RISING TO THE CHALLENGE
U.S. Innovation Policy
for the Global Economy
Comparative National Innovation Policies:
Best Practice for the 21st Century
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy
Policy and Global Affairs
Charles W. Wessner and Alan Wm. Wolff, Editors
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. N01-OD-4-2139, TO #245, between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of Health; Contract/Grant No. DE-PI0000010, TO #15, between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy; Contract/Grant No. SB1341-03-C-0032 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the U.S. Department of Commerce; Contract/Grant No. OFED-858931 between the National Academy of Sciences and Sandia National Laboratories; and Contract/Grant No. NAVYN00014-05-G-0288, DO #2, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Office of Naval Research. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-25551-6
International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-25551-1
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; Internet, http://www.nap.edu/ .
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Comparative National Innovation Policies:
Best Practice for the 21st Century*
Alan Wm. Wolff, Chair
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Michael G. Borrus
Founding General Partner
X/Seed Capital Management
Gail H. Cassell (IOM)
Department of Global Health and Social Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Carl J. Dahlman
Henry R. Luce Associate Professor
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Charles K. Ebinger
Director, Energy Security Initiative
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy
The Brookings Institution
Mary L. Good (NAE), Vice Chair
Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology
Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Economic Development
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Kent H. Hughes
Program on America and the Global Economy
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
* As of June 2012.
For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy is to advise federal, state, and local governments and inform the public about economic and related public policies to promote the creation, diffusion, and application of new scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the U.S. economy and foster economic prosperity for all Americans. The STEP Board and its committees marshal research and the expertise of scholars, industrial managers, investors, and former public officials in a wide range of policy areas that affect the speed and direction of scientific and technological change and their contributions to the growth of the U.S. and global economies. Results are communicated through reports, conferences, workshops, briefings, and electronic media subject to the procedures of the National Academies to ensure their authoritativeness, independence, and objectivity. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below:
Paul L. Joskow, Chair
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Ernst R. Berndt
Louis E. Seley Professor in Applied Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Chief Technology Officer
Alan M. Garber (IOM)
Ralph E. Gomory (NAS/NAE)
Stern School of Business
New York University
Mary L. Good (NAE)
Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology
Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Economic Development
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
William H. Janeway
Warburg Pincus, LLC
Richard K. Lester
Japan Steel Industry Professor
Head, Nuclear Science and Engineering
Founding Director, Industrial Performance Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* As of June 2012.
William F. Meehan III
Lecturer in Strategic Management
Raccoon Partners Lecturer in Management
Graduate School of Business
McKinsey and Co., Inc.
David T. Morgenthaler
Luis M. Proenza
The University of Akron
William J. Raduchel
Opera Software ASA
Kathryn L. Shaw
Ernest C. Arbuckle Professor of Economics
Graduate School of Business
Laura D’Andrea Tyson
S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Harold R. Varian
Alan Wm. Wolff
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Stephen A. Merrill
Paul T. Beaton
McAlister T. Clabaugh
Aqila A. Coulthurst
Charles W. Wessner
David S. Dawson
Senior Program Assistant
David E. Dierksheide
Sujai J. Shivakumar
Senior Program Officer
The ability to combine theory, creativity and engineering was a great achievement of postwar America. For 50 years, economic growth and job creation were propelled by transistors, lasers and other discoveries that came from the willingness to nurture theoretical research in conjunction with applied science and manufacturing skills. But these days, manufacturing is being outsourced, and funding for pure sciences is being curtailed. With Bell Labs and other such idea factories disappearing, and with government research money endangered, what will propel innovation and job creation for the next 50 years?
New York Times, April 8, 20121
The capacity to innovate is fast becoming the most important determinant of economic growth and a nation’s ability to compete and prosper in the 21st century global economy. Innovation encompasses not only research and the creation of new ideas, but the development and effective implementation of the technology into competitive products and services. Governments around the world now recognize that innovation, not just inputs such as capital and labor, is critical to sustaining economic growth, creating good jobs, and fulfilling national needs. Industrialized nations and emerging powers alike have boosted spending on research and development and unveiled comprehensive national strategies to build innovation-led economies. Indeed, just as the global
1 Walter Isaacson writing “Inventing the Future” a review in the New York Times of April 8, 2012, of Jon Gertner’s book The Idea Factory – Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation.
movement toward freer markets in the 1990s became known as the Washington Consensus, the second decade of the 21st century is witnessing the emergence of what may be called the Innovation Consensus.
