Accelerating Innovation

Priorities for Kick-starting Job Creation in Washington State

We cannot wait for national recovery. The state needs a job growth strategy. However, the task of kick-starting job creation is daunting when the state budget faces such huge fiscal constraints.  Policymakers must make difficult budget trade-offs in ways that do not undermine the future prosperity we seek. Generating more private sector investment and job creation requires that business have confidence in the state’s long term policies for economic development and innovation.

Offered below and in the attached statement are priorities in the context of advancing four key pillars of the innovation economy: talent, investment, infrastructure and exports. These are the pillars the Washington Development Commission adopted in its plan to make the state the most attractive, creative and fertile environment for innovation in the world. Focusing legislative activity on these longer term priorities and related actions will contribute to business confidence, economic recovery and job creation. Download Job Creation Priorities of the Economic Development Commission  

As a matter of priorities the state should focus efforts on the following:

 
1. Talent. Emphasize investments in career transition rather than in temporary income maintenance and reorient training and education priorities to meet employment demand.

 2. Investment and Entrepreneurship. Affirm commitment to policies that create an “innovation ecosystem” that fosters entrepreneurship, business investment and on-shore manufacturing.

 3. Infrastructure and Regulations. Design a 21^st century infrastructure and regulatory environment that enhances business investment and job creation and aligns with regional job creation objectives.

 4. Export. Intensify efforts to grow the national and global presence of Washington’s businesses.

Egils Milbergs briefs Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce on the "World's Largest Science and Innovation Ecosystem"

The Pacific Northwest region is a case study on creating the world's largest science and innovation ecosystem. In a special presentation at the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, CEO Roundtable, Egils Milbergs highlighted the work of an 18 member public-private commission focused on transforming the Washington state’s economy to be more creative, open and collaborative. He discussed the dynamics of government, business, academia and philanthropy in bringing about this change. He presented a new public-private model for driving Washington's economic future and the requirements for economic recovery and job creation.  These topics will be integrated into the foundation for the next update of the State's long term economic development strategy and action recommendations to be presented to the Governor, legislature, congressional delegation and public later this fall. LINK to presentation slides: Download Egils Milbergs 1.5 Final Seattle Chamber of Commerce July 13 2010

Egils Milbergs is the executive director of the Economic Development Commission of Washington State. The Commission is charged with developing a long term economic development strategy and making the state the most innovative region in the world. He was appointed by Governor Chris Gregoire on January 23, 2008 after a nation-wide search. He is a noted thought leader in competitiveness policy and champions the vital importance of US technological, manufacturing and innovation leadership to long-term prosperity. In Washington State he is advancing the concept and practice of regional innovation ecosystems. He held previous positions as president and founder of the Center for Accelerating Innovation, president of the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing, president of the Institute for Illinois, Deputy Assistant Secretary for productivity, technology and innovation for the U.S. Commerce Department, and executive director the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness.

US is dead last in innovation and how Washington State can drive the recovery

Egils Milbergs, executive director of the Washington Economic Development Commission, testified January 21, 2010 before the House Community &Economic Development & Trade Committee in Olympia Washington, chaired by Representative Phyllis Kenney. In his remarks he pointed out that innovation has been a hallmark of US economic leadership in the 20^th century. But now the tables are turning.

"Governments, regions, cities across the planet have come to the view that science, technology and innovation are integral to economic growth and development. They have set out to build more knowledge intensive economies in which research, its commercial exploitation and intellectual work will play a prominent role. A study by the ITIF, a think tank based in Washington DC, benchmarked 40 countries on global basis and the U.S. ranked last in the overall rate of change across 16 innovation metrics. The US was 22^nd in Broadband access and 15^th in higher education attainment. China, the world's center of outsourced manufacturing, has a "brute force" 15 year plan focused on an innovation-driven economy. The Chinese government has doubled the number of higher education institutions from 2000 to 4000. It has launched 20 independently managed venture capital funds for investments in high-tech sectors. The initial capitalization of the 20 funds comes to $1.31 billion, with three-fourths of the total provided by private investment. Warren Buffet has invested $230 million in BYD, a Chinese maker of batteries for electric cars. a vote of confidence in China's innovation capacity. Singapore government has invested in Biopolis, a 2 million sq. foot biomedical research center. They scour the world for scientific leaders and top post doctoral students to work at the center and are on track to employ 4000 researcher by 2015. Nearby is the Fusionopolis project with another projected 6000 scientists in such fields as material science, clean technology and digital media. Finland is an example of large scale innovation ecosystem emerging from the ashes of the former Soviet Union. The president chairs the Science and Technology Policy Council. Their public education system is ranked as a leader in the world. Tekes and Sitra manage the national industrial R&D fund and the national innovation fund. They are investing $1 billion into a new Innovation University combining three universities in the disciplines of economics, art and design and technology. Washington State is not just competing with other states but also the world. The Commission's strategic plan is aimed at making Washington state the most attractive, fertile and creative investment environment for innovation in the

