2020 Science » Innovation

Innovation resolutions for 2012

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:34:30 +0000

Note to self: When being swept up in the inevitable innovation frenzies* that 2012 will bring, don’t forget to:

Be aware of where change is needed, and where it is not;
Focus on inventiveness that will foster new solutions to pressing challenges;
Develop the foresight to explore and respond to the consequences of actions arising from new ideas;
Have the humility to ask others for help in areas where expertise runs thin; and
Not discount simple solutions to seemingly complex problems.

Oh, and go easy on the chocolate and booze.

Hope you all have a happy, fulfilled and productively innovative new year!

Andrew

__________________________________________________

*As well as working on and writing about technology innovation as usual, I’m expecting 2012 to be a big year for innovation in the “day job”, including exploring some new approaches to teaching and knowledge translation.

Final program posted for the Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation symposium

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:40:20 +0000

It’s been a while in the making, but with a little under five weeks to go, we have just posted the final program for the 2011 Risk Science Symposium (20-21 Sept). And even though I say so myself, it’s a doozy!

Somehow, we are squeezing 45 invited speakers into the two days, and not any old speakers – the lineup includes John Viera – Ford Motor Co. Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering; Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation; Brian Ivanovic, Senior Vice President of Swiss Re; and Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and Science Advisor to the EPA. And that’s just for starters. We also have experts in innovation, policy, communication end engagement, risk, governance and sustainability. We even have two leading designers from the company IDEO.

It’s going to be quite a party!

For more information on the speakers, check out the symposium website. I’ve posted the program below, because I’m so excited about it, but you can also access it here.

The symposium is being held in Ann Arbor MI between Sept 20-21. There are still a few spaces left, but we are nearing capacity – so if you are thinking of coming, it’s worth registering sooner rather than later.

________________________________________________________

September 20 – The benefits and challenges of technology innovation

7:30 AM Continental Breakfast and Registration

9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions
Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

9:15 AM Opening Address
Martin Philbert, Dean, University of Michigan School of Public Health

9:30 AM Keynote: Innovate or perish – Why innovation and sustainability are critical to economic and social growth in the 21st century.
John Viera, Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co.

10:00 AM Panel: What keeps us awake at night? The risks of getting technology innovation wrong.
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel Members:

John Viera, Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co.
R. Alta Charo, Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law & Bioethics, University of Wisconsin
Greg Bond, Corporate Director of Product Responsibility, Dow Chemical Company
Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER

10:45 AM Break

11:15 AM Panel: Techno-hype or techno-reality – are we on the cusp of a new era in the history of human innovation?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

Mark Banaszak Holl, Associate Vice-President, Office of Vice President for Research, University of Michigan
Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Dean for Entrepreneurial Programs, College of Engineering, University of Michigan
Paula Olsiewski, Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
James Bagian, Director of the Center for Healthcare Engineering and Patient Safety; Professor in the Medical School and the College of Engineering, University of Michigan

12:00 PM Panel: How are new technologies changing the world, and what are some of the key emerging risk-related opportunities and challenges?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

Gil Omenn, Professor of Internal Professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health and Director of the Center for Computational Medicine & Bioinformatics and the Proteomics Alliance for Cancer Research, University of Michigan
James Baker, Ruth Dow Doan Professor of Medicine and Bioengineering, Director of Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine
Ann Marie Sastry, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Mechanical, Biomedical and Materials Science and Engineering, University of Michigan; CEO and Co-Founder of Satki3
Jörg Lahann, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan

12:45 PM Lunch and poster session

2:00 PM Panel: New technologies – new risks? What are the implications of a technologically complex world on the way we think about risks of novel technologies and practices?
Moderator: Shobita Parthasarathy, Associate Professor, Ford School of Public Policy
Panel members:

Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. Science Advisor to the EPA
Mark Banaszak Holl, Associate Vice-President, Office of Vice President for Research, University of Michigan
David Goldston, Director, Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council
Jameson Wetmore, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University

