Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Funding of Research and Education in the 21st Century

For over sixty years, the Federal Government has assumed the major funding responsibilities for basic research and higher education to promote science and technology in the US.  The blueprint for government support of R&D was laid out in 1945 by presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush in his seminal report, Science The Endless Frontier.  In the report he wrote that "The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth."  His recommendations led to the creation of the National Science Foundation a few years later.

Ever since, we have looked to key Washington institutions - the National Science Foundation, as well as the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Commerce and others, - as having the lead responsibility for funding advanced research.  This is particularly true when it comes to Grand Challenge problems, that is, problems that are both very important to the nation and very difficult, and thus require breakthroughs from multiple groups across multiple disciplines.

But, I wonder if something is changing in the funding model for fundamental research and higher education.  Over the last few months, I participated in a few meetings where similar questions keep coming up: can we continue to look to the federal government to help organize and fund major important national initiatives?  We are not so sure any more.  Even beyond the fact that research and education have not been high priorities in the present administration, perhaps something more profound is going on.

The post-World War II R&D blueprint advocated by Vannevar Bush, was generally focused on government support of science and engineering research aimed primarily at the defense sector.  While this research also resulted in huge benefits to the private sector, - e.g., the Internet, supercomputing, civilian airplanes, - the funding for these projects was originally justified by national security and cold war oriented considerations.

But, the Berlin Wall was dismantled in 1989, signaling the end of the cold war.  And as we know, a historical transition is underway towards a global, knowledge-based economy whose dynamics are very different from those of the past sixty years. 

The national problems in need of research and talent are very different as well.  So are the underlying technologies.  In the past, new technologies were generally developed to solve big problems in defense, science and engineering, and then trickled down and were embraced by the private sector and consumers.  Think of the transistor, computers and the Internet, for example.  The opposite is the case now.  The most advanced new technologies are usually now developed in the private sector and first commercialized in consumer products and services.  Subsequently, they trickle up to benefit the military, as well as big science and engineering projects.

There is general agreement that energy and the environment, and health care delivery are among the most important Grand Challenges  facing the US and the world in general over the next decades.  The federal government has been supporting energy research, largely because the Department of Energy has long been charged with that task.  But, while just about everyone agrees that health care issues are among the most important and complex facing the nation, little funding for research and education has been forthcoming from the Department of Health and Human Services.

How about jobs and the economy?  There is an ongoing debate whether the US can continue to create well paying jobs, or whether such jobs will largely be outsourced to countries with lower labor costs, or will be taken over by the influx of immigrants coming to the US who are willing to work for less pay.  Demagogues in politics and the media are busy blaming China and India one day, illegal Mexican immigrants the next.

On the other hand, many of us have been working hard to promote increased investments in innovation, - including education, infrastructure and research, - which will lead to many more good jobs, as has been the case throughout history.  The biggest opportunity for good, new jobs lies with higher end services and know-how, a very large segment of the US economy, and the one where new technologies and innovation can bring the highest payoffs in productivity.  This is why IBM has been strongly advocating the creation of new programs like Services Sciences which aim to significantly improve the productivity, skills and pay of services-based jobs.

In February of 2006 the White House announced the American Competitiveness Initiative to increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, foster innovation and encourage entrepreneurship.  But unfortunately, even though both the administration and Congress agreed on its importance, no funds were allocated to support its recommendations.  Washington had other more pressing priorities.

Perhaps many of the pressing issues in the 21st Century - health care delivery, economic competitiveness, innovation, jobs, education, - are presently beyond the federal government's ability to tackle seriously.  Other large countries are better able to address these issues at a national level - the UK, Brazil and China among others.  But our structure is somehow different.  We must continue to fight the good battle, especially given the ongoing presidential campaign, and hope that we can convince future administrations and members of Congress to evolve their priorities.  But while we do this, we must also look for alternative ways of addressing these pressing problems facing the country.