Go to: Egils Milbergs Presentations on authorSTREAM: Page 1 Egils Milbergs presentation slides for the House Committee

Go to www.wedc.wa.gov for Egils Milbergs speaking engagements and resources.

 

President sets aggressive 3 percent goal for R&D and innovation

 

President Obama at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences announced a goal to increase the nation’s investment in basic and applied research “We will devote more than 3 percent of our gross domestic product to research and development. We will not just meet but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race. … The commitment I am making today will fuel our success for another 50 years.”  As a whole the United States  spent $368 billion or about 2.66 percent of GDP on R&D in 2007, more than two-thirds accounted by private industry. Achieving this goal would mean an additional $70 billion a year from government and industry.  The United States is the biggest spender on R&D of any nation.  However, as a share of GDP, the US ranks No. 8 in the world, according to a NSF report, outspent in relative terms by Israel (4.71 percent), Sweden (3.86 percent), Finland (3.51 percent), Japan (3.18 percent), South Korea (2.99 percent), Switzerland (2.93 percent), and Iceland (2.86 percent), although Iceland has more important challenges to deal with the recent financial meltdown. The EU aims to increase the spending of their member nations to 3 percent by 2010. China which is boosting its average of  22.6 percent per year since 1991, spent 1.49 percent of its GDP on research and development in 2007 and expects to reach 2.5 percent by 2020, according to news reports. President Obama also selected an impressively credentialed panel of advisors. Most of the 20 members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology are academics, with specialties ranging from climate change and physics to genetics and nanotechnology, but two are active-duty tech execs — Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt

Commerce Department Announces Steps to Improve Measurement of Innovation

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez announced January 18 steps for the federal statistical agencies and others to work to explain and quantify one of the largest and most elusive drivers of the economy—innovation. Among the innovation measurement initiatives announced were comprehensive accounting of the effect of high-tech goods and services, measuring the increase in productivity due to increased investments in innovation, and expanding collection of data on innovation.

Secretary Gutierrez announced these measures based on a report by the Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. Committee members are CEOs and prominent academics who worked over the past year to develop innovation metrics.

“Innovation has proven an essential driver of growth for the U.S. economy,” said Secretary Gutierrez. “Thanks to the leadership of the committee and Chairman Carl Schramm, we now have a well-informed framework for moving forward and ensuring that we as a nation foster innovation and its contribution to a healthy 21st Century economy.”

“While we recognize that the American economy is changing in profound ways—mostly due to innovation—our understanding is minimal,” commented Chairman Carl Schramm. “Data collection and measurement loom large in helping us to understand these changes and to identify and replicate what we’re doing well.”

Here are some of the key recommendations.

-The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to provide a comprehensive accounting of the effect of high-tech goods and services on growth and productivity.This will set the stage for the development of integrated estimates for major sectors and detailed industries. Although total factor productivity growth is not a direct measure of innovation, correctly capturing productivity at the sectoral level will greatly improve our understanding where innovation occurs.

-BEA will design a supplemental innovation account by January 2009. This account will be a framework for directly measuring how much of the overall increase in productivity is due to increased investments in innovation. It will include investments in intellectual property (including patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and in human capital. In addition to directly measuring the impact of innovation on growth, such a measure would take into account the fact that knowledge, just like other property, is wealth—and those policies that increase knowledge increase the wealth of our society.

-Building on their successful efforts in developing measures of the impact of R&D on GDP growth, partners at the National Science Foundation are asked to maintain and expand their commitment and effort to the collection of data on research and development and innovation-related inputs. These efforts will provide an important piece of the puzzle of what drives innovation in the U.S. economy.

