GKI Editorial: If innovation is an international team sport, who gets to play?

President Barack Obama called for a bold new approach to American innovation and education in his State of the Union address on January 25, 2011. This is our generation's "Sputnik moment". His words were ambitious – "by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources" and inspiring – "what we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people." Most importantly, he made clear that, for the US, winning the future requires encouraging innovation and enhancing education.

I was struck, however, by the President's referencing of the phrase "American innovation." This seems to me to be an oxymoron in today's globalized economy. What is American innovation? In a world where scientific research and technology development are considered international team sports, can innovation any longer be claimed by one country versus another?

The more interesting, and perhaps more important, question is this: if innovation is indeed an international team sport, how can researchers and entrepreneurs, be they from the US, Ghana, or Thailand, be best positioned to play? What equipment and skills do they need to compete among their peers from India, Finland, Brazil? In the US specifically, the challenge may no longer be just about winning the game, but about making the team. This is especially true of young scientists and engineers who may be just warming up to play in the big leagues.

Certainly, quality education provides critical equipment and skills to "play ball" in international science, technology, and innovation. President Obama listed it as a pillar for "winning the future" in the US, stating that "to compete, higher education must be within the reach of every American." While Adam Segal of the Council on Foreign Relations agrees that education is crucial, he criticizes the US government for pursuing a "single-minded focus on increasing the absolute number of scientists" in response to perceived global competition. Instead, he suggests "think[ing] more broadly about the range of skills a scientist develops." Challenges are increasingly multi-disciplinary and require solutions that pull from an array of scientific fields – biology, physics, mathematics – as well as other disciplines – economics, psychology, anthropology. Appreciation for several academic fields, as well as management and other process skills, will be increasingly required of young scientists and entrepreneurs (The Great Invention Race, 2011).

Additionally, to play the game, you have to know the players, whether they be other researchers, funders, or international scientific associations. In this way, networking is a vital component of contributing to science, technology, and innovation globally. The US retains its advantage through its connections with global knowledge networks. Segal relates that a "vast web of collaborative research, corporate alliances, foundation grants, personal ties, alumni groups, and government-to-government contacts tie the United States to established and emerging centers of scientific excellence." The goal, according to Segal, is to "make sure the United States does not become complacent about these relationships." Indeed, this is good advice for other governments to heed as they consider how to help their researchers and entrepreneurs become known in global knowledge networks.

Complacency in relationships is one challenge; disdain for them is another. At this time of great economic uncertainty, there is push-back in the US and other places against international collaboration in science and technology, especially if another country is perceived as benefiting disproportionately from the partnership. President Obama's overture to "American innovation" is but one small example of this nationalist sentiment. However, the fears do not match with the reality of how innovation is achieved today. It is no longer a one-woman or one-country show. The challenges of our time are humbling, and in no way solvable by one person, one institution, or even one country. Catalyzing networks that bring to bear the skills and equipment of the world's all-star researchers and entrepreneurs offers a potential way forward. In the end, it is not just America's future to win; it is all of ours.

Contributor: Amanda L. Rose, GKI Program Officer contributes to GKI's LINK programs in East Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. She cut her chops at the US Department of State before joining GKI, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science prior to that.

Photo credit: The Washington Post (President Obama); Sara E. Farley (Amanda L. Rose)

Keep pace with developments in science, technology, and innovation collaborations globally and follow the GKI Editorials content to hear fresh perspectives, critique, and insights.