May 27, 2004
A recent "Perspective" in Science by Erwin and Krakauer cites the economist Joseph Schumpter in distinguishing between invention and innovation; the former being "the creation and establishment of something new while innovations are "inventions that become economically successful and earn profits." Going a step further, the more sophisticated the invention the more reliance is placed on understanding the scientific principles on which it is based.
Hendrik Casimir, the gifted Dutch theoretical physicist, one-time Research Director of Philips Electronics who in 1957 was appointed a member of Philips' management board made this series of observations in 1966:
I have heard statements that the role of academic research in innovation is slight. It is about the most blatant piece of nonsense it has been my fortune to stumble upon.
Certainly, one might speculate idly whether transistors might have been discovered by people who had not been trained in and had not contributed to wave mechanics or the quantum theory of solids. It so happened that the inventors of transistors were versed in and contributed to the quantum theory of solids.
One might ask whether basic circuits in computers might have been found by people who wanted to build computers. As it happens, they were discovered in the thirties by physicists dealing with the counting of nuclear particles because they were interested in nuclear physics.
One might ask whether there would be nuclear power because people wanted new power sources or whether the urge to have new power would have led to the discovery of the nucleus. Perhaps - only it didn't happen that way.
One might ask whether an electronic industry could exist without the previous discovery of electrons by people like Thomson and H.A. Lorentz. Again it didn't happen that way.
One might ask even whether induction coils in motor cars might have been made by enterprises which wanted to make motor transport and whether then they would have stumbled on the laws of induction. But the laws of induction had been found by Faraday many decades before that.
Or whether, in an urge to provide better communication, one might have found electromagnetic waves. They weren't found that way. They were found by Hertz who emphasised the beauty of physics and who based his work on the theoretical considerations of Maxwell. I think there is hardly any example of twentieth century innovation which is not indebted in this way to basic scientific thought.
[H.G.B. Casimir, Contribution to Symposium on Technology and World Trade, US Department of Commerce, 16 November 1966.]
But of course that was then, this is now, and besides let other nation's do the donkey work of basic research. Australia can always reap the benefits either by developing the inventions based on the science learned elsewhere and using them in our industrial innovation. Or can we. Such an attitude, and there are indications that it is the concerted view of the current Federal Cabinet (currently Labor's views are a mystery), leads to a progressive diminution of support for university research which in turn reduces the desirability for our most brilliant and imaginative scientists to remain as well as diminishing Australia's attractiveness for those from overseas to immigrate. While relative salaries are a consideration, they are by no means a deciding factor. The capacity of an institution's infrastructure to support world-class research as well as the ability of a researcher to command sufficient funding for adequate supplies and support staff are of greater importance. Our international academic and scientific credentials cheapen as our support for fundamental research diminishes. And the lead in innovation will go to those in the forefront of invention, which increasing goes to those fostering scientific research.
The quality of a nation's "knowledge economy" has as its foundation the quality of its research community and the support it is able to command.
What appear to be the major stumbling blocks in governmental thinking are the time frame involved and the fact that immediate political rewards that might be reaped by the government of the day are perceived as trivial in comparison to delivering tax cuts, increasing family and pension benefits, and providing resources earmarked for marginal electorates, just to cite some obvious examples.
To build up the university sector to competitive world standard will require 10 to 20 years and a multi-billion dollar investment. There are several approaches to funding such a venture in addition to direct taxation, such as government bond issues. So far neither the government nor any of the opposition has suggested them let alone prepared them for possible implementation. But were they to be undertaken the foundations of a "knowledge economy" would have a solid base on which to build its applied scientific, inventive, innovative and secondary educational structures. The cheap and sloppy solutions we see proffered such as hobbled ministerial reviews, the Higher Education Support Bill, 2003, now followed by Backing Australia's Ability 2, are jury-rigged structures constucted on quicksand. By comparison the recent signing of the California Compact by the President of the University of California and the Chancellor of California State University on the one hand and the governor of California on the other makes Arnold Schwarzenegger appear a far-sighted, intellectual giant.
Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web