Does America need the competitive fear of another Sputnik to drive another age of innovation? Did you know that the “dirty little secret” to Silicon Valley’s success was massive federal funding? Can this country compete with China if higher education is in crisis? Watch my provocative interview with University of Washington history professor Margaret O’Mara (author of the recent Foreign Policy article, Don’t Try This at Home) to find the answers.
This is a very interesting interview that gives you some perspective on how creativity and innovation are encouraged and nurtured over time. It really does take a village to establish a supportive environment for something like the Silicon Valley; it doesn’t just happen by an “invisible hand”. Somehow this message is not coming across American culture though. Americans are known for their lack of historical perspective, and the prevailing myth is still that of Horatio Alger’s: you alone are responsible for your own success (or failure), and government should stay out of the business of business.
According to a recent report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee
[http://www.aau.edu/assets/0/76/400/4544/07043e259cc743768bb63142edbb813e.pdf]
the Federal government provided 57% of all funding for basic research in the United States in 2008, and the study concluded that the funding should be doubled to be sufficient. This is easy to understand when you think about the risk associated with basic research – businesses cannot afford to invest as much in research that may not produce commercially viable results.
Margaret O’Mara’s interview prompted me to think about Richard Florida’s book “The Rise of the Creative Class”. (Florida, Richard, The RIse of the Creative Class, 2002). Florida examines what it takes for one region to draw a creative work force versus another that loses its most creative, dynamic population. He posits that geography is more important than ever in attracting highly educated and highly skilled people to “places that are centers of creativity and also where they like to live”, such as Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area or Austin. These places are “multidimensional and diverse” and they also offer lots of choice in recreation and other activities. To top it off these locations are known for high quality universities and hight tech jobs.
The United States needs to continue funding university research and partner with businesses in creative ways to be able to compete with other rising (technology) powers.
Hanson, that was a great topic to help focus your interview, which lead to Tarja’s insight above.
I’m still on the fence as far as federal stimulus is concerned to create innovation and economic growth – and not just because of the current political climate.
O’Mara answers attempts to answer you question of how to spark innovation in the 21st century, by finding a parallel “Sputnik” moment. The United States can’t wait for another innovative technology race to propel our economy, and national interests, forward. Which begs the question of how the U.S.workforce can be motivated to innovate and win this century’s “intellectual property” race.
I believe programs like the MCDM are the right “seed capital” model for the government to promote as nodes for innovation and job growth. By combining student life experience, cutting-edge curriculum, and private sector mentorship and participation, the MCDM advances an intellectual-economic model to emulate.
I thought Scott’s postscript argued best for more MCDM’s: create environments where people take risks, learn from them, share those lessons, and persist until they are successful. Isn’t that MCDM?
Hanson, I truly enjoyed watching your interview with Professor Margret O’Mara on Media Space and was intrigued by the topic it addressed. We really are truly lucky to have the UW; a highly-regarded yet still affordable educational institution in this region. Undeniably, Seattle’s entrepreneurial culture and hi-tech environment serve as an attraction for many scholars with diverse dreams and ideas. But I am not at all stunned by the finding that creativity has been on the decline among students in the US, what with kids spending more and more time watching TV, playing games and surfing the net! TTCT- Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking scores (which were measured first in 1966 and then updated 5 times after that in 1974, 1984, 1990, 1998 and 2008) showed a noticeable decline of creativity in all of its forms among US students starting 1990. Frankly, I find this quite ironic, given that in the 90s the US witnessed the rise of the dot-com bubble; a time when corporations, investors and individuals fostered creative ideas and out-of-the box thinking. I am optimistic however, that social media may be the key to ignite creativity in our society again, even if this means filtering through the “published then filtered” content out there.