At the same time that the rest of the world is investing aggressively to advance its innovation capacity, the pillars of America’s innovation system are in peril. America’s public research universities are facing severe financial constraints. High budget deficits and public debt are exerting extraordinary pressure on federal and state lawmakers to cut spending on the very things that made the United States the world’s innovation leader in the post-war era—and that are needed to keep the U.S. economy competitive and productive.
Policymakers are being forced to make painful choices about funding for universities, applied-research programs, help for small business, and new energy technologies. While other nations race to build state-of-the-art transportation systems and ubiquitous high-speed broadband networks, America’s critical infrastructure suffers from a lack of sustained investment needed to match rising world standards. Failure to invest in these areas threatens to inflict long-term damage to America’s innovation ecosystem, and therefore to its economy and security.
Formulating policy to shore up competitiveness is complicated by the fact that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations whose policymakers have traditionally not thought strategically about the composition of the nation’s economy. America’s international competitiveness is based on its capacity to innovate and manufacture new services and high-technology products. While innovation is often thought to result from the operation of a free market, in fact the government plays an instrumental role through its investments in R&D, as well as through policies that foster the commercialization of new ideas.
Since World War II, U.S. science and technology policy has been conducted under the assumption that federally funded basic research will be translated by the private sector into commercial products and new U.S. industries. Indeed, sometimes this transfer to the private sector does occur as expected. In many other cases, such as with nuclear power, computers, semiconductors, and aerospace, early government support and procurement has proved critical to the development of new industries. But the popular mythology that the American economy has thrived for decades under solely a laissez-faire tradition and linear approach to innovation policy tends to discount both the complexity of innovation and the vigorous government role in the development and deployment of new technologies. It is not just policies directly addressing the development and deployment of new technologies but also policies concerning tax, trade, intellectual property, education and training, and immigration, among others that play a role in innovation. In an age where Internet content is increasingly important to the economy, a broad range of skills is needed to secure American capabilities in innovation and competitiveness.
Whatever its source, America’s preeminence no longer can be taken for granted. New players that regard innovation as a matter of strategic importance
are on the rise. Many governments are seeking to adapt the best features of America’s innovation ecosystem, such as close collaboration between universities and business, public and private pools of risk capital, and programs that encourage researchers to start up their own companies.
Most other industrialized nations also are taking strong measures to bolster industries in which they are or wish to be competitive and to gain the benefits of jobs and growth afforded by established or emerging high-tech industries. In this highly competitive environment, the U.S. needs, once again, to devote policy attention and resources to the process of innovation because our future competitiveness as a nation is at stake. This commitment is needed if high paying jobs in sufficient numbers are to be created and if America’s security is to be assured. The U.S. must understand and urgently address the underlying factors that may be weakening industries in which we might well compete.2 The world of innovation is undergoing rapid and significant change, and America must change with it if the nation is to continue to prosper.
But what exactly should a national innovation policy look like and aim to achieve? In its essence, innovation is the alchemy of transforming ideas into new goods, services, and processes. Fortunately, the United States remains very strong in innovation as it is generally referred to—having ideas that have economic value to the inventors and in many cases other social value. Yet to create substantial value for the U.S. economy, policy must seek to achieve more than to encourage discovery and invention. America’s tremendous investments in research and development cannot just be seen as a global public good. The fruits of innovation should translate into new marketable products, companies, industries, and jobs—and better living standards for Americans. There was a time when the proximity of U.S. companies’ production to U.S. researchers was sufficient to give U.S. companies a big advantage that made speed less critical. Modern information and communications technologies have greatly reduced the significance of proximity, and many countries are taking actions to increase the pace of innovation.
Understanding how this process works—and how it can be advanced with public policy—is no simple task. The transformation of ideas into economic value occurs within adaptive networks of people and institutions that interact in complex, often ad-hoc ways. National “innovation ecosystems” typically include universities, private enterprises, public agencies, pools of investors, and national laboratories. Cultural norms and policy frameworks condition and shape interactions within and among these organizations. What’s more, the innovation process can no longer be confined within geographic boundaries. Globalization has ushered in a swiftly evolving new paradigm of
2 Chapter 6 of this report addresses America’s global competitive standing and policy approach in emerging high-technology industries including advanced batteries, next-generation photovoltaics, flexible electronics, and pharmaceutical and bio-medical products.
borderless collaboration among researchers, developers, institutions, and entrepreneurs spanning the world.