-Recognizing the clear benefits that can be achieved through better statistical coordination and data synchronization, Secretary Gutierrez pledged to work with the Council of Economic Advisors, the Office of Management and Budget, the Departments of Treasury and Labor, and Congress to see whether a framework that meets everyone’s data confidentiality concerns is achievable.

-The Committee members expressed a desire for the dialogue to continue after the release of these recommendations. In particular, the Secretary indicated he would direct the bureaus in Commerce to conduct various workshops on the drivers and impediments to innovation.

The Report is available on line at www.commerce.gov and www.innovationmetrics.gov.

Direct links to the report of the Advisory Committee:
Click here to access the full report
Click here to access the press release
Click here to access quotes
Click here to access key facts

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 Released. National Science Board Calls for Bolstering Basic Research and New Metrics to Sustain US Competitive Edge

Members of the National Science Board today delivered to the President and the Congress Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (SEI'08), the Board's biennial report on the state of science and engineering research and education in the United States. Called the "gold standard," it is the most comprehensive source of information on research and development conducted by universities, industry, the federal government and the international science and engineering enterprise.

The Board also introduced its new publication, Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 containing a selected set of indicators electronically linked with detailed data tables and discussions in the main volumes of SEI. In addition to SEI'08, the Board, concerned that the data revealed disturbing trends with serious policy implications, published a companion piece, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy. In this policy statement and in presentations in the U.S. House of Representatives, National Science Board Chairman Steven Beering, Subcommittee Chairman on SEI'08 Louis Lanzerotti and SEI'08 Subcommittee Member Arthur Reilly stressed the need for increased government and industry sharing of funding for basic research.

"These indicators come at an important time," said Chairman Beering. "The confluence of a range of indicators raises key questions about future U.S. high-technology industry's competitiveness in international markets and implications for highly skilled jobs at home."

The Board made three major recommendations:

1. The federal government should take action to enhance the level of funding for, and the transformational nature of, basic research;
2. Industry, government, the academic sector and professional organizations should take action to encourage greater intellectual interchange or synergy between industry and academia, with industry researchers encouraged to also participate as authors and reviewers for articles in open, peer-reviewed publications.
3. New data are critically needed, and this need should be expeditiously addressed by relevant federal agencies to track the implications for the U.S. economy of the globalization of manufacturing and services in high technology industry.

To review Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, visit http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators.

 

FACT SHEET: A Prime 13

1-2 Science and Engineering (S&E) Capabilities - People and Skills

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 tell a mixed story regarding the achievement of U.S. students in science and math in international comparisons.

• U.S. grade school students continue to lag behind other developed countries in science and math, although fourth and eighth grade U.S. students showed steady gains in math since 1990. Only fourth graders showed gains in science compared to 1996.
• High school completion and college enrollment rates across ethnic groups increased steadily in recent years. But college enrollment and completion rates differ across socioeconomic groups.

3-4 Science and Technology (S&T) Capabilities and Workforce

The capability to do science and technology work increased throughout the world, and the National Science Foundation is out front tracking the trends.

• In 2000, the United States held about one quarter of the world's 194 million tertiary degrees -- degrees broadly equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate. Twenty years earlier, the U.S. share was closer to one third of the world's then 73 million tertiary degrees.
• From 1994 to 2004, U.S. firms increased the number of people they employed in R&D jobs outside the United States by 76 percent and employment within the United States by 31 percent, while U.S. subsidiaries of foreign firms increased their U.S. R&D employment by 18 percent.

5-6 S&T Capabilities - U.S. Research & Development (R&D)

The U.S. is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world supplying an estimated $340 billion for R&D in 2006, a record high.

• Of the $340 billion R&D total, basic research accounted for 18 percent or $62 billion; applied research accounted for 22 percent or $75 billion; and development accounted for the other 60 percent or $203 billion. In 2006, the federal government supplied about 60 percent of all basic research funds, industry about 17 percent, with private foundations, academic institutions and other governmental entities supplying the rest.
• Federal obligations for all academic research, basic and applied, declined in real terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to drop further in 2006 and 2007. This would be the first multiyear decline for academic research since 1982.

7-9 High Technology - U.S. Position

Based on key indicators, the U.S. sustained a relative economic advantage over other developed and developing economies. Growth has been far more rapid in the emerging markets of China and India.