You mentioned the importance of Sputnik and wondered if we will have a motivator with that kind of urgency again. Coincidentally, Energy Secretary and Nobel laureate Steven Chu says we happen to already have it: the rise of China and the need for green technology …
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101130/sc_afp/unclimatewarminguschina
It really seems as though Seattle and UW are positioned to drive innovation together through the partnerships that have developed between the university and the various technological organizations that populate the area. After moving here from Denver, which tried to become a technology hub itself until the dot-coms crashed, it was striking to me how many more early adaptors of technology there are here in Washington as opposed to a place like Colorado. UW may not be considered one of the elite schools because of its public status, but I do think it is thought of as a leader in the technological and medical world as evidenced by it being rated 23rd among world universities this year in the Times Higher Education rankings.
With so many early adaptors in the region, Seattle businesses may be motivated to push the envelope when it comes to developing new, innovative technologies – even at the risk of failure.
Great interview, Hanson!
As Margaret points our, one of the elements that catalyzed the early success of Silicon Valley was the presence of Stanford University.
Great researchers in a collaborative environment create game changing innovations. Other elements that clearly need to be present as we look to the future here here in Seattle are a strong venture capital community and a way of commercializing the discoveries.
I may be a little biased, but it seems to me Seattle already has a strong VC community and the UW has a powerful innovation launchpad in the Center for Commercialization led by veteran high tech executive Linden Rhoads.
http://depts.washington.edu/uwc4c/aboutus/au_who_we_are.php
Working together, we just might create the next Sputnik in global health or green technology here in Seattle.
I enjoyed this interview. I think that the interviewee gave us a more historical point of view of the current crisis difficulties and the Silicon Valley creation process. I did not know before that what it happened in Silicon Valley decades ago it was a mix of luckiness, government support and special good conditions. That is difficult to copy again. I liked that she thinks that other cities or countries should not copy but explore different ways of create another Silicon Valley. I think she made the point. It is true that cold war conditions are very difficult to repeat again but we can adapt them to current situation or to specific environments as Seattle for example. Even if we do not have the same government investment than decades ago right now, we do have a good university system in terms of quality in research and student talent. I think that we also have a “cool place” to make people to move here. It is a relax city, with lots of cultural activities and the lifestyle of the west coast. About the third of the key factors that made Sillicon Valley growth, the big amount of investment, we are struggling with that point right now. But as Brian Sollom points out above, master’s model as the MCDM that it is self-sustain are good examples of how to deal with the lack of investment. We can create other innovative way of move on and continue being successful. On the other hand, having Microsoft as the big company of the city could be an advantage in terms of funding university and investing in small startups.
Hanson,
That was a great interview. You and your guest, Professor O’Mara, turned a seemingly dull topic into a very thought provoking exchange on the rise and fall of America and the economic consequenc of political and economic choices over the past decade. She has made a strong case for the role of government in both creating a Silicon Valley and fuelling it with talent (through educuation) and incentives. It may take other countries like China, India or the middle east decades to manifest their own Silicon Valley, but I am confident they will. Sustained prioritization of education and the focus of government resources, particularly in China, will see their institutions rise in prowess and appeal. Silicon Valley cannot be isolated from the wider decay of the American economy and Professor O’Mara has pointed to funding crisis and new challenges in securing talent. I appreciate her view of the criticality of responsible government. The country needs an urgent shift in budgetary allocation (obviously away from defense spending) into educaiton, research and development, and domestic infrastructure.
Hanson,
It was great watching the UW TV show for the first time live. I liked it so much that I had to watched on Comcast last week. You are a great communicator and I am very proud to be your apprentice
You mentioned that you had 90,000 viewers! Great! How about bringing some international guests and have some partnerships with foreign universities. Brazil could be a good start. Let’s go global!
Hanson, congratulations on your great interview. I really felt like I was in a U.S. history class taught by Professor Margaret O’Mara. It was interesting to learn that most major investments in universities were made because of the 1957 Sputnik launching. That single event was the one that devastated a sense of comfort in America’s scientific competence. It not only created the image of an enemy capable of launching bombs of mass destruction, but also a general fear that America had failed to foster the sciences and build advanced technologies, with potentially horrifying consequences.