Many nations and regions have developed strategies to commercialize and industrialize technological advances. These efforts demand attention from American policymakers. By investing in extensive applied technology programs, for example, Germany and Taiwan have remained successful export manufacturers in advanced industries despite relatively high labor costs. European nations such as Finland and Belgium have demonstrated the power of public-private partnerships. Through its steady investments in education and infrastructure, Singapore is seeking to raise the bar of what it takes to compete in knowledge industries. India is demonstrating how to drive economic growth and exploit its intellectual capital by becoming an integral node in international innovation networks—largely through creating the necessary human resource base and avoiding excessive regulation of this entrepreneurial activity. The sheer ambition and scale of China’s investments in science, technology, and next-generation industries, as well as its less laudable interventions, seek to redraw the map of the global economy.
STATEMENT OF TASK
The global economy is characterized by increasing locational competition to attract the resources necessary to develop leading-edge technologies as drivers of regional and national growth. One means of facilitating such growth and improving national competitiveness is to improve the operation of the national innovation system. This involves national technology development and innovation programs designed to support research on new technologies, enhance the commercial return on national research, and facilitate the production of globally competitive products. The Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) proposes to study selected foreign innovation programs and compare them with major U.S. programs. The analysis, carried out under the direction of an ad hoc Committee, will include a review of the goals, concept, structure, operation, funding levels, and evaluation of foreign programs similar to major U.S. programs, e.g., innovation awards, S&T parks, and consortia. This analysis will focus on key areas of future growth, such as renewable energy, among others, to generate case-specific recommendations where appropriate. The Committee will assess foreign programs using a standard template, convene a series of meetings to gather data from responsible officials and program managers, and encourage a systematic dissemination of information and analysis as a means of better understanding the transition of research into products and of improving the operation of U.S. programs.
The first step toward understanding the implications for public policy of these global trends is to inform ourselves about the new nature of global competition for human and financial capital—not only between and within companies but also between governments.3 To this end, the Committee on Comparative National Innovation Policies (CIP) of the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) convened a series of symposia from 2006 through 2011 examining select innovation policies and programs of different nations and comparing them to those of the United States. These conferences brought together leading government officials, industrialists, academics, researchers, and economists from advanced and emerging nations. The mission was to learn about national strategies designed to meet the new competitive challenges of the 21st century global economy and to identify best practices of private and public programs to strengthen industries, advance new technologies, and meet critical national needs.4 It is important to note that the Committee did not seek to quantify the impact of these national strategies and programs. Nor did it seek to directly compare them with each other, recognizing that these policies and programs combine different levels of resources and organizational forms to seek different sets of outcomes within the contexts of different national innovation systems.
Participants at these conferences addressed topics that included the future of the solar power and advanced battery industries, the issues and opportunities associated with the rise of China and India, successful appliedtechnology and commercialization programs in Europe and Asia, regional innovation cluster strategies, and the role of such early-stage finance programs as the U.S. government’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
The National Research Council has recently conducted a number of studies of U.S. competitiveness. Of particular note are the 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm5 and a follow-up report published in 2010.6 The Gathering Storm reports focused heavily on the inputs into America’s innovation system, such as K-12 science and math instruction, the supply of scientists and engineers, and federal research funding. The report also included a series of recommendations to address these deficiencies.
3 In multinational companies such as IBM, American workers often compete against Indian, Chinese, and other employees that work in their offshore R&D and manufacturing facilities.
4 The National Academies Board on Science, Technology, and Innovation (STEP) has underway a study examining Best Practices in State and Regional Innovation Systems across the United States. The study is reviewing the practices and policies of particular regions as well as the synergies between federal, state, and regional efforts to build high tech clusters of competency and growth.
5 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic future, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.
6 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approach Category 5, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
This report—the product of a series of international conferences, review of the work of the National Academies and similar institutions, and extensive discussion within the Committee on Comparative National Innovation Policies—by contrast, focuses on the outputs of the innovation process. This volume seeks to increase the understanding of the challenges the U.S. faces in converting new ideas into new commercial products, companies, industries, and jobs. While it endorses the findings of the Gathering Storm reports, the emphasis is on policies and programs that can generate more economic value out of the discoveries and inventions that flow from American taxpayers’ substantial investments in research.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
A report of this nature necessarily has limits to its scope. Recognizing this early on, the Committee chose to focus on a limited set of countries and an illustrative set of industries in its review. No single report can cover the full range of issues and technologies on this complex topic.
