Innovation We Need
Newer Post Older Post
show comments
  • Richard F. Miller

    Dr. Mead, as you may be aware, venture capitalists are supine in creating innovations; indeed, other than innovative financing structures, there are few actual innovations that originate in the glass towers of Manhattan or Boston.

    Instead, money flows are driven by innovators–scientists, engineers, or Thomas Edison-type geniuses with little formal education but awesome minds who first conceive, create a prototype (maybe) and then market to the VCs.

    Thus, if the country lacks applied genius in developing newer, cheaper paving materials, or bridge structures, “Wall Street” is the last place to look for it. Instead, start asking questions of schools of engineering, architecture, or higher ed in chemistry.

    Here’s a suggestion–revive the old system of competition for government contracts, and add cash rewards. (This helped establish the U.S. as a great power in railroad construction and connecting the CONUS by aviation.)

    Thus, one way to get cheaper, more stable, easier to install and less toxic materials for road reconstruction is for Uncle Sam to offer a prize of, say, $10 million (or whatever), publish a RFP and invite private sector proposals. (Just for fun, look into the history of the 1911 Government Model Colt–nimble government “intervention” at its best.)

    This system is still used in some military contracts. Why it can’t be expanded to more civilian applications is beyond me. I guess crony capitalism pays better each November.

  • Kenny

    “Schools can do more to promote the idea that inventors and innovators are the great benefactors of humanity; the agronomist who makes agriculture more productive does more to alleviate poverty than the charismatic activist and political agitator.”

    True, and it is also true that things would be a lot better if the government schools devoted more effort in teaching the Three R instread of brainwashing the kiddies in socialism and a need to look to government for all their needs.

  • Noah

    “Changing how our world works takes small as well as large leaps.”

    Ah, yes, but this is not exciting, not sexy. Hollywood gives us heroic tales of Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts) and Malcolm X (Denzel Washington); they don’t want to celebrate evil, boring white guy capitalists who, wouldn’t you know, get ^%#$* done in the real world.

  • Noah

    Speaking of prizes for innovation, how about some serious dough for inventing mechanical farm implements so we can forego the use of immigrant labor?

  • Joel Trammell

    The reason money flows to the information technology space is that it is relatively easy to commercialize products in these areas because of the limited government regulation and low liability exposure. A new bridge material would have to jump through so many government hoops and would have so much potential liability that it is hard to find funding in areas that have heavy government regulation and approval.

  • David Wollstadt

    The University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center has developed a “Bridge-in-a-Backpack” utilizing composite arch tubes that act as reinforcement and formwork for cast-in-place concrete. Short- to medium-span bridges can be built quickly and inexpensively using this new technology.

  • Stephen

    Well said, nor can it be said often enough. One name epitomizes your point: Norman Borlaug.

  • The reason there is no investment in innovative road and bridge technology is that the govt. actively hates the idea. Despite all the talk, the purpose of road building and repair is to employ union members and politically connected contractors, and to pay them a lot. Websearch ‘Davis-Bacon’.

    I’m surprised I need to point this out.

  • Kris

    What?! You would have us compete against each other for a chance at filthy lucre? What are you, some kind of capitalist?

  • David Billington

    Professor Mead,

    “Schools can do more to promote the idea that inventors and innovators are the great benefactors of humanity.”

    They’re not the only benefactors but they could have a stronger place in the curriculum. However, the place to teach about innovators may be in high school math and science classes, where their ideas could be explained.

    What we need is understanding and not just recognition of important innovators and their work. By studying the actual thought of innovators, younger people may see more clearly how to be innovative themselves.

  • “Schools can do more to promote the idea that inventors and innovators are the great benefactors of humanity; the agronomist who makes agriculture more productive does more to alleviate poverty than the charismatic activist and political agitator. George Washington Carver did more to improve the lives of more African Americans than Harriet Tubman and Thomas Edison helped more working people live richer, more dignified lives than the politicians and labor leaders so zealously celebrated by Howard Zinn. Those responsible for inventions yet to come that make energy generation, storage and transmission more efficient will do more to protect the environment than all the envelope stuffers and door knockers who ever worked for Greenpeace.”

    Meanwhile, if we can just get our inventions and innovations to start serving live, created human beings ALMOST as well as they presently serve the glorious things we humans create: – tasks, procedures, systems, projects, organizations, ideas. And btw, didn’t we English-speaking countries once do a pretty tolerable job of just that – designing things with PEOPLE in mind, as distinct from re-designing and -configuring people with systems and technologies in mind? I mean, say, during roughly the first two-thirds of the 20th century? (Cf. Peter Thiel, “The End of the Future,” Or did technology and technical innovation simply stand still through neglect during that period, while we confined ourselves to exploring some obscure, intangible human dimension of things?

    Extrapolating from what I understand of Thiel’s article, I’m moved to wonder: When we idolize and fetishize the things we create, do we, at least as often as not, get the opposite results of what we intended? When we as a culture obsess over technical innovation (as it seems to me we’ve been doing for roughly the past 15-20 years), do we get more of the kind that generates a solid economic foundation, or less, than we did in previous decades whose spirit or emphasis was different?

    And thanks to #1 for some illuminating – and, IMO, sadly neglected – insights and reminders.

  • Also in this connection, a very rewarding piece in “Big Think”,, in which author Jason Gots writes:

    “[Over-reliance on] Math’s not to blame [for the financial collapse of 1998], but a religious reverence for mathematical objectivity might be. We are susceptible to a modern-day form of idol worship whereby the sophistication of our technology and data-crunching power sometimes dazzles us into forgetting that these are human creations, designed by people, for people. And when they are applied to human problems, we cannot afford to treat them as perfect, alien entities whose wisdom exceeds our own.”

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.