Comments on: 21st Century Government: The Next Big Thing http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/21st-century-government-the-next-big-thing/ Progressive approaches to science policy Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:54:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Stephen Ezell http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/21st-century-government-the-next-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-2901 Stephen Ezell Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:56:20 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/21st-century-government-the-next-big-thing/#comment-2901 Jim Turner and Maryann Feldman are absolutely correct that the strength of government services is a very important part of the international competitiveness of private companies. As Greg Tassey, Senior Economist at NIST, writes, "The role of government is now a critical factor in determining which economies win and which lose in the increasingly intense process of creative destruction." U.S. economic growth policy has never been conceptually strong, and is an important reason for the U.S. economy's decline in relative global competitiveness. The next Administration - and Congress - must make articulating an innovation-led economic growth approach a top priority. They will need to increase funding for the major components of U.S. economic growth policy – science, technology, innovation, and diffusion (STID) – which are under-funded and under-researched in the United States. And they would do well to seriously review and emulate some of the best innovation practices introduced in both other counties of the world - and in forward-thinking U.S. states. Jim Turner and Maryann Feldman are absolutely correct that the strength of government services is a very important part of the international competitiveness of private companies. As Greg Tassey, Senior Economist at NIST, writes, “The role of government is now a critical factor in determining which economies win and which lose in the increasingly intense process of creative destruction.” U.S. economic growth policy has never been conceptually strong, and is an important reason for the U.S. economy’s decline in relative global competitiveness.

The next Administration – and Congress – must make articulating an innovation-led economic growth approach a top priority. They will need to increase funding for the major components of U.S. economic growth policy – science, technology, innovation, and diffusion (STID) – which are under-funded and under-researched in the United States. And they would do well to seriously review and emulate some of the best innovation practices introduced in both other counties of the world – and in forward-thinking U.S. states.

]]> By: Tony Boccanfuso http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/21st-century-government-the-next-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-1444 Tony Boccanfuso Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:53:38 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/21st-century-government-the-next-big-thing/#comment-1444 I enjoyed reading your introductory comments and wish to provide my perspectives on industry-university research relations. The US still maintains a strong position in supporting these type of colloborations but we would certainly benefit from a comprehensive review of how we work together and how we measure success. The work of groups like AUTM to revise metrics is certainly timely and welcome by many of us interested in seeing U-I research interactions grow. Incremental change is not the answer and I have learned much by listening to the frustrations expressed by leaders from the academic, industry, non-profit and gov't communities who seek disruptive changes to our U-I research practices. The rest of the world is not standing by and many countries are adopting policies to enhance these colloborations and support the development of strong university research programs. We would be wise to listen to the calls from many of the leading voices in our respective communities who are asking us to do something to bolster our innovation and competitive positions. I enjoyed reading your introductory comments and wish to provide my perspectives on industry-university research relations. The US still maintains a strong position in supporting these type of colloborations but we would certainly benefit from a comprehensive review of how we work together and how we measure success. The work of groups like AUTM to revise metrics is certainly timely and welcome by many of us interested in seeing U-I research interactions grow.

Incremental change is not the answer and I have learned much by listening to the frustrations expressed by leaders from the academic, industry, non-profit and gov’t communities who seek disruptive changes to our U-I research practices.

The rest of the world is not standing by and many countries are adopting policies to enhance these colloborations and support the development of strong university research programs. We would be wise to listen to the calls from many of the leading voices in our respective communities who are asking us to do something to bolster our innovation and competitive positions.

]]>