2:45 PM Panel: The risk toolbox: What are we good at, and what do we need to learn to do better?
Moderator: Martin Philbert, Dean, University of Michigan School of Public Health
Panel members:

Adam Finkel, Executive Director, Penn Program on Regulation
Bernard Goldstein, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
Jo Anne Shatkin, CEO, CLF Ventures
Carlos Peña, Director of Emerging Technology Programs in the Office of the Chief Scientist, Office of the Commissioner, FDA

3:30 PM Break

3:45 PM Panel: Innovation, uncertainty and risk: Reflections on the day’s discussions
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

David Bidwell, Research Fellow, University of Michigan, Serving as program manager for the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center (GLISA)
Diana Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Management Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health
Erica Blom, PhD Candidate in Sociology and Public Policy, University of Michigan
Ahleah Rohr, Masters of Public Health student, University of Michigan

4:30 PM Adjourn

6:00 PM Reception and Dinner (University of Michigan Art Museum)
Dinner speaker: Rodrigo Martinez, Life Sciences Chief Strategist, IDEO. Mark Jones, Associate Partner and Service Innovation Lead, IDEO.

9:00 PM End of day

September 21 – Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation – Exploring options

7:00 AM Continental Breakfast

8:00 AM Welcome and introductory remarks

8:15 AM Keynote: Thinking differently about Risk, Innovation and Sustainability
David Zaruk, Risk Governance Analyst, Risk Perception Management

8:45 AM Panel: Ensuring sustainable innovation-based solutions to global issues – how significant are risk and uncertainty, and how should we handle them?
Moderator: Don Scavia, Director, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute
Panel members:

Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
James Wilsdon, Director, Royal Society Science Policy Centre
Greg Bond, Corporate Director of Product Responsibility, Dow Chemical Company
Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. Science Advisor to the EPA

9:30 AM Panel: Thinking differently about risk and sustainability I: How can we manage emerging health risks more proactively?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

Brian Ivanovic, Senior Vice President, Swiss Re
R. Alta Charo, Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law & Bioethics, University of Wisconsin
Larisa Rudenko, Director of Animal Biotechnology, Center for Veterinary Medicine, FDA
Adam Finkel, Executive Director, Penn Program on Regulation

10:15 AM Break

10:30 AM Panel: Thinking differently about risk and sustainability II: Are there new models we should be exploring?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

Bernard Goldstein, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
Dan Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute
Brian Ivanovic, Senior Vice President, Swiss Re
John Viera, Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co
David Zaruk, Risk Governance Analyst, Risk Perception Management

11:15 AM Panel: Ubiquitous Monitoring and Risk: What are the implications for Public Health and Sustainability?
Moderator: John Stone, Co-Director, Center for the Study of Standards in Society, Michigan State University
Panel members:

Lawrence Busch, University Distinguished Professor of Sociology and founder and former
Director of the Center for the Study of Standards in Society at Michigan State University
John Spink,Assistant Professor and Associate Director for the Anti-Counterfeit and
Product Protection Program, Michigan State University
Kyle Powys Whyte, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and affiliated faculty at the Center for the Study of Standards in Society, the Peace and Justice Studies Specialization, and the American Indian Studies Program

12:00 PM Lunch, followed by keynote presentation

12:30 PM Keynote: Technology innovation, risk and policy in the 21st century – a UK perspective.
James Wilsdon, Director, Royal Society Science Policy Centre

1:15 PM: Panel: What are the roots of risk perceptions and what are their implications for forward-thinking approaches to addressing risk?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, Universiry of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Assistant Professor, Health Behavior and Health Education, Research Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine, University of Michigan
Julie Downs, Director of the Center for Risk Perception and Communication. Social and Decision Sciences at
Carnegie Mellon University
Michael Siegrist, Professor for Consumer Behavior Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), ETH Zurich, Switzerland