What are alternative sources of funding in the US for these important new areas, which are quite different from the pressing issues of 1945 that Vannevar Bush had in mind when he wrote Science The Endless Frontier?  Let's start with government.  Perhaps areas like health care, economic development and advances in education are more the province of state and local governments given the size of our country, where different regions compete with each other to attract private sector investments and jobs. 

California, for example, is making its own investments to promote stem cell research and regenerative medicine to benefit the state.  New York state has been making major investments in nanotechnology.  And, North Carolina has established the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) to address multidisciplinary problems that will spur innovation and economic growth in the state.  We can expect additional such state and local initiatives

The private sector is also doing more.  At MIT, the Deshpande Center, - established in 2002 to increase the impact of MIT technologies in the marketplace, - funds novel-early state research and connects MIT's innovators to the business community.  It was founded with an initial donation by Desh Deshpande, co-founder of Sycamore Networks, and his wife.  It depends on the financial and professional support of MIT alumni, entrepreneurs and investors.  Another example is BP, which pledged $500M to establish the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to conduct research in clean, sustainable energy sources.  EBI is a partnership between BP, UC Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.  Finally, IBM has extensive University Relations programs around the world that support basic research, curriculum innovation and educational assistance in selected areas, such as services sciences, information-based medicine and advanced supercomputing.

Innovation and talent are the critical ingredients for leadership in the knowledge economy.  Any country that aims to attain a strong position in innovation and talent must seriously invest in research and education.  This is what the US did after 1945, and it is a major reason that we won the cold war and achieved such a leading economic position in the world. 

There are now many new opportunities amidst an intense, global competitive environment.  The stakes are high.  There is a lot to do and everyone must do their part.  Perhaps state and local governments, the private sector and academia cannot rely on the federal government to the extent that they did in the past.  But, given the highly important and complex challenges ahead, and the extensive resources required, US leadership in the knowledge economy will continue to require the serious contributions of the federal government.  Let's hope that this is a top priority for our new administration.

A Dialogue on Race

The other day, a memory from a long, long time ago suddenly popped into my head.

In 1962, I was a 17 year old senior finishing high school at the Laboratory Schools - the wonderful K-12 schools associated with the University of Chicago.  In those days, Hyde Park, the Chicago neighborhood where the U of C is located, was one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods in the country, and the Lab Schools’ student population reflected that diversity.  A significant portion of the students came from middle-class black families living in Hyde Park and nearby areas. 

As I remember, sometime toward the end of our senior year our class was invited to a party at a doorman building in the fancy section of Hyde Park near Lake Michigan.  I went in a car with some of my friends, and as we approached the entrance of the building, we saw that three of our fellow students that had gone ahead of us were talking to the doorman.  This group of three included a girl who happened to be black - as were so many of our classmates in the Lab Schools.  But the doorman would not let her go up to the party, because, he said, that blacks were not allowed in the building. 

This group of three did not argue with the doorman - they just turned around and left.  I wish I could now write that I also turned around and left with them, but I did not.  I don't know why.  I went up to the party along with the rest of the group I was with.  I knew the girl who was giving the party, Linda, fairly well, and recall that she was very upset.  She had tried to convince the doorman to let everyone up, but was unable to do so because this was the policy of the building.

I honestly don't remember ever thinking about this event in the last 46 years, but all of a sudden, it popped into my head as vividly as if it had happened last week.  Why did it come to me out of the blue?  I guess this is all part of the dialogue about race relations that we are having in the country now.

When it comes to race and diversity, I have frankly been living a charmed existence ever since I came to the US from Cuba in October of 1960.  I went right to the Lab Schools and graduated in 1962, then went on to the University of Chicago until 1970, and lived in Hyde Park through all those years.  From there I joined IBM in 1970 - a company with one of the strongest records of diversity leadership in the country, if not the world. 

