US technology vs. other countries

The United States is particularly advanced in the fields of technology, in large parts from the extensive government agencies committed to scientific and

technological pursuits. NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an agency of the United States government, responsible for the nation‘s public space program. NASA was established on July 29, 1958, by the National Aeronautics and Space Act. In addition to the space program, it is also responsible for long-term civilian and military aerospace research. Since February 2006 NASA‘s self-described mission statement is to ―pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.‖ It has an annual budget of $17.6 billion

DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is an agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military. DARPA has been responsible for funding the development of many technologies which have had a major impact on the world, including computer networking, as well as NLS, which was both the first hypertext system, and an important precursor to the contemporary ubiquitous graphical user interface.

DARPA was established in 1958 (as ARPA) in response to the Soviet launching of Sputnik in 1957, with the mission of keeping U.S. military technology ahead of the nation‘s enemies. DARPA‘s original mission, established in 1958, was to prevent technological surprise like the launch of Sputnik, which signaled that the Soviets had beaten the U.S. into space. The mission statement has evolved over time.

Today, DARPA‘s mission is still to prevent technological surprise to the U.S., but also to create technological surprise for our enemies. DARPA is independent from other more conventional military R&D and reports directly to senior Department of

Defense management. DARPA has around 240 personnel (about 140 technical)

directly managing a $3.2 billion budget. These figures are ―on average‖ since DARPA focuses on short-term (two to four-year) projects run by small, purpose-built teams.

Along with the SBIR program, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) serves as a key resource for the federal government to assist in cases where the potential for successful innovative civilian technology development is great but private procurement of funding is lacking (Stanley and Currens, 2009). Founded in 1989, the ATP provides funds to develop innovative technologies with a focus on small business.

To ensure that private funds are used effectively, ATP funding requires matching resources from the firms themselves. This policy equips the innovator with the opportunity to develop a new technology while instilling a vested personal interest in the responsible use of the federal funds (Wessner, 2009). This integration of public and private capital extends further than individual small companies.

Many emerging technologies rely on the integration of numerous innovative components, which, in some cases, may be in development through numerous firms.

The ATP accounts for this collective pursuit of innovative development by supporting joint ventures and encouraging cooperation among large and small companies. This facilitation of partnerships enables multiple firms to develop innovative projects that might otherwise have been beyond the resources of an individual firm.

Small firms benefit from the institutional resources of large firms, including production capabilities, management expertise and marketing capabilities. Large firms benefit from the niche expertise and unique talents often found in small firms,

enabling the large firms to remain agile, adapting to rapidly changing market competition.

Specific policies targeting innovation are having a positive effect on the innovative output in the U.S., and careful and consistent examination of their implementation is helping to develop an understanding of the innovative process.

These targeted innovation policies serve as the backbone for innovative development in the United States, but the complex nature of the innovative process encompasses a broader scope of initiatives than targeted by innovation policy alone. To varying degrees, all policy exercises an influence on innovation, and is successful to the degree that it complements the innovative capacities of the nation‘s people.

Personal discovery and entrepreneurial spirit are human qualities that must be developed through a culture of exploration fostered in the general public. The wide-reaching nature of American culture is influenced by all policy fields, and as a result, all fields of policy have an impact on innovation. The government has taken steps to address the broad perspective of innovation policy by developing a government office dedicated to Science and Technology policy. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) serves as an advisory resource to the President on all matters relating to science and technology as they affect domestic and international affairs.

Officially established by Congress in 1976 (Public Law 94-282), the OSTP operates within the Executive Office of the President, and it leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets.

Working with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations, the OSTP provides leadership and advice on all matters relating to innovation (OSTP, 2009).

Originally conceived by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the OSTP has grown to serve as a valuable resource in developing a solid understanding of the

nature of science, technology and innovation policy. The Director of the OSTP serves as the Science Advisor to the President. Other policy advisory groups in which the Director of the OSTP participates include the President‘s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the President‘s National Science and

Technology Council (NSTC). The more recent formations of the NSTC and the PCAST indicate federal recognition of the growing importance of innovation policy.