• The U.S. is a leading producer in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services, but several Asian countries, led by China, have rapidly increased their global market share.
• The U.S. leads the world in economically-viable patents, filed in the U.S., Japan and Europe.
• The U.S. comparative advantage in exports of high-technology products has eroded: the U.S. trade balance in advanced technology products shifted from surplus to deficit starting in 2002. Information and communications products geographically concentrated in Asia -- particularly China and Malaysia -- account for this deficit.

10-11 Public Support for Science in the U.S.

U.S. public support for government funding of scientific research is strong and growing.

• In a 2006 survey, 87 percent of Americans supported government funding for basic research, up from 80 percent in past surveys dating back to 1979. Also, Americans who said the government spends too little on scientific research grew from 34 percent to 41 percent between 2002 and 2006.
• In 2006, Americans expressed greater confidence in leaders of the scientific community than those of any other institution except the military. On science-related public policy issues, including global climate change, stem cell research and genetically modified foods, Americans believe that science leaders, are knowledgeable and impartial and ought to be influential.

12-13 Federal Support for Academic Scientists and Engineers

Academic scientists and engineers are more diverse today, and federal funding remains important to them.

• From 1973 to 2006, in the academic, doctoral labor force the share of women increased from 9 percent to 33 percent, of underrepresented minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians/Alaska Natives) from 2 percent to 8 percent, and of Asian/Pacific Islanders from 4 percent to 14 percent.
• Academic S&E doctorate holders employed in academia who received federal support has remained steady during the last 20 years: just under half, 47 percent in 2006, and in the late 1980s. Among life scientists, this percentage has dropped from 65 percent in 1989, to 58 percent in 2006, although the actual number of those reporting federal support increased.

Egils Milbergs, Center for Accelerating Innovation, commented:  "This is an important document for policy makers.  Today's Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 report makes clear that the public continues to support higher investment in scientific research. Yet we see in the data an erosion of federal basic research funding and, more disturbing, a relative decline in private sector R&D support of academic research. This raises the question of how to implement the National Science Board recommendation to encourage greater intellectual interchange or synergy between industry and academia. Investing in the scientific  talent and technological infrastructure of our overseas rivals appears to be more synergistic to global corporations than here in the US." 

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 Will Rollout January 15

Members of the National Science Board will rollout Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the Board's biennial report on the state of science and engineering research and education in the United States on Jan. 15 in Washington DC. Every two years, the Board presents its report to the president and Congress. It is the most comprehensive source of information on research and development conducted by universities, industry, the federal government and the international science and engineering enterprise. This will be the earliest release date for any issue of the Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) series.

The presentation will focus on data in Indicators 2008 and the Board's conclusions contained in its companion piece, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy. The companion piece focuses on the important role of research and development and basic research supported by industry and the federal government in sustaining U. S. global competitiveness in high technology industries. The Board will also introduce its new publication, Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, containing a selected set of important indicators to be electronically linked with detailed data tables and discussions in the main volumes of SEI.

Link to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators to access a PDF version of Science and Engineering 2008 after 10 a.m. on Jan. 15.

Who:

Steven Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Louis Lanzerotti, Chairman, Board Subcommittee for SEI
Art Reilly, Member, Board Subcommittee for SEI
Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation

What:

Rollout, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008

When:

Jan. 15, 2008, 10 a.m.

Where:

House Science and Technology Committee Hearing Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

To review Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, visit http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/.

Marketplace for Idea-Sharing. Big Think Launches with 2292 Ideas (and counting)

(www.BigThink.com ) is an on-line beta site launched today for the growing global conversation about where we are and where we're headed. Harvard educated co-founders Victoria Brown and Peter Hopkins germinated the idea for Big Think while working together at PBS on the “Charlie Rose” show in 2006. Taking a cue from elite private institutions and conferences that convene thought leaders from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives to swap ideas about pressing global issues, Big Think is adapting this model to the more egalitarian Web medium. Combining journalistically produced interviews with user-generated content, and playing both moderator and mediator, Big Think is attempting to be a bridge between edited and so-called informed opinion and the less controlled freestyle of online social media – a potentially unique civic engagement platform.

"We live in a global age, and yet there is no central, global forum to exchange, discuss and debate the big issues and ideas of our time", says Big Think co-founder Victoria Brown. "Big Think is a needed social endeavor that will allow an engaged global audience to share the same platform as leading voices from around the world. Big Think is driven by the conviction that this conversation should be open across all geographies, boundaries and jurisdictions - not limited to one class, rank or station."

