Let’s just pretend this is a hypothetical scenario: a company dealing in digital media cuts some contracts with content providers allowing it to sell unprotected copyrighted material and agrees to keep its customers accountable…
It's surprising how often some things get reinvented. It's even more surprising how determined people are to
use unlikely systems/services for social networking. Do you remember (online) daily-updated mailing-lists?
Fixing email is a long-term quest. Maybe even longer than the Jackson's Director cut of LOTR. With the future of Bloomba somewhat of a mystery, I'm getting my head around some new ideas in messaging. Of course, as we've learned in email over the last few years (Bloomba, MailBlocks, Matador, Affini), every attempt at creating a better email product has to start at stopping spam. Having recently sounded off on the community approach to spam, best exemplified by Affini (www.affini.com), I found this interesting little program the other day -- has anyone here of POPFile (popfile.sourceforge.net)?
Thanks to radio commercials utilizing music and production from Scott G (The G-Man), electro-pop music is playing to radio audiences who are not usually exposed to this style.
Ein Experiment: Beim Thema Globalisierung wird es schwierig. So richtig unangenehm. Haben wir uns überhaupt bereits die wichtigsten Fragen gestellt?
*Translation on request... :-)
Few doubt linkage between basic research and technological innovation. Historically the US government has funded the majority of basic research done in the US. However, government spending on basic research as a percentage of GDP has been declining for the last 20 years. What is the future of innovation in America?
We're all familiar with the term research and development (R&D;). It’s a phrase measuring the amount of money a corporation invests in gathering new knowledge or creating new products. Investors use a corporation’s expenditures on R&D; as one factor in determining its potential for growth and competitiveness. But let's dig a little deeper into the macroeconomic view of R&D.;
First, let’s focus on the research component of R&D.; Research can be divided into two sub-components: basic and applied. The National Science Foundation (NSF) defines basic research as “systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind”. Applied research focuses on acquiring knowledge related to solving a particular problem or meeting a particular need.
Why do we care about research? Well, basic research breeds innovation. This is evidenced throught the increase in patents filed over the last 5 years and the corresponding rise in these patents’ citations to scientific literature. More and more patents rely on core aspects of basic research.
Universities responsible for basic research are acting as publicly subsidized incubators. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has spun off 4,000 companies with 1.1 million employees and annual revenues of $232 billion, according to the Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America (ASTRA).
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
If basic research breeds innovation then innovation breeds economic growth. Several studies have indicated that 45-75% of all economic growth is directly attributed to innovation. It manifests itself in high-tech job creation, new infrastructure technologies like the telecom/internet industry and technology enabled, ‘new’, business models.
So what is the primary funding source of basic research in the US? Well, in 2003 the US government was responsible for funding 85% of all basic research (60% Federal, 25% State/Local) most of which was performed in universities and national laboratories. Private industry funds the remaining 15%.
The trend in government subsidized basic research is disturbing:
Federal funding for basic research grew moderately in the 1990s.
Funding for the Physical Sciences and Engineering has flattened since 1980.
Federal Funding for Physical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering are now .16% of GDP compared to .25% in 1980
The US government’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposed record funding for federal development due to large increases in defense and homeland security expenditures. Because of severe restraints on discretionary spending, most federal basic research and even favored R&D; agencies of past years, like the National Institutes of Health, will see increases barely above the expected rate of inflation of 1.3 percent.
Where are we spending our basic research money? Six departments and agencies are expected to account for 93% of research obligations in FY 2004: the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, NASA, NSF, and the Department of Agriculture. The life sciences are expected to account for over one-half of the total research funding (54.3%). Engineering is projected to receive the next highest amount (16.9%), followed by physical sciences (10.0%), environmental sciences (7.0%), mathematics and computer sciences (5.2%), social sciences (2.2%), and psychology (1.9%), with "other sciences" receiving 2.5%.