Established by Executive Order in 1993, the NSTC serves as a Cabinet level council with the express purpose of coordinating science, technology and innovation policies across the many departments, agencies and entities comprising the Federal research and development enterprise. A primary objective of the NSTC is the

establishment of clear national goals for Federal science and technology investments in a broad array of areas spanning virtually all the mission areas of the executive branch.

The Council prepares research and development strategies that are coordinated across Federal agencies to form investment packages aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals (NSTC, 2009). Chaired by the President, the NSTC is comprised of the Vice President, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Heads. The NSTC serves as the active arm of the OSTP, implementing the recommendations developed in the OSTP.

Also falling under the OSTP is the President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which serves to provide a clear understanding of the concerns

relating to science, technology and innovation policy. Officially established by Executive Order in 2001, the PCAST provides advice to the office of the president from the perspective of private and academic sectors in technology, identifying scientific research priorities and objectives in math and science education. The 35

member council is comprised of distinguished individuals appointed by the President, drawn from industry, education & research institutions and other non-governmental organizations (PCAST, 2009).

Together, these advisory systems, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, provide the informational framework for effective innovation policy formation at all levels of the government. Unique budget structuring creates an unbiased atmosphere, enabling the OSTP to exert significant influence over other agencies in the formation of public policy. This far-reaching power also conveys substantial responsibility upon committee members.

Although the United States is well situated with agencies and offices dedicated to R&D research, it still commits under 2.7 percent of its GDP in R&D investment, and it ranks in eleventh place in the field of basic research. This commitment to innovation by foreign nations has resulted in a dramatic increase in global competition as evidenced by a number of measuring points. Between 1988 and 2001, the annual production of research papers in Asia increased from 51,800 to 113,600, an

astounding increase of 119 percent. In China alone, annual research paper production rose by 354 percent, from 4,600 to 21,000. Similarly in Europe over that same period, the annual number of research papers increased from 143,900 to 229,200, an increase of 59 percent. The United States, however, increased research paper production by only 13 percent, from 177,700 to 200,900.

Japan and China both rank behind the United States in overall spending, largely due to America‘s large economy, but national spending on R&D in Asia is on a fast rise. China recently surpassed Japan in 2006 with R&D expenditures of $136 billion. Japan, which is now in third place for overall spending, invests $130 billion annually in R&D, but they commit a significant portion of their economy to this

endeavor. R&D spending in Japan, Finland, Iceland, Israel, and Sweden exceeds 3 percent of GDP for each nation, a commitment the United States has been unwilling to meet.

While it is important for all policy shapers to develop a better understanding of innovation dynamics in the globalized market, it is incumbent on these high-level advisors to take proactive steps in fully identifying the changing nature of the innovative process, to provide thorough advice for shaping innovation policy in the future.

The steps taken to develop private-sector innovation awards through the SBIR and ATP, as well as the progressive improvements to the tax code providing R&D investment incentives, are positive steps towards building an innovative future.

However, the changing dynamics of globalization will require sound judgment by national leaders to develop future innovation policies designed with a globalized worldview in mind.

While European commitment to R&D in terms of total dollars does not match the United States, in GDP percentage terms, European nations are strongly committed to scientific and technological pursuits. Similar cultures and a common currency coupled with a close national proximity has facilitated strong partnerships and collaborative efforts between European nations. A good example of this is the development of the Large Hadron Collider, the worlds largest and highest energy particle accelerator, located beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva

Switzerland. These strategic efforts towards technological development has enabled European Nations to remain competitive in the new global environment.

Asia has a strong commitment to R&D and has historically been a leader in robotics as well as high tech manufacturing. R&D efforts in Asia largely centers around commercially applicable efforts where there is a clear economic benefit. The United States on the other hand has often failed to capitalize on innovative efforts.