What do you think about the Presidential candidates’ platforms on US innovation & technological competiveness?

[nerdgirl 0]

Following up on my post on physical infrastructure & the political candidates (“What do you think about the Presidential candidate’s platforms (or lack thereof) on US infrastructure?”), another critical policy area, im-ever-ho, is US innovation and technological competiveness.

Where do the candidates stand and what do they propose, if anything?

Sen McCain on Technology emphasizes tax breaks.

Sen McCain’s platform on “Climate Change” also includes advocacy that “Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.”

In addition to private and public innovation as a core piece of Sen Obama's policy proposals on “ New Energy for America Plan,” technology & innovation has been a core piece of his platform since he announced his candidacy. “Technology and Innovation for a New Generation.”

In reading through both Sen Obama’s is a lot more detailed and with a lot more specific numbers/figures. I credit that as more of an artifact the way Republican campaigns are run than anything else.

Side-by-side comparison of Sen Obama and Sen McCain’s proposals from non-partisan American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that on two big issues they selected: the R&D Tax Credit & H1-B Immigration Reform, both Sen Obama & Sen McCain propose the former be made permanent and the latter increased in number. Microsoft’s Bill Gates wants the number of H1-B visas increased too. (Those are not necessarily the ones I would have selected, and I disagree with both candidates and Gates on H1-B visas – it’s a band-aid on the declining US S&T investment and participation.)

Do you want to know more on what the candidates’ proposed policies are on technology and innovation and by what means they plan to accomplish them … or is US innovation & technological competiveness just not something that you really care about when it comes to Presidential politics?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

One viewpoint on the issue was expressed in Tom Friedman’s Sunday Op-Ed column from the NY Times:

“Georgia on My Mind”

Excerpts:

“On Wednesday, The New York Times on the Web flashed a headline that caught my eye: ‘U.S. to Unveil $1 Billion Aid Package to Repair Georgia.’ Wow, I thought. That’s great: $1 billion to fix Georgia’s roads and schools. But as I read on, I quickly realized that I had the wrong Georgia. We’re going to spend $1 billion to fix the Georgia between Russia and Turkey, not the one between South Carolina and Florida.

..

“That focus needs to be on strengthening our capacity for innovation — our most important competitive advantage. If we can’t remain the most innovative country in the world, we are not going to have $1 billion to toss at either the country Georgia or the state of Georgia.

...

“While we still have enormous innovative energy bubbling up from the American people, it is not being supported and nurtured as needed in today’s supercompetitive world. Right now, we feel like a country in a very slow decline — in infrastructure, basic research and education — just slow enough to lull us into thinking that we have all the time and money to play around in Tbilisi, Georgia, more than Atlanta, Georgia.

“As Chuck Vest, the former president of M.I.T., said to me: ‘Both candidates have spoken a lot about ‘change,’ but in most areas of need, innovation is the only mechanism that can actually change things in substantive ways. The irony of ignoring innovation as a theme for our times is that the U.S. is still the most innovative nation on the planet,’ Vest added. ‘But we can only maintain that lead if we invest in the people, the research that enable it and produce a policy environment in which it can thrive rather than being squelched. Our strong science and technology base built by past investments, our free market economy built on a base of democracy and a diverse population are unmatched to date; but we are taking it for granted.’

“A developed country’s competitiveness now comes primarily from its capacity to innovate — the ability to create the new products and services that people want, adds Curtis Carlson, chief executive of SRI International, a Silicon Valley research company. As such, ‘innovation is now the only path to growth, prosperity, environmental sustainability and national security for America.’. [Who recognized that back in 1944? Vannevar Bush. – nerdgirl] ‘America is still the best place for innovation,’ said Carlson. ‘These issues must be at the top of the national agenda because they determine our ability to provide health care, clean energy and economic opportunity for our citizens.’

...

“Alas, though, the Republicans just had a convention where abortion got vastly more attention than innovation, calls to buttress Tbilisi, Georgia, swamped any for Atlanta, Georgia, and ‘drill, baby, drill’ was chanted instead of ‘innovate, baby, innovate.’

“If we were serious about weakening both Putin and Putinism, we would be investing $1 billion in Georgia Tech to invent alternatives to oil — the high price of which is the only reason the Kremlin is strong enough today to bully its neighbors and its own people.”

Friedman, imo, correctly recogizes the multi-fold connections between US technological competiveness & foreign policy. The former is a key component that empowers the US to implement and execute the latter.

As is usually the case, listing the problems are often easy ... the bigger challenge is figuring out the solution(s). How should the US go about maintaining technological competiveness and fostering innovation?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jclalor 12]

seeing how McCain picked a VP that beleives the earth is only 6000 years old and all true believers are going to vanish any time now, I think I will go with Obama to handle tech and science.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

What do you think about the Presidential candidates’ platforms on US innovation & technological competiveness?

I think one-third of the electorate doesn't even understand the title of the thread, and 80% of the electorate doesn't care about those issues. Sad commentary, perhaps, but there you have it.

[warpedskydiver 0]

The tech sector is so vitally important that this is an absolute must for our country to survive.

However Visa's in their current state are not exactly in our own best interest.

An example of such is that we may have people who take the visa, do some work on a classified project, and yet may return home and use the knowledge gained against us, or just tell the media everything.