A formidable group of financial backers who share the founders' vision for raising the quality of media are investing in the project including Peter Thiel (PayPal, Facebook and Clarium Capital), Larry Summers (Former Secretary of the Treasury, Former President of Harvard), Tom Scott (Nantucket Nectars and Plum TV), and Gary David Goldberg (creator of Family Ties and Spin City). David Frankel, South African venture capitalist, is lead investor.

Link to New York Times article: Ex-Harvard President Meets a Former Student, and Intellectual ... New York Times

The National Innovation Ecosystem: A Metrics Framework for Guiding Innovation Policy in the 21st Century

The Center for Accelerating Innovation has been collaborating with ASTRA (The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America) on a framework for describing the “national innovation ecosystem” and for guiding the development of an innovation measurement system we call Innovation Vital Signs (IVS). Download innovation_vital_signs_framework_report_v.2.8.pdf   The purpose of such a system is to provide a tool to evaluate the nation’s innovation capabilities and performance, and better assess policy choices and potential impacts. [1]  More information on the IVS project can be found at www.usinnovation.org.

The framework is based on a systematic review of 52 public indicator reports and 95 private sector sources. Our review generated an inventory of 3,126 indicators measuring multiple dimensions of innovative activity. We discovered during our review that no common framework for organizing and presenting such indicators exists. The framework we designed is comprehensive and approaches innovation as a complex and multi-faceted process and recognizes:

• both the innovation supply (inputs) and demand (outputs) and the process that connects inputs to outputs and ultimate national impacts.
• context in which innovation takes place including the macroeconomic environment, public policies, infrastructure and the national mindset for innovation.
• changes in the nature of innovation including globalization of innovative activity, new business models for managing innovation, types of innovation, service sector innovation, entrepreneurial activity and diffusion/adoption rates for innovation.

The framework organizes indicators in four broad domains as illustrated and into 14 specific factors that drive knowledge from original insight to economic impact. Based on a detailed evaluation of these indicators and a workshop we identified a set of baseline indicators from which to evolve innovation vital signs for the national innovation ecosystem. We conclude that currently available indicators and measurement methods do not adequately describe in a timely manner the dynamics of innovation today. Innovation cannot be approached as an isolated inventive activity and linear process. We need to move beyond indicators dominated by inputs such as R&D, scientific and engineering personnel, patents and number of publications. A comprehensive indicator framework is required that can link innovation inputs, processes and outcomes to better reflect the reality of innovation today. Innovation is best viewed an ecosystem of relationships, connections and diverse patterns interaction among individuals and organizations. It is a complex process in which new knowledge eventually becomes embedded into a new products, services, processes and business models that create value. This value creation process in turn generates national benefits and revenue and profit to entities who undertake the risk of being innovators.

Innovation is a process by which value is created for customers through public and private organizations that transform new knowledge and technologies into profitable products and services for national and global markets. A high rate of innovation in turn contributes to more intellectual capital, market creation, economic growth, job creation, wealth, and higher standard of living.

Innovation policy should be based on evidence. Timely, high quality relevant information is available in abundance to support fiscal, monetary and trade policies. Innovation policy for the 21^st century will require new indicators, improved data collection and integration methods, and sophisticated visualization tools to understand the more subtle, qualitative and interactive elements of innovation and greater recognition of role innovation plays in the service sector. The framework offered in this report integrates the fundamental change in innovation practices from the previous closed, static, linear and individualistic perspective into a multidimensional, dynamic approach that is capable of staying abreast of the demands of a global economy.

The Innovation Vital Signs conceptual framework identifies 4 domains and 14 innovation factors that collectively interact to create the innovation capacity and performance of a nation. The innovation framework report summarizes the provisional set of indicators that emerged from our global assessment of innovation indicators. Download innovation_vital_signs_framework_report_v.2.8.pdf

---

[1]The framework builds on the innovation ecosystem concepts and recommendations prepared by Egils Milbergs, Center for Accelerating Innovation for the 21^st Century Innovation Working Group of the National Innovation Initiative, Council on Competitiveness. PDF] 21st century innovation working group final report , Innovate America Final Report, December 2004.  www.compete.org   Additional information on the Innovation Vital Signs Project can be found at www.usinnovation.org

Innovation: A New Face and Image for the US

The next Administration will have an opportunity to reshape the image America presents to the world. This requires leveraging so-called U.S. soft power instruments. Foreign assistance is one of the tools. However, American public opinion is highly skeptical of the benefits of economic aid to foreign countries. In general, foreign assistance is a low priority. Only 18% of the public considers improving the standards of living (e.g. getting out of poverty) of less developed nations as very important, 64% want to cut back economic aid and only 8% want to expand it. Furthermore, there is little consensus and much controversy among researchers and academics on the impact of foreign aid on reducing poverty or creating economic opportunity and growth.