The US economy has been milking the research done years ago in telecommunications, aerospace and electronics. The US has prospered due in part to the invention of the transistor over 45 years ago. Since 1980 the US government has under funded basic research
The basic research spending trends must be reversed. It is time for the US government to manage its deficits and invest in the future of innovation.
US executives were recently surveyed by BusinessWeek and asked: “what are the largest threats to innovation in the US economy?” The executives cited reduced R&D; spending (46%), the public education system (45%) and corporate bureaucracy (36%). The online survey was conducted by BusinessWeek Research Services.
...are we the spied upon or the spy? Probably a little of both don't you think? Interesting thought regarding the allocation of basic research funds. Perhaps it's buried in the CIA's budget after all.
The federal & state governments can structure research grants so that only basic research activities are performed. For example take a look at this grant for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
The question is will the institutions bite at basic research grants when the real payoff is in applied?
The problem with the shift from basic to applied research is two fold. First, public funding is a zero sum game. Dollars aren't ear-marked for one type of research or another except in some odd cases. Increasing the size of the allocation is supportable, but won't necessarily change the dynamic.
Second, it is the universities and researchers who are gravitating toward applied research. In fact I would argue as the pot increases, the tendency toward applied research would increase by bringing more actors into the mix.
Jeff, if you use liceensing patentabe output metric then I agree completely; Institutional Resarch (R) has produced more 'output' than input at the margin over the last 10 years. This supports John's point about the shift away from basic research to applied research at the university level...the return on investment of applied R is greater than basic R in the short term with less risk.
However, I don't agree with John that this shift from basic to applied R is the primary problem. I believe that it underscores even more the need for government funding of basic R.
The firm will not make sufficient investment in Basic R to spawn innovation, its goal is to maximize return/minimize costs in the short run. Less than 5% of private R&D; is dedicated to Basic R.
The university (acting like a firm competing intra university) seeks to balance returns on applied R to offset infrastructure costs and costs associated with low return basic R. So less basic R is being performed compared to 20 years ago (John's point).
It is the government's responsibility (duty perhaps) to fund projects that have long term macroeconomic impact and it is there responsibility to direct this funding towards grants committed to Basic R.
Qualifier Chuck: in terms of licensing revenues yes;
"Revenues from licensing increased steadily in universities. as an example at the University of California system of nine campuses and threee national labs the licensing income increased forty times from 1981 to 2000 form arond $2M to around $80M (see table 1). however net returns from technology have become flat...............p25
Jeff...10x return for today's R&D; buck compared to 1980? Why do you think that's true? R&D; productivity is a highly debated issue. How do you measure it?
The pharma sector has seen real R&D; productivity declines.
Real dollars expenditures on R&D; have increased as jch correctly points out, though they have fallen as a percentage of GDP. A problem the author doesn't mention is that the emphasis on funding basic research is eroding in favor of applied research. Driving this change are a perverse incentive created by the Bayh-Dole Act (1984) allowing universities and federally funded research institutes to retain patent rights. This has resulted in research universities putting more emphasis on near term pay-off from applied research, patents and tech transfer that can be monetized rather quickly. Basic research, the foundation of significant innovation, rarely has immediate payoffs. This change in emphasis is more detrimental than any percentage decrease in Federal funding.
Most of the federal R&D; funding originated with DOD set asides for advance warfare capabilities, and subsequently all R&D; initiatives were driven by these considerations. Once military supremacy was achieved inthe late 80s-early-90s that funding as somewhat leveled off in real dollars. But, as comprehensive as the author's piece goes on the subject matter we get 10 times as much for our R&D; dollars as we did 20 years ago. It is unfortunate that we are creating an economy where we need less educated people.........
AP WorldStream via COMTEX
‘Dear Santa, please give me my presents without DRM.’
We're all familiar with the term research and development (R&D;). It’s a phrase measuring the amount of money a corporation invests in gathering new knowledge or creating new products. Investors use a corporation’s expenditures on R&D; as one factor in determining its potential for growth and competitiveness. But let's dig a little deeper into the macroeconomic view of R&D.;
E-NEWSLETTER SERIES