2:00 PM Panel: Risk, uncertainty and social engagement – how can we do better?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

Britt Erickson, Senior editor in the government and policy group Chemical & Engineering News
Larry Bell, Senior Vice President – Strategic Initiatives, Museum of Science, Boston. Director of the Nanoscale
Informal Science Education Network
Rae Ostman, Director of National Collaborations, Sciencenter, NY
Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER

2:45 PM Moving forward, what are what are the most important next steps to ensuring healthy lives and a growing economy through technology innovation?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

3:15 PM Close of symposium

Technology innovation and human health risk – rethinking the intersection

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:17:33 +0000

As anyone who has followed my work over the past few years will know, I have a deep interest in the potential benefits and risks associated with emerging technologies, and in particular whether we can swing the balance towards benefits by thinking more innovatively about risk and how we address it. So it’s not surprising that I’m extremely excited to be chairing this year’s Risk Science Symposium at the University of Michigan, which is all about how we can think differently about human health risk to support sustainable technology innovation.

The symposium is shaping up to be a unique event, and one that I hope will expose participants to new ideas as well as energizing them to explore new possibilities as they work toward developing responsible and sustainable products based on technology innovations.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be firming up the program in time for early registration, opening on April 4.

Something I’m particularly excited about is that the symposium is turning out to be a great opportunity to explore some different formats for getting people to think differently about common challenges. Rather than use the tried and tested – but often bum-numbingly boring – “talking heads” lecture format, we will be basing most of the proceedings on a series of moderated discussions. These will be designed to engage experts from different perspectives – as well as other participants – in addressing key questions, under the guiding hand of a strong moderator.

It’s a format that one colleague described as “symposium speed-dating” – but I think it’s one that will encourage new ideas and insights, and lead to some extremely engaging exchanges. And in case you think that these will go the way of many panel discussions where participants simply use their time (and that of their fellow-speakers often) as a soap box for their own ideas, think again. We’ll be working hard to ensure that this doesn’t happen. Rather, the panels will be similar to those in the Risk Science Center Unplugged series of discussions – experts from different perspectives engaged in candid, animated yet carefully directed conversation.

And what about the the content?

Day one will lay the groundwork of why technology innovation is important, explore critical areas of technology innovation that are closely intertwined with questions over human health impacts, and begin to unpack why we need to think differently about risk and how we handle it if these technologies are to succeed.

Day two goes on to considering more closely the challenges of taking an integrative approach to addressing potential human health risks associated with technology innovation, and how new thinking on risk can increase the long-term success of technology innovation.

And in between the two days, we have what is shaping up to be a rather unique and definitely no-to-be-missed dinner event. But more on that another time.

Involved in the symposium will be leading experts from industry, government, academia, civil society, the media and other groups – all challenging and inspiring each other and the symposium participants to take a new look at how thinking differently about risk can support sustainable technology innovation.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be posting a series of blogs on the symposium. But in the meantime, you can check out the details on the symposium website, and follow progress on the Risk Science Center Facebook page.

And remember, early registration for the symposium opens April 4 – but be forewarned, space is limited.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

Obama spotlights innovation, but how do we get it right?

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:44:12 +0000

Technology innovation was front and center of Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight. This is extremely good news for those of us who believe more needs to be done, and done better, to ensure science and technology translate into effective solutions that enable economic and social growth. But recognizing the importance of technology innovation is just the start – ensuring the continued success of investment in technology innovation is where the hard work really begins.

What makes this all the harder is that the world we live in now is profoundly different from the world half a century ago when Sputnik stimulated a new era of science and technology innovation. Obama’s “This is our Sputnik moment” is a great rallying cry – and an important one. But over the past half century the dynamic between having a good idea and coming up with a sustainable solution has changed – increasingly complex technologies and a vastly more interconnected world have ensured that.

