The Great Invention Race

Whatever we do, China and India will train more scientists and engineers. But America's still got the best environment for ideas to grow.

BY ADAM SEGAL | JANUARY 27, 2011

To help small businesses, the U.S. government needs what William Miller, former vice president and provost of Stanford University and a venture capitalist, describes as "people and place" policies -- policies that support research, training, and collaboration. The Clinic Program at Harvey Mudd College, for example, involves students in solving real-world problems that have immediate commercial or scientific applications. The locus of innovation isn't in individual entities anymore -- universities, for example, or corporate labs -- but in broader ecosystems that combine these more traditional bodies with smaller networked groups. Another transformative example is in Maine, where the North Star Alliance Initiative -- a partnership involving small companies, the University of Maine, community colleges, and the state government -- is leveraging local research to spur the development of a wide range of other industries, including marine and waterfront infrastructure and ballistic armor.

A more holistic model of education will also be crucial. So far, unfortunately, the dominant U.S. policy response to this perceived global competition has been a single-minded focus on increasing the absolute number of scientists. Instead, the United States must think more broadly about the range of skills a scientist develops. Many future breakthroughs are likely to emerge from multidisciplinary work at the nexus of biology, physics, computer science, and mathematics. As a result, young entrepreneurs must be familiar with several different branches of the sciences, as well as be able to draw insights from design, psychology, economics, and anthropology.

Finally, the United States still retains the immense advantage of its connections with global innovation networks. A vast web of collaborative research, corporate alliances, foundation grants, personal ties, alumni groups, and government-to-government contacts tie the United States to established and emerging centers of scientific excellence. In 2005, for example, scientists in the United States were the most popular partners for Chinese and Japanese scientists in every field -- chemistry, physics, engineering, environmental technology, and biology -- but one: material science. And in that field, they were the second most popular choice for both their Japanese and their Chinese colleagues.

The goal, then, is to make sure the United States does not become complacent about these relationships. As the president noted in his State of the Union address, the United States must improve visa regulations, welcome highly skilled immigrants, and create clear paths to citizenship. Those who excel in school or start their own businesses should be encouraged to stay in the United States. At the same time, the United States will have to do more to reach out into the world. The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health, for example, should develop programs that provide more international experiences for U.S. scientists -- and not just short trips, but extended sojourns in foreign labs.

Inevitably, more science and scientific discovery will occur abroad in the coming years. But as long as the United States maintains its comparative advantage -- an open and flexible culture and a web of institutions, attitudes, and relationships that move ideas from the lab to the marketplace -- there's no reason why the future isn't in its grasp.

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Adam Segal, the Ira A. Lipman senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of Advantage: How American Innovation Can Overcome the Asian Challenge.

ONN

9:38 PM ET

January 27, 2011

Not So Fast

The US always comes out on top, even when the odds seem stacked against it. Be careful what you say, history tells a different story.

 

MALICEIT

11:35 PM ET

January 27, 2011

i would...

...love to hear at least one example on topic.

 

ONEUNSTUCKINTIME

2:18 AM ET

January 28, 2011

Right....

And you must believe in immortality, then? Come now, don't be dim.

 

TECHGUY222

2:50 AM ET

January 28, 2011

Not So Fast

The British Empire always comes out on top, even when the odds seem stacked against it. Be careful what you say, history tells a different story.

 

MICKEY4378

12:55 PM ET

January 28, 2011

An example

MALICEIT: Japan's economic growth in the 1970's and for much of the subsequent decade, perhaps?

 

MCMLXVII

6:54 AM ET

January 28, 2011

Great article, good points

The world is full of smart people with great ideas and the drive to make them realities. But the world is also full of governments and bureaucracies and corruption that create obstacles that discourage innovation.

America has usually done it the right way -- get government out of the way and let entrepreneurs do what they do best. Let's stick to that model. The President's concept of "government-driven innovation" is like a "cart-driven horse". Innovative, yes, but unlikely to get anywhere.

 

KIRBANG

10:36 AM ET

January 28, 2011

innovation

The US prospect for competitiveness will always rely upon its openness and public education system. Poor Performance in the latter is rooted in the economic disparities which exist and are growing. Public school vs private school comparisons reveal performance not based upon the tuition or exclusivity but the equivalence of the economic profile of the parents. The US will falter if we cannot adequately address, by whatever means, this disparity.
,
While the our government is ofter maligned (deservedly in some cases, hyperbolically in others) from all sides it remains one of the largest drivers of innovation. Massive funding for R & D ofter comes from we the people. Maturation and application of technologies are the purview of private industry and their funding initiatives.

I fear for our future not because of out lack of intelligence and creativity but from the unintended consequences of the deterioration of our social fabric.

 

MICKEY4378

12:34 PM ET

January 28, 2011

"While the our government is

"While the our government is ofter maligned (deservedly in some cases, hyperbolically in others) from all sides it remains one of the largest drivers of innovation."

Indeed. Lord knows it isn't perfect, but some people are quick to forget that government funding has resulted in such innovations as the Internet, MRI machines and computers.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

1:15 PM ET

January 28, 2011

Do you know why US unversities are the best?

