money into science -- even the effort to turn science into a concept -- will lead to new technologies and jobs in the future is wrong and flawed.
Top-down science has rarely played a role in innovation or technology advances. To the extent that it has or does is a result of improvements in technology that have reduced the uncertainty, time and cost associated with evaluating a scientific discovery's contribution.
Further, government entities are horrible at 'planning' innovation. Government can pay to have companies 'stumble upon new technologies' as Matt Ridley puts it. But it is no better at idenitifying, developing and democratizing them as large companies with bigger budgets and more scientists and more often it is worse. Government, like top heavy companies, inhibit risk taking and the rapid exchange of ideas and technologies that drives innovation. All valuable technologies are a combination of a host of other inventions and ideas. Economic growth and progress is a function of the velocity of such exchange. The notion that the in-house scientists at NIH -- while a great group -- can or is as inventive as tens of thousands of consumers, doctors, researchers around the world is laughable.
And yet everything about the new regulatory regime with its bias against allowing people to use new technologies or let industry talk to end users without getting government permission first will strangle innovation.
But don't expect the State of the Union to address that.
It is easy to feel or believe that innovation is flagging because by calling for a commitment to increase innovation it sounds like we are really doing something. That is, we identify a problem based on what we want to talk about rather than any real assessment of whether the problem is a cause of a great concern.
If we want to define innovation as discovery of new ideas or new concepts then it is absurd to say innovation is flagging. However if we define innovation as combining different technologies to produce new technologies that improve living standards (longer life, more wealth, better health, more convenience, etc) then the answer would be yes. America's approach to innovation is flagging. We are not producing new products using new techniques that democratize new goods and services as fast as we used to.
I won't go into all the factors of why that is so now. Rather, it is important to note that increasing government investment in innovation is not the answer. The idea that pumping more money into science -- even the effort to turn science into a concept -- will lead to new technologies and jobs in the future is wrong and flawed.
Top-down science has rarely played a role in innovation or technology advances. To the extent that it has or does is a result of improvements in technology that have reduced the uncertainty, time and cost associated with evaluating a scientific discovery's contribution.
Further, government entities are horrible at 'planning' innovation. Government can pay to have companies 'stumble upon new technologies' as Matt Ridley puts it. But it is no better at idenitifying, developing and democratizing them as large companies with bigger budgets and more scientists and more often it is worse. Government, like top heavy companies, inhibit risk taking and the rapid exchange of ideas and technologies that drives innovation. All valuable technologies are a combination of a host of other inventions and ideas. Economic growth and progress is a function of the velocity of such exchange. The notion that the in-house scientists at NIH -- while a great group -- can or is as inventive as tens of thousands of consumers, doctors, researchers around the world is laughable.
And yet everything about the new regulatory regime with its bias against allowing people to use new technologies or let industry talk to end users without getting government permission first will strangle innovation.
But don't expect the State of the Union to address that.