Choice of Countries and Regions: As noted in the Statement of Task, the purpose of the study is to take a selective review of important (notably China, India, and Germany) as well as noteworthy policy initiatives (e.g., Flanders) to develop national innovation capacity and industrial competitiveness. The intent is not to present an all encompassing overview such as those produced by the OECD but to highlight major developments and national strategies and consider their implications for the United States. The selection of countries was also driven by the willingness of leading policymakers, industrialists, and academics in these countries to engage with the Committee in an in-depth dialogue on these issues.
Choice of Sectors: The Committee also could not look at all sectors in adequate depth, within the necessarily limited scope of the study. It chose to focus on advanced manufacturing because it serves to illustrate a broad set of major challenges facing the U.S. in a highly globally competitive sector. We are aware that the report does not provide an in-depth discussion of very large and important sectors such as bio-medicine, aeronautics, and services, where the U.S. continues to set the technological pace.
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
This volume draws together our findings from this extensive study while also drawing upon existing research concerning the global competitiveness challenge and the policies and programs that drive it. The report is in two parts. Part I describes the role of innovation in addressing the competitiveness challenge and highlights key policies and programs that leading nations and regions are undertaking to address this challenge. Part I concludes with the Committee’s consensus findings and recommendations. Part II of this report provides supporting data, including in-depth case studies of policies and
programs being promulgated in leading nations and regions of the world to accelerate innovation, grow new industries, and foster knowledge-based economic growth. The Overview at the front of this volume draws together the key points.
Part I: The Innovation Challenge
Chapter 1 describes the policies implemented around the world and the rapidly changing competitive landscape, reviewing the challenges they present to America’s technological leadership and our ability to convert research and invention into economic value in the form of new products, companies, industries, and jobs.
Chapter 2 reviews the wide range of innovation policies adopted by other nations and regions, as well as by U.S. states, to attract, retain, and nurture the innovative industries of today and tomorrow. It identifies key trends in foreign programs and contrasts them with the erosion of existing U.S. strengths.
Chapter 3 sets out the Findings of the Committee.
Chapter 4 sets out the Recommendations, the consensus view of the Committee concerning steps the U.S. needs to take to address the challenges and opportunities in research and innovation that the United States faces in the 21st Century.
Part II: Global Innovation Policies
Chapter 5 provides case studies on several major emerging markets (China and India), successful industrializing nations and regions (Singapore and Taiwan), and more mature industrialized nations (Germany, Japan, the Flanders region of Belgium, Finland, and Canada). Despite their wide differences in terms of economic models and levels of development, the striking commonality among the strategies adopted by these nations is that they have adopted national innovation policies that often reflect the influence of U.S. practices, such as greater encouragement for universities to work with industry and incentives to spin off companies.
Chapter 6 of this report addresses America’s global competitive standing and policy approach in emerging high-tech industries. Our case studies are of advanced batteries, next-generation photovoltaic cells, semiconductor manufacturing, and pharmaceutical and bio-medical products. In each of these sectors, the U.S. has been at or near the forefront in terms of innovation and/or the creation of promising start-ups. Translating this advantage into globally competitive industries that create high-paying jobs and drive economic growth, however, is a challenge that the United States must effectively address. The case of semiconductors illustrates that U.S. policy can play a role in restoring and preserving the competitiveness of a critical innovation-intensive industry. The studies of the advanced-batteries and photovoltaic products assess policy
strategies and options for bolstering U.S. competitiveness in these promising industries.
Chapter 7 addresses the policy instruments adopted by countries and regions around the world and across the U.S. to rise to the challenges of building innovation-led economies. One method is through the research parks with universities or national laboratories at their nucleus. The chapter explains how new research parks in the U.S. and abroad are adapting to the demands and opportunities of the 21st century global economy. The second part of this chapter analyzes regional innovation cluster initiatives around the U.S. It also explains the evolving role of the federal government in advancing regional innovation clusters. Case studies include bold and innovative initiatives in upstate New York, southeast Michigan, northern Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, and New Mexico.
Caveat: A few words are in order on the nature of this report. Our purpose in looking at other countries’ innovation systems was to draw some useful lessons for the shaping of U.S. policy. Our intended audience is Congress, Executive Branch agencies, and all those interested in shaping U.S. policies that affect innovation.