Which leaves us with the question – if technology innovation is as important as Obama (and many others besides) believes it is, how do we develop the twenty first century understanding, tools and institutions to take full advantage of it?

One thing that is clear is that in connecting innovation to action, we will need new insights and “intelligence” on how to make this connection work in today’s world. These will need to address not only the process of technology innovation, but also how we develop and use it within an increasingly connected society, where more people have greater influence over what works – and what doesn’t – than ever before. This was the crux of a proposal coming out of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Agenda earlier this year, which outlined the need for a new Global Center for Emerging Technologies Intelligence.

But beyond the need for new institutions, there is also the need for far more integrated approaches to building a sustainable future through technology innovation – getting away from the concept of technology innovation as something that is somebody else’s business, and making it everybody’s business. This was a central theme in the World Economic Forum report that Tim Harper of CIENTIFICA Ltd. and I published last week.

Then there’s the complex interplay between the possible good and bad consequences arising from technology innovation. These include potential health and environmental impacts that could arise from new technologies if they are not developed responsibly; the difficulties of ensuring innovation in governance keeps pace with innovation in technology; and the dangers of failing to implement innovations that could make significant improvements to quality of life.

This interplay between possible consequences is made all the more complex by the increasing need to work within a distributed rather than a command and control decision-making hierarchy in today’s society. How can we work together in partnership to ensure the long-term success of innovations where there is considerable uncertainty over the consequences of our actions? This is a challenge that will be explored further in a symposium this coming September on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation.

Obama is right on target in recognizing that technology innovation remains vital to long-term social and economic prosperity. But getting it right? That’s a whole other challenge!

Risk, uncertainty and sustainable innovation: Feedback sought on symposium blurb

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:11:24 +0000

Despite the risk of receiving absolutely no comments (please don’t let me down!), I thought I’d try something new and ask for some feedback on the background blurb for a meeting I’ve been working on.

The meeting is a symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation being organized by the Risk Science center next September. I’ve been struggling with the blurb for this meeting before it goes out – especially striking the balance between something that captures the imagination (and hopefully the attention) of potential speakers, sponsors and attendees, and something that has clarity and substance.

The text below is my latest draft. What I would love to know – today ideally (knowing that you all are desperate for something to break the boredom of a Sunday afternoon) – is whether in your opinion this works, whether it is fluff without substance, whether it is the perfect insomnia cure, or whatever.

Please, please add your comments below – no matter how brief, or how qualified/unqualified you feel you are to say something.

Thank you!

Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation

New perspectives on emerging challenges

As we strive to build a sustainable future, do we need to rethink the relationship between risk, uncertainty and innovation? Today’s accelerating rate of technology innovation promises profound personal, social and economic advances. But in an ever-more complex, interconnected and resource-constrained world, sustainable innovation is jeopardized by emergent risks, together with increasing uncertainty over potential benefits and impacts. And no-where is this more apparent than at the intersection between technology innovation and human health. Drawing on thought-leaders from a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, this symposium provides a unique forum for exploring new ideas on integrative approaches to health risks, uncertainty and innovation, as we look to develop sustainable solutions to global challenges.

Background: As technologies become more sophisticated, pressures on global resources grow and society becomes ever-more interconnected, governments, businesses and citizens are facing increasingly complex challenges as they strive to build an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future. Over the past century, technology innovation has accelerated to the point where scientists and engineers have greater control over materials, organisms and systems – from the atomic scale to the planetary scale – that ever before. This has facilitated a radical shift in global communication, leading to an interconnected society where the flow of information, ideas and influence transcends geographical, economic and social boundaries. At the same time, a growing and increasingly plugged-in world population is placing unprecedented demands on ever-scarcer global resources.

The result is a world where innovation is both a driver of and a potential source of solutions to an increasing number of emerging global challenges.

