| « God Said to Nagin… | The Exclusive Interweb » |
Designed in the USA
January 17th, 2006Over at BusinessWeek, Niti Bhan writes about the bi-partisan National Innovation Act, introduced last month. Legislation that will boost federal investment in basic research. “There can be no argument against the importance and validity of these initiatives”, she writes, however…
A Competitive Nation, by Design
However, one must raise the concern: What about design? Is any of the increased funding to the National Science Foundation and other basic research focused on design methodology and tools, the building blocks of innovation? We’ve all heard the success stories in which design-led innovation has directly increased existing market share, grown new markets, added value to the bottom line, and raised the visibility of brands.
Read the whole article.
I’m particularly impressed by the upcoming Indian national design policy, and their “Mark of Good Design”. How long before Americans find themselves threatened by Indian and Chinese industrial design? Will there federal legislation to resurrect the art programs our public schools have abandoned?
comments
(9)
|
Comments 
“There can be no argument against the importance and validity of these initiativesâ€, she writes…
Quite untrue. There are, and have been, many cogent arguments against government intervention in things like research. This act again begs the question of what the proper role of government is vis-a-vis a free and, perhaps, forward-looking society. I mean, when people hear the word “innovation,” do they really think “federal government”?
I know there will always be esoteric researchers in various fiefdoms out there who claim their work is absolutely vital and never would have seen the light of day without a big fat check from some government. Maybe they’re right. But maybe not. There’s no reason to take their word for it on either count.
Maybe you can point to some exceptions, but by and large, innovation typically comes about as the result of private initiative from free and creative people. Government bureaucrats are pretty bad decision makers, and the fewer decisions they’re allowed to make (like which research should be encouraged and which not), the better off we as a society are and will be.
Well, anyway, that’s one man’s opinion.
Dave,
I agree with you, there are indeed many cogent arguments against govt intervention in research, in fact, little known is this proposal to curb basic research at Universities by ‘foreign born’ scientists, viz.,
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Importance_of_Foreign_Scientists_and_Engineers_to_US.asp
And innovation, indeed comes from private initiative, my intention in using the terminology that I did, was from the point of view of a) design as a creative field, not just math and science and b) innovation is not technology alone but also the soft arts. If they are going to fund basic research in the hard sciences, why not fund research in the soft sciences, such as ethnography, anthropology, social sciences, design methods – these fields too have much to contribute to a creative society?
Ingenuity should be the mark of a country’s power and progress. To that end, I have no problem with government funding of projects that run the gamut from hard science to soft arts. They should, however, have no say in what is funded. Innovation lies in fusion – the marriage of traditionally pigeonholed subjects – and different paths of problem exploration and study, even if to the same goal.
[For example, my second masters was an independent study that combined concepts from computer science, geology and 3D arts. There's so much more ground to cover there, but my interdisciplinary program was shut down for lack of funding. Fusion research like mine could help our country in the Oilfield Software Tool Designed In America department, but guided missile technology seemed to be more interesting at the time.]
However, I draw the line at what the government chooses to fund. Bureaucrats, by nature, have no vision, have no clear idea of the thought and tools such a vision(s) require and push their own agendas. In that regard, nations like India and the US have made progress despite their governments.
Niti,
Have you seen this book? What do you think? It was recommended to me after I read Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat (which is a neat book, but I am not fond of his sprinking of overgeneralizations. And the next time he says BAAAAAhngalore, I’m going to reach into the radio/TV and throttle him). Let me know what you think.
nooo, but THANKS for the link – my first thought was Coo! global design and blended approach as in products and services but it seems to be focused on developing educational curricula? For general global overview w.r.t. ‘blending’ take a look at this http://worldweave.com/GN.html
and I agree on Friedman. Excellent macro overview, but obviously (though one can’t blame him) tailored for the mass market readership in it’s simplistic approach.
maitri,
“Innovation lies in fusion – the marriage of traditionally pigeonholed subjects – and different paths of problem exploration and study, even if to the same goal.”
Very well said. I may use it as my top quote *grin* though, facetiously, I must add that, marriage attempted to pigeonhole me.
marriage attempted to pigeonhole me
“Doesn’t it attempt that with all of us?” she asked while thinking of her family and rolling her eyes. And I say family because if it were up to my mom, I’d be single for the rest of my days. Sigh, my mom, a woman too advanced for her time.
I love the old love songs, like this one, when they’ed come right out and say…
At this point, however, I continue to enjoy freelancing.
Six of one, half dozen the other? (I don’t actually believe that it’s blood for oil, but if I did, that would be witty.)
In any case, I disagree with all of you. Government has successfully funded technological development in the past. In fact, this here Interweb we all prattle on about is a gift of the defense department. (Did you know? Your blogs need the Interweb to work!)
The customer needs a to have a say in what they purchase, even if that customer is the government. It’s not the most efficent way to allocate funds, but democracy is not necessarily about efficency, it’s about accountability.