Because of government contracts. What attracts top scientists are the facilities and potential. The US universities spend far more on research than other countries'. Where do you think the research dollars from top US universities like MIT and Caltech come from? The US government. WIthout the US government funding innovation you are unlikely to have internet today.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

1:11 PM ET

January 28, 2011

The author should of read Rothkopf's article here on FP

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/25/the_myth_of_the_innovation_nation

Rothkopf's article written three days ago directly refutes this author's notion of American exceptionalism.

Other than insecurity I don't understand why authors like this guy even bother to stir up nationalism like Obama did in his SOTU speech. Why do people bother to dissect how other nations are doing in comparison to America? Is that going to create more jobs? India and China are third world countries and because of their population they will be third world nations for a LONG time. Of course these nations cannot compete with the US at this time. The average unemployed American has a much better lifestyle than many working Chinese/Indians.

The reason why you are seeing this type of articles is because Americans are insecure about themselves. The root of this insecurity has nothing to do with China and India but everything to do with what's happening in this country right now. The unemployment rate has almost doubled since the mid 2000s and people are afraid. Writing articles after articles about how China/India's success are hyped is not going to solve any of America's problems.

 

WALTEREGGARS

8:51 PM ET

January 29, 2011

Utility Model Patents Not an Invention Make

After years of IP work I can guarantee that the numbers behind the innovation are illusory. Just as the US "reduced" emissions by lowering emission standards, China's "Utility Model" patents, which can be purchased on Taobao (the China version of eBay) for $200 are junk patents. They are used to get government cheese.

This generation and half of the next need not worry about innovation. We do need to fear our fear of the word "socialism" and government investment in tech and electronics. Our grandchildren will be the losers if we don't realize that we must fight fire with fire and let the government back our industries and employ reciprocity as a trade standard. China is "innovating" by merging, acquiring and buying the dips. Western and US innovation IS China's innovation as we sell off our shares to corporate China. Yet Coca-Cola is not even allowed to buy a juice company in China.

We sell off the fruits of our government research to China and US companies can't make an RMB without a Chinese partner. We sell out our steel industry to dumped steel so we can get 10 pair of tube socks for $9.99. The government needs to get behind US industries and target exports to countries strong on imports.

It is math, not politics. The math from China will always be fuzzy, but the import numbers speak for themselves. We blew our surplus on public and private entitlements and military. Our socialist competitors are not so socialist. The old and disabled fend for themselves, no health care and the surplus goes to subsidize an electronics and automotive industry that will cripple the US the coming generation. So long as political campaigns are paid for by corporations vested in China and the elderly, the entitlement recipients, are the only ones that vote, our current momentum makes us look like a pack of Lemmings headed for a cliff at 2050.

The US does not need innovation so much as renovation. Good foundation, but dilapidated.

 

XIAO-ZI

3:57 PM ET

January 31, 2011

Pity Poor Coca-Cola

It’s really a shame that the world’s largest beverage maker famous for dominating foreign markets by throwing its financial weight around to level local companies would ever lose an opportunity to grow every larger by some mean-spirited regulators.

Fortunately, they provide you one single case to cite verses the multitude of foreign acquisitions declined by US regulators.

Perhaps a more interesting exercise would be to compare the number of Chinese companies acquired by Americans, the value of those holdings in absolute and relative share or domestic markets, and the reverse in terms of Chinese holdings in the US.

You seem to be arguing against yourself here, bemoaning the loss of a single acquisition while complaining about the thousands that succeeded, draining capacity away from the US, so I wonder which way you would have it?

What you might consider at this point is how reversing the process to attract Chinese investment in the US could benefit American workers; to my knowledge, the handful of acquisitions and direct investments have been fairly successful to maintain and provide new jobs, since Chinese generally take the long term view of building business ground-up.

Suggested reading:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/news/international/china_america_full.fortune/index.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22/business/la-fi-china-invest-20110122

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/business/la-fi-china-rv-20110125

 

XIAO-ZI

11:52 AM ET

January 31, 2011

Is the end of the brain drain in sight?

For decades the US has skimmed the cream of the crop of foreign students attending it's universities leveraging their ability for its benefit at the expense of the nations they came from.

However, as opportunities and social benefits decline, an increasing number of these ex-patriots return home or seek opportunities elsewhere and are forming the core of an innovation intelligentsia that will bring their host countries returns.

It therefore strikes me as a bit arrogant to assume these people will not be as effective elsewhere as they might be in the USA, No doubt the US has certain cultural advantages, but as multinational corporations invest in off-shore R+D to capitalize on the opportunities of growth markets, the relative advantages are bound to decline.

As for the assertion of some here that the US corporate structure was uniquely capable to produce excellence I would point to the role of the Military-Industrial complex to finance basic research but also to inhibit it's commercial exploitation; more often than not, "Invented in the USA but perfected and produced elsewhere" has been the rule, and as the returns on this structure have declined, so has the US manufacturing base. In parallel to this, the ability of others to succeed at basic research has gradually leveled that playing field.

Good ideas can come from anywhere. Example: The digital fiber optics that underpin the Internet was invented by a Chinese researcher working in England, something I sure would come as a surprise to many Americans that would assume otherwise. Ironically, what Americans contributed in this case was the materials science and manufacturing expertise the author suggests is in decline, and, apparently, no longer relevant.

We shall see.