If we are to adapt and thrive in this changing world, we urgently need to better-enable sustainable innovation – the sustainable development of relevant and responsive new understanding, processes and products that support long-term advances in the quality of human life and the environment. Yet sustainable innovation is inextricably intertwined with risk – particularly the danger of causing harm to human health – and uncertainty over the consequences of our actions.

Technology innovation leads to emergent risks – the likelihood of causing harm in a manner that is not apparent, assessable or manageable based on current approaches to risk assessment and management. The more complex and rapid the innovation, the greater the chances of perceived or actual risks emerging that require new and responsive approaches to minimizing their impact. But as a clear understanding of risks and how to manage them will always lag behind innovation, technology innovation is also dogged by uncertainty – particularly over how a specific course of action may lead to harm, and how this can be avoided.

If innovation is to support sustainable solutions to 21^st century challenges, new and integrative approaches to risk and uncertainty are required. New insight is needed on the interplay between risk, uncertainty and sustainable innovation. Methods of moving risk-based decision-making upstream in the innovation cycle need to be explored. And greater understanding of is needed on enabling collaborative decisions within an increasingly interconnected society in the face of uncertainty.

These are the challenges explored in the 2011 Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation. Drawing on thought-leaders in industry, government, academia, the media and other sectors, the symposium will provide a unique opportunity to explore new ideas on sustainable innovation in the face of growing global challenges, emergent risks to human health, and increasing uncertainty over the potential benefits and consequences of technology innovation.

Can innovation tunneling help organizations survive disruptive change?

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:23:42 +0000

A couple of days ago, @michael_nielsen posted a thoughtful article on his blog tackling rapid and disruptive changes in the scientific publishing business – especially the challenge of overcoming organizational immune systems that actively obstruct change and adaptation. Reading through the piece, I was particularly struck by his conceptualization of the barriers to change faced by established organizations. He used a neat piece of physics-speak – “local optima” – to describe the inevitable isolation businesses face when the price of change simply becomes too great for them to compete with emerging enterprises. But what really intrigued me is how, by turning this analogy on its head and talking about potential wells rather than local optima, a new approach to surviving disruptive change could be conceived – innovation tunneling…

Michael uses a comparison between the New York Times and TechCrunch to explain the problem:

A good example is the popular technology blog TechCrunch, by most measures one of the top 100 blogs in the world. Started by Michael Arrington in 2005, TechCrunch has rapidly grown, and now employs a large staff. Part of the reason it’s grown is because TechCrunch’s reporting is some of the best in the technology industry, comparable to, say, the technology reporting in the New York Times. Yet whereas the New York Times is wilting financially, TechCrunch is thriving, because TechCrunch’s operating costs are far lower, per word, than the New York Times. The result is that not only is the audience for technology news moving away from the technology section of newspapers and toward blogs like TechCrunch, the blogs can undercut the newspaper’s advertising rates. This depresses the price of advertising and causes the advertisers to move away from the newspapers.

Unfortunately for the newspapers, there’s little they can do to make themselves cheaper to run. To see why that is, let’s zoom in on just one aspect of newspapers: photography. If you’ve ever been interviewed for a story in the newspaper, chances are a photographer accompanied the reporter. You get interviewed, the photographer takes some snaps, and the photo may or may not show up in the paper. Between the money paid to the photographer and all the other costs, that photo probably costs the newspaper on the order of a thousand dollars. When TechCrunch or a similar blog needs a photo for a post, they’ll use a stock photo, or ask their subject to send them a snap, or whatever. The average cost is probably tens of dollars. Voila! An order of magnitude or more decrease in costs for the photo.

Here’s the kicker. TechCrunch isn’t being any smarter than the newspapers. It’s not as though no-one at the newspapers ever thought “Hey, why don’t we ask interviewees to send us a polaroid, and save some money?” Newspapers employ photographers for an excellent business reason: good quality photography is a distinguishing feature that can help establish a superior newspaper brand. For a high-end paper, it’s probably historically been worth millions of dollars to get stunning, Pulitzer Prizewinning photography. It makes complete business sense to spend a thousand dollars per photo.