President Eisenhower’s “Classic American Federalism” was responsible for creating the cold war military industrial complex by investing money in universities and business. It was exciting to learn that the University of Washington was one of the “Cold War Universities” among others prestigious institutions.
In regards to Silicon Valley, emerging economies rely on “traditional” exports. Peru is one great example of this kind of economy. It is first in the world’s silver production and third in copper, and now China is planning future mining investment of almost $20 billion in the next couple of years. Government officials within emerging economies know that this kind of traditional export is going to end sooner than later. They need to create more “non-traditional” exports to be able to compete in the future. As an example Chile is creating its first “Silicon Valley” in northern Santiago de Chile…now they need to start its own homegrown talent and start investing in their universities.
It was great to hear that Seattle still has competitive advantage. The northwest is a great place to be at this time; we have some of the brightest minds in the world living around here. They are shaping the world with new products and services. We don’t need another Sputnik to generate more economic stimulus. We need first class education programs like the MCDM that sparks the innovation in our mindset to be able to compete with the rest of the world.
I read a blog post today in the New York Times’ blog The New Old Age
[http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/some-retirees-opting-for-campus-life/?ref=health] that describes an innovation developing on university campuses: retirement communities. Approximately 50 campus retirement communities have sprouted up around the country. Communities on the Penn State and Duke campuses are featured in the Times piece. Seniors cite proximity to educational and cultural opportunities as their top reason for choosing these retirement communities over traditional ones centered around golf courses or beaches. Other criteria they look for include interaction between residents and students and healthcare options such as assisted living and nursing care. Schools offer a “financial commitment to these communities by leasing land and sharing facilities,” but residents make big commitments with their wallets, too. Entry fees typically run well into six figures and monthly fees can run $2,400 – $4,000. (Granted, those fees make it prohibitive for many seniors.)
I don’t think this is the “moment of crisis” mentioned in Hanson’s interview with Margaret O’Mara, but it’s an example of universities being responsive and innovative. Not only do residents and students benefit, but colleges gain another revenue stream to fund academic initiatives. Adults over 80 years old are the fastest growing segment of the population. By responding to seniors’ need and desire for a stimulating retirement setting, campuses can encourage innovation and creativity among all of their residents. So add “retirement community” to the list of roles that universities can play in the 21st century.
In the summer of 2008 I was working on a documentary about sustainable city development around the world. I spent two weeks in China interviewing architects and designers about that countries efforts to build large “eco-cities” like the Shanghai region’s Dongtan Eco-City project.–(http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html)
I was reminded of these large scale, top down projects under command and control regimes while watching the interview above. O’Mara’s research covers the intersection between education, money, creativity and entrepreneurship in the development of Silicon Valley.
One of the questions facing eco-city developers in China was the question of how to manufacture a viable urban living experiment that is a hybrid of population density planning and traditional urban growth patterns by design–not by evolution. O’Mara’s study research about the origins of the Silicon Valley phenomenon has drawn interest from Russia and China–both command and control economies–who are trying to replicate the Silicon Valley experience in the same way that the Chinese are trying to build Eco-cities like Dongtan.
In her interview, O’Mara makes a case that the experience of Silicon Valley was a unique mix between cold war government contracting, higher education and private venture capital. This combination was not necessarily bureaucratically intentional but was fostered by government interest and policy after the seeds were already sown by fortune and contingency.
Nearly five years after its grand unveiling, the Dongtan project is effectively dead (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/dongtan-ecocity-modern-shangri-la.php) and there has been considerable hand wringing over its demise. The hope for ecological salvation through central planning might not be entirely dead (at least in China) but the recognition that manufacturing demographic/economic entities might not be possible by government initiative alone. In Hanson’s words, places like Silicon Valley might be more accidental than intentional.