Innovation series
Brendan Maher
Wednesday, 16 July 2008 12:32 UTC
Are you interested in innovation and how to promote and predict it? Check out Nature’s series of commentaries on the subject and tell us what you think here.
In June, Bill Destler, president of the Rochester Institute of Technology discussed his school’s plan to foster innovation through academic-industrial partnerships.
In July, Lan Xue director of the China Institute for Science and Technology Policy argues that pushes to globalize science must not threaten local innovations in developing countries.
In August, David Guston of Arizona State University discusses the inherrent contradictions in the idea of introducing innovation policies, and offers ways of anticipating change without predicting it.
In September, Fred Gault and Susanne Huttner discuss some of the ways the OECD is looking to apply metrics to measure the impacts of innovation policies.
In October, David Edgerton discusses the misplaced emphasis on “revolutionary” technologies.
In November, Andrew Lawrence and colleagues talk about their experiments with entrepreneurs and how studying them might lead to a better understanding of the innovative brain.
In December, Daniel Sarewitz and Richard Nelson discuss their three rules for when a R&D will help provide a technological solution for a social program.
Also see this news briefing about a technological solution for reducing greenhouse gas concentrations, which Sarewitz and Nelson say fulfils the three rules, here.
Podcast Extra!
David Goldston talks with experts about policies to implement
innovation in this run up to the U.S. presidential election.
Do you think innovation can be directed? Can it be predicted? Encouraged? Measured?
Updated 18 December 2008 15:35 UTC
-
Replies
-
Successful innovation is a co-evolution of industry/academia with society.
However technically feasible, cost-reducing, labor-saving or beautiful a fact or artifact that arises from research (whether in a public or private context, or from a public-private partnership), and however slick and well-intend management, marketing and sales practices are designed, an innovation will only become a successful innovation when the public is willing to adopt it.
The dynamics that govern the interaction between science, industry, society and government are the object of study of Science and Technology Studies (STS), as well as of e.g. Innovation Studies. I hope Nature will ask one (or more) of these experts to reflect upon innovation.
-
I would just like to say that this series is excellent.
Each paper provides depth, insight, and food for thought about real issues.
Please don’t take the apparent dearth of comments here as an indication of the worth. It seems sure that there are many interested readers — or should be!
Kind regards,
Roald Laurenson -
Despite the fact that the linear model of innovation diffusion is being abandoned in favour of a renegotiated social contract based on science-push-market pull models and endogenous capacity develpment ones,the policy context in developing countries assume a sequential linear progression from basic research through applied to developmental and engineering phases prior to commercialization.It is true that subsequent to the globalisation processes in the Indian economy public-funded research in CSIR,the premier agency has been oriented towards a corporate vision.This is however based on an industrial ecology paradigm with the developed countries setting the research agenda through peer pressure and conformism in science.The need for having high impact factor publications in one`s resume as a precondition for getting credits and research grants or funding support from departmental agencies,or for promotion and other incentives,has forced the research community to focus more on self-directed research,driven by the topical areas of interest as internationally sanctioned.The alternate research agenda setting process in government not withstanding scientific circles even in the developing country context frown down upon socially relevant themes,which are not considered scientifically challenging or fashionable,to put it more appropriately.
The IPR issues are not hotly debated by researchers in the National Laboratories ,as the case is abroad,when it comes to collaboration with industry or other departmental funding agencies supporting contract research.The focus on oriented research is yet to evolve to satisfy the need for socio-technical and economically relevant applications of knowledge generated in these institutions,irrespective of the contract nature or otherwise,barring a few exceptions.
Oriented research planning and collaborative research with industry and developmental efforts based on networked alliances within the National Innovation System are themes in the policy arena guiding research governance in the country.
But at the grass root level the thrust is still on academic research aimed at information or knowledge generation on the so-called frontiers of research as internationally mandated by the bandwagon effect ,and less on applications of the same knowledge.Innovation diffusion and application effectiveness calls for enabling environment and infrastructure at the micro-level where programs are being implemented rather than macro level policies and intentions.This is at the crux of the research -application divorce in science in public-funded sector in spite of all the well-meaning macro policy climate.
The papers in the Nature on innovation have brought out some of these very relevant issues related to the micro and macro level policy and execution protocols and thinking,in the developing and developed world ,and in physical and social science areas.
SURESHKUMAR,ADVISOR,POLICY,NIIST,TRRIVANDRUM -
Sign on San Diego has a nice interview with William R. Brody, incoming president of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. In it, he talks a lot about the importance of funding research to promote innovation. Some of our Innovation Series’ authors would probably take issue with such statements. Stay tuned for the next installment on 23 October.
-
I have a question!
Several have pointed out that the current economic downturn could mean cuts to investment in innovation policies. The New York Times today publishes this short piece describind the differences between the U.S. presidential candidates on innovation and technology competitive-ness programs. Unsurprisingly McCain’s is based on tax-relief and Obama’s is based on investment in basic science (I’m not sure why their stances on evolution were brought up if the story promises to be about innovation, but there you go).Who do you think is pushing a better policy for innovation?
Which (if any) is more likely to work during a time of economic crisis?
-