What can you do, as a newspaper editor? You could fire your staff photographers. But if you do that, you’ll destroy the morale not just of the photographers, but of all your staff. You’ll stir up the Unions. You’ll give a competitive advantage to your newspaper competitors. And, at the end of the day, you’ll still be paying far more per word for news than TechCrunch, and the quality of your product will be no more competitive.

The problem is that your newspaper has an organizational architecture which is, to use the physicists’ phrase, a local optimum. Relatively small changes to that architecture – like firing your photographers – don’t make your situation better, they make it worse. So you’re stuck gazing over at TechCrunch, who is at an even better local optimum, a local optimum that could not have existed twenty years ago:

Source: Michael Nielsen

Unfortunately for you, there’s no way you can get to that new optimum without attempting passage through a deep and unfriendly valley. The incremental actions needed to get there would be hell on the newspaper. There’s a good chance they’d lead the Board to fire you.

The result is that the newspapers are locked into producing a product that’s of comparable quality (from an advertiser’s point of view) to the top blogs, but at far greater cost. And yet all their decisions – like the decision to spend a lot on photography – are entirely sensible business decisions. Even if they’re smart and good, they’re caught on the horns of a cruel dilemma.

Now, imagine Michael’s plot above turned upside down. It shows the same dilemma, but now the organizations inhabit wells – analogous to potential wells in physics – and the obstacle to competing in a disruptive market becomes a wall:

: Flipping Michael Nielsen’s local optima model, to get local potential wells

If the established organization doesn’t have the resources and capability to overcome this barrier, it will be outstripped by the new kid on the block. As Michael describes above, small or incremental changes within the organization just push it further up the barrier – things get worse rather than better initially, and the question then becomes how much bad stuff can be sustained until the barrier has been climbed and the new, more competitive state is reached.

That’s assuming that the barrier is impenetrable. But what if it could be penetrated, or tunneled through?

Turning back to physics analogies, classical physics dictates that anything in the left well would need sufficient energy to overcome the barrier in order to get over the barrier and slide into the right well. Not enough energy – no movement. But quantum physics throws a wrench in the classical works. Accepting some rather general hand waving, quantum physics says that something stuck in the left hand well has a small but finite probability of appearing in the right hand well – not by getting over the barrier, but by tunneling through it; an phenomenon know as quantum tunneling. in other words, a classically impenetrable barrier is, in fact, penetrable.

Now back to Michael’s example. Imagine that innovation is the key to overcoming the barrier between the spaces occupied by The New York Times and TechCrunch. The greater an organization’s ability to innovate, the more likely it is to classically hop over the barrier and into the adjacent well. In times of rapid and disruptive change, this will be a tall order for many organizations. But what if something like the innovation equivalent of quantum tunneling can take place – innovation tunneling?

: Innovation tunneling

I’m not sure how far this analogy can and should be pushed, but it’s interesting to play around with. What if innovations exist which enable established organizations to shift to a new mode of operation in the face of disruption that don’t involve taking the classical route? If they do, what would they be like, how could they be spotted and nurtured, and what would an organization look like that was able to take advantage of them?

All this seems rather hypothetical – unless this is an old phenomenon that I have simply given a new name to (highly probable given my naivety here). I’ve no idea whether this distinction between classical and non-classical innovation make sense on the ground. And I haven’t any concrete evidence for innovation tunneling. But it does strike me that if the local optimum/potential well model is right, it’s at least worth thinking about the possibility of innovation tunneling as a way of remaining competitive and riding the wave of disruptive change.

In his essay, Nielsen concludes

“it’s also clear that there are enormous opportunities to innovate, for those willing to master new technologies, and to experiment boldly with new ways of doing things. The result will be a great wave of innovation that changes not just how scientific discoveries are communicated, but also accelerates the way scientific discoveries are made.”