Whether we may be impacted by such acts financially, scientifically, or militarily makes no difference, the outcome is just as damaging

[alw 0]

As a director of projects for one the the worlds largest technology companies I feel qualified to opine. The first point to make is that this is a complex issue which is why not many are interested. Most would just like to turn the switch and go, which is fine cause I don't particularly care to do many things myself and so do not have a great deal of interest in those things (growing vegetables for instance).

Multinational corporations use the visa statues to concentrate talent. Most of these corporations do the heavy lifting for routine R&D and they pay for it with their profits. We, for instance, spent more last year on R&D than the GDP of many small nations. You could argue that that is a bad thing but there will be millions of people that are better of because we do.

Pure research is usually done by a partnership between business and government. My experience (30 years plus) suggests to me that when it is left to business to direct the effort more people benefit.

Here in lies the difference. It isn't the specific legislation, but the general approach that makes the difference. Lets say that you are a dangerously over-educated (reformed?) mad-scientist and want to develop a death ray for leukemia. If you can convince your boss and he can get funding you set to start R&D on it. But, the best minds are residing in Kobatnu. Either you go there or they come here and away you go.

Now let's say that you're on the select senate subcommitee on Leukemia Zappers. You write a bill, it gets kicked around in committee for a while, tabled over the break, discussed some more, kicked up to the committee and by a stroke of luck gets out of committee for a vote. If it passes the House takes a look at it, tacks it on to a housing bill which gets vetoed etc. etc. but eventually you get it passed. the money goes to the most worthy recipient, which is perhaps not the best recipient and they don't have an agenda for it.

You can say that I'm exaggerating, but I'd counter with CERN vs Superconducting Supercollider. Generally speaking if you give the private sector the incentive (spelled tax incentive) they will get the job done faster and better.

Right now there are 100's of super secret alternative biofuel startups working on proprietary technology. They are doing it because the price of oil is over $70 a barrel not because they are getting big grants ( although some grant money is there - partnership). If only one makes it to commercialization we win.

Take that seed grant money and put it in a fund that is targeted by legislation and the motivation becomes getting the grants. I've seen that happen in the power generation industry with wind three times and solar twice. Wind failed under Carter, got started again under Reagon and died under Clinton, and has started up again under Bush, but the past two years have been touch and go with the Democratic congress. If it can hold in there for a few more years it will reach critical mass and then congress won't matter but it has to get to critical mass and it isn't there yet. We've seen this in the medical industry. My company does a lot of work with hospitals and there are billions of dollars thrown away chasing politically focused grants that would be better spent on targeted research.

So, it's not simple and it's not just technology based legislation. It's about what it is usually about - money. I land on the side that wants it to be in the hands of the private sector. I believe that scientists and engineers f
do a better job than politicians. My corporation employs over 60000 people worldwide and many of them are scientists and engineers. Most of them only think about politics every two or four years. Their basis is more based on logic than emotion. The ones I discuss these issues with aren't buying the pitch that you can legislate innovation.

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Now let's say that you're on the select senate subcommitee on Leukemia Zappers. You write a bill, it gets kicked around in committee for a while, tabled over the break, discussed some more, kicked up to the committee and by a stroke of luck gets out of committee for a vote. If it passes the House takes a look at it, tacks it on to a housing bill which gets vetoed etc. etc. but eventually you get it passed.

Unsure if it was intentional or not because it's unclear – do you realize that you failed to describe federal programs, i.e., like the ARPA’s Intergalactic Computer Network” or NSF funding of Terry Winograd and his two grad students on the mathematics underlying the world wide web?

Instead you described Congressional additions (aka “earmarks”).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

seeing how McCain picked a VP that beleives the earth is only 6000 years old and all true believers are going to vanish any time now, I think I will go with Obama to handle tech and science.

This is the kind of deep brainpower I come to DZ.com to experience.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

What do you think about the Presidential candidates’ platforms on US innovation & technological competiveness?

I think one-third of the electorate doesn't even understand the title of the thread, and 80% of the electorate doesn't care about those issues. Sad commentary, perhaps, but there you have it.

You may be correct.
Nonetheless, the electorate is not dumb ... they may occasionally say dumb things & do dumb things - some more often than others, but people are not inherently stupid.
A democracy -- or representative republic --functions better when the electorate is more informed.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Misternatural 0]

>>Do you want to know more on what the candidates’ proposed policies are on technology and innovation and by what means they plan to accomplish them … or is US innovation & technological competiveness just not something that you really care about when it comes to Presidential politics?

I will focus on this question if I may;

I have always held that a candidate for president should be well rounded in their knowledge base, a scholar if you will. Ideally for me, a scientist would be best, also someone who has a fundamental understanding of the physical and logistical mechanics of the world humans temporarily have a majority of the control of. This type of person would in my view be better able to process and understand the information which is given to them during briefings and meetings and be better able to make more informed decisions regarding what directions to lead the various segments of government which they preside over. That being said technology and innovation take a high priority because in my view it is that which has the most profound impact on current and future events and ultimately the sustainability and longevity of not just nations but human survival.

Unfortunately to WIN a presidency what we have is a system by which the best political strategist whose image strikes a psychological chord with the majority of the voters wins the election.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415