Against this context the  HELP Commission, after taking nearly two years examining reform options for US foreign assistance programs, released its much anticipated final report, "Beyond Assistance." The Commission was created by an Act of Congress spearheaded by Congressman Wolf (R-VA) in January 2004. Most notable statement in the report after 22 months of countless meetings interviews and study:

“…. not one person appeared before this Commission to defend the status quo. It is shocking that the need for foreign aid reform is so widely recognized yet so little has been done to implement lasting and vital changes. The legislation mandating the U.S. system was written more than 45 years ago and is littered with competing goals, conflicting objectives, and vague directives.”

Specific recommendations put forth by the Commission, included:

· consolidating the disarray of organizations, purposes and accounts of assistance;

· rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to establish a new compact on foreign assistance;

· enhancing policy coherence, particularly by aligning U.S. trade and development policies;

· increasing resources -- staff, management training, and budget -- for foreign aid;

· ring-fencing long-term development assistance from redirection to short-term security and policy needs;

· encouraging greater investment in economic growth, agriculture and infrastructure programs;

· removing trade restrictions that hamper development, including reducing U.S. agricultural subsidies and providing duty-free/quota-free access for Millennium Challenge Account countries and for countries with $2000 per capita GDP;

· reestablishing an independent Office of Monitoring and Evaluation to track performance and report results; and

· instituting a Quadrennial Development and Humanitarian Assistance Review.

The Commission did not reach consensus on the organizational structure to manage a reformed foreign aid strategy. A majority supported a "super State Department" with four functional under secretaries -- political and security affairs; economic affairs, development and trade; humanitarian services and stabilization; and public diplomacy and consular affairs. A minority report by three commissioners argued for a cabinet-level department for international development.

New R&D Institute Proposed

Among the more intriguing recommendations is to establish a research and development organization to jumpstart technology that will change people’s lives in the developing world. Technology is increasingly becoming a part of daily life even in poor countries. The scientific and innovative capacity of developing states is also growing and partnerships with US high tech companies is clearly accelerating in such areas as biotechnology, climate research, alternative energy, biofuels, information technology, communications, infrastructure development, environmental health, education and so on. . . For example, Nick Negroponte has been promoting the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program, a low cost computer specifically designed for developing countries. Intel has the Classmate PC designed for emerging markets worldwide.

The organization suggested by the HELP Commission would be called the “Development Applications Research Institute” (DARI), modeled on DARPA and focus on building technology in all relevant development areas, including agriculture, health and education. Excerpts from the report:

“…… Like DARPA, it would take on long-term projects and welcome risk-taking, with the understanding that risk taking implies potential losses as well as gains. In addition, much of the organization’s work would be carried out in partnership with the developing countries themselves, as a way to spur the development of local R&D capabilities and to ensure that local expertise informs solutions destined for local use…..the head of DARI could serve as science advisor to the lead U.S. Government official in charge of development policy. At the same time, staff could proactively seek new ideas for funding from private enterprise and research universities to ensure the broadest range of inputs……DARI would only fund projects that would lead to practical application of technology by poor people in the developing world. America needs to build a successful new R&D organization that is devoted to development. The cost would be relatively small, on the order of $50 to $100 million a year, but DARI could transform countless lives. Its cost is easily justified by solving a “market failure.” In other words, private markets probably have not responded to these needs because of the anticipated small market and low expected private return. However, these are outweighed by the high expected social return. DARI also could help alleviate suffering around the world and restore our country’s reputation for leadership in innovation.”

Some links to similar efforts that launched during the life span of the HELP Commission-- Brookings/CSIS' Security By Other Means, CSIS's Smart Power Commission, the Center for U.S. Global Engagement's Impact '08, and Senator Lugar's Committee Staff Report, Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid -- as well as CGD's Commission on Weak States and National Security that preceded it.