This has, in all honesty, been little more than an imaginative distraction on a slow afternoon, and doesn’t carry much weight intellectually. But what if innovation tunneling is one key to unlocking these opportunities for established organizations? Given the barriers Michael’s “organizational immune systems” present to surviving and adapting in a rapidly changing world, it’s probably worth the trouble to find out.

Presidential Choice: It’s the science, stupid!

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:07:13 +0000

Forget the economy, healthcare, the war in Iraq. For some, the next President of the United States will need to rise to a far higher bar: Is he an e-mail junkie, or still stuck on snail mail?

John McCain’s lack of e-mail-savvy was the butt of recent Obama/Biden campaign ads. “Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn’t” goes the refrain. The subtext: if voted in as leader of the free world, could he actually lead in a technology-dependent society? In contrast, Barack Obama’s online social networking campaign-orchestrated by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes-promises a truly plugged-in president.

Yet strip away the superficiality and there is something missing in both campaigns-where is the science that will support the technology needed to keep America great in the 21st century?

Don’t get me wrong, we desperately need new technologies to address some of the biggest challenges facing America and the world beyond. By the end of the next administration, there will be an estimated seven billion people on the planet, all wanting food, shelter, and water, and most of them striving
for a first-world quality of life. With dwindling natural resources and an environment struggling to absorb humanity’s assaults, old technologies simply won’t hack it in the 21st century. Energy security, curing cancer, quality of life in old age, plentiful clean water, climate change-none of these challenges will be met without developing and using brand new technologies.

But technology innovation is only as good as the fuel that powers it, and that fuel is science. Without strong investment in science, the technology innovation “well” will quite literally dry up-or move elsewhere. In 2005, Representative Frank Wolfe (R-VA) recalled asking a group of scientists how the U.S. is doing in science and innovation. Forty percent said the country was in a “stall,” while nearly two thirds thought the nation was in decline. This is not good news if we are looking to home-grown technologies to make the future a brighter, better place.

I say home-grown because in today’s knowledge economy you can be sure that if there is a gap in the idea market, someone will fill it. The less America invests in the science that will drive technology innovation, the
more other countries will take the initiative.

Thomas Friedman writes in The World is Flat, “Let me put this in very simple language: There are many more Indians and Chinese than there are Americans and a much, much higher percentage of them are studying science, computer science and engineering.” This is good news for global science-based technology innovation as a whole-as long as you don’t mind America becoming Asia’s sidekick.

Fortunately, America still has the edge in some areas of science-driven technology. Advances in U.S.-led fields like nanotechnology and synthetic biology for instance are radically altering how we can use conventional science in unconventional ways.

But the gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world is closing rapidly. Outmoded science policies, inadequate investment in science research and education, and a lack of respect for scientific evidence are all conspiring to weaken America’s scientific leadership. In 2007 the National Academies’ Gathering Storm report concluded that unless the US government takes urgent action “We can expect to loose our privileged position” as world-leaders in science and technology.

This report addressed immediate steps “federal policymakers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.” The resulting 20 recommendations covered increasing the nation’s talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and math education; sustaining and strengthening basic research; making the U.S. the most attractive place in the world to do science; and ensuring America is the premier place in the world to innovate.

Many of the recommendations are still languishing in political limbo.

McCain’s “cyberphobia” and Obama’s tech-savvy make great headlines. But at the end of the day, it is their commitment to strengthening the U.S. science enterprise that matters. And whoever is installed in the Oval Office next January will need to have one of the most sophisticated science policies in recent times in order to underpin the technology-based solutions society so desperately needs.

To be honest, I’m unlikely to loose any sleep over the next president’s e-mail prowess. But I do care that they understand the importance of investing in building a science-savvy society, which can both generate and use new knowledge in the pursuit of a better world.

Technology innovation is essential to America’s success in the 21st century-that’s a given. But before the technology, it’s the science, stupid!