Each country examined is markedly different from the United States— for example, Germany is the about the size of one and a half California’s, China and India are at very different stages of development—but each offers insights into the thinking of policymakers as to what they think will be most effective to spur innovation. It is through observation of other’s policies in this globalized world that the Committee members have informed their views as to what adjustments should be considered in U.S. policies.
The challenges and opportunities being created by the worldwide drive for innovation have never been greater in terms of jobs, income distribution, and ultimately competitive strength and the health of the U.S. economy. There is no single program or legislative enactment that will assure complete success; indeed, there is no panacea. But we are able to identify a series of steps necessary to improving the country’s outlook in these regards. It has been said that the right thing to do is often hard but seldom surprising.7 America has great competitive strengths. It is our conviction that if the steps outlined in this report were adopted, our country’s future would indeed be brighter.
The responsibility lies fully with the Committee for the recommendations contained in this report.
This Report would not have been possible without the collaboration with numerous scientific academies, scholars, technology company executives,
7 Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker, April 9, 2012, on Albert Camus, in an essay entitled “Facing History” about in part editorials that Camus wrote for Combat a resistance newsletter.
and public officials at home and abroad. It also depended heavily on the volunteer efforts of CIP Committee members over an extended period of time. In particular, special appreciation is due to Bill Spencer, the chair of the Committee during the initial conferences. Special recognition is due to Pete Engardio, formerly of Businessweek, for his drafting and reportorial skills. His ability to synthesize a vast amount of material was essential for a report of this scope. William Noellert deserves our special thanks for his review of data and economic analysis, as does Thomas Howell for his many substantive contributions. Both were important to the scope and quality of this report. This project would not have occurred nor have been brought to its final report stage without the leadership, knowledge of national and international programs, and organizational skills of Dr. Charles Wessner. The commitment and support of his team at the National Academies, including in particular Dr. Sujai Shivakumar, has been central to the production of this report, as have the efforts of David Dierkshiede, McAlister Clabaugh, and David Dawson for the many international conferences that characterized this effort. This report would also not have been possible without its initiation by the STEP Board and the encouragement given to it by the Board and the National Academies, as well as the prior and ongoing work of the Academies on which this report builds.
The National Academies Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy would like to express its appreciation for the sustained support of the following agencies and departments: Office of Naval Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Cancer Institute, Department of Energy, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Sandia National Laboratories, and National Science Foundation Their contributions of time, expertise, and financial support were essential to the success of the project.
We would also like to express our appreciation for the active participation and contributions of the following companies and organizations, who share a desire to better understand the changing competitive landscape of the 21st Century: Intel Corporation; International Business Machines; Cisco Systems; Volkswagen Group of America; Palo Alto Research Center; M Square, the University of Maryland Research Park; and Association of University Research Parks.
Acknowledgement of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: William Bonvillian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; James Burns, Sanofi/Genzyme; Erica Fuchs, Carnegie Mellon University; Howard Gobstein, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; Manuel Heitor, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; Ron Hira, Rochester Institute of Technology; Krisztina Holly, University of Southern California; Mark Kryder, Carnegie Mellon University; Richard Lester, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Raghunath Mashelkar, National Innovation Council of India; Richard Nelson, Columbia University; Charles Phelps, University of Rochester; Clyde Prestowitz, Jr., Economic Strategy Institute; Mu Rongping, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Denis Simon, Arizona State University; James Stevens, Dow Chemical Company; James Turner, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; and Richard Van Atta, Institute for Defense Analysis.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Christopher Hill, George Mason University, and Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
FUTURE WORK PROGRAM
The international competition in innovation is increasing. Globalization has accelerated the pace of change. There is much to be learned from and about foreign measures and policies that will shape the U.S. economy, the nation’s security and the well-being of the U.S. workforce. Best practices should be considered for adoption. Measures of foreign governments and entities that distort international competition must be examined and responses crafted. There is much to be gained from international cooperation with respect to global challenges in energy, climate, and health, among others. It is the strongest recommendation of the Committee that that an ongoing work program to address these needs and opportunities be put into place.
To this end, the National Academies Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy will establish a new Innovation Policy Forum. The purpose of this forum is to act as a focal point for national and international dialogue on innovation policy. The Forum will bring together representatives from government, industry, national laboratories, research institutes, and universities—foreign and domestic—to exchange views on current challenges and opportunities for U.S. innovation policy and to learn about the goals,