I am obviously very aware of the turbulent history of race relations in the US, and the horrific practices that only started to fade away with the advent of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  But I never experienced discrimination personally.  No one ever told me that I could not do something because I was Jewish, or because I was born in Cuba, or because I spoke with an accent.  In fact, I don't recall seeing an act of discrimination around me - except for that jarring incident in the fancy Hyde Park building.  That was clearly not the case with my black classmates at the Lab School.  I suspect that many of the black colleagues I have worked with at IBM throughout my professional career have had to put up with their share of such incidents ever since they were little.

We have come a very long way in the last fifty years.  Our country has truly become a multi-cultural society, much more accepting of diversity than ever before.  The fact that a woman and a black man - both excellent candidates - are fighting for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States is something we should all feel very good about.

As part of my participation in IBM's diversity councils, I have spent quite a bit of time mentoring younger employees, especially Hispanic ones, given my own roots.  I strongly advise them to focus on how full the glass has become in the last decades, not on whether the glass is totally full.  I remind them that to get ahead in the world - in business, academia, government and everywhere else - you need a relatively tough skin, whether you are Hispanic, black, female, gay, or the waspiest of male, heterosexual WASPs.  Up to a point, we are all better off letting personal slights roll off our backs and moving on.

But there is still quite a bit of not-so-nice, hate-mongering behavior out there, some of it coming from people and institutions that should know better.  For example, I think it is very disappointing how CNN and Time Warner have compromised their brands by giving such prominence to Lou Dobbs’s divisive, strident messages on the very complex subject of immigration.  People in the know tell me that the management of CNN and Time Warner do not agree with the red meat Lou Dobbs dishes out, but since he gets such good ratings they are compelled to keep him on.

I am not sure if that rationalization makes me feel any better.  How far would they go to attract audiences?  Would they put today's equivalent of the once popular Father Coughlin or Lester Maddox on the air if they helped increase ratings?  Are there any limits on what good companies should do to improve earnings and profit?

I have also wondered why powerful people are sometimes so insensitive to the feelings of those around them.  In March of 2007, for example, General Peter Pace, who was then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during an interview that  "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.  I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."  What was the impact of such a remark on the many thousands in our armed forces who are gay or lesbian, when they heard their leader say that their feelings and actions are immoral?  How about the feelings of the families of someone killed or seriously injured in Iraq or Afghanistan who happened to be homosexual?

Maybe, in the end, a good dialogue about race requires all of us to think about empathy - the ability to put oneself into someone else's shoes, and to reflect on The Golden Rule:  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  If you were a senior in high school going with friends to a party, how would you feel if you were not allowed to go up to the party because the building does not allow people like you?

Some Thoughts on Global Companies in the 21st Century

Given my long association with IBM, the close relationships I have enjoyed with a number of our clients, and my recent involvement with Citigroup, it is not surprising that I am very interested in exploring what it takes for an organization to thrive in our increasingly global and highly diverse world.  Perhaps my personal multi-cultural background is also part of the reason I am so attracted to the subject.

Managing a large, global organization is indeed very difficult, especially in our unpredictable, emergent, fast changing and intensely competitive market environment.  While some might thus conclude that the answer is for a company to resist doing business around the world, the reality is that managing a business, any business, is a very tough job fraught with perils, as evidenced by the high mortality rates of companies from start-ups to those in the Fortune 500.

Are there any basic principles that might serve as guidelines in the management of globally integrated companies?  Based on my personal experiences, I think there are a few, that if carefully applied might prove useful.  Let me share my thoughts on the subject.

Continue reading "Some Thoughts on Global Companies in the 21st Century"

Nurturing a Healthy Innovation Environment

I strongly believe that top talent is the most important asset for any business that aspires to a leadership position in the knowledge economy.  Talent enables a company to better cope with, adjust to and thrive in our fast changing, unpredictable world.

But while the presence of top talent is a necessary condition for leadership, it is not sufficient.  You need to put that talent to work, not only contributing to the operational excellence of the business, but focusing on innovation, so the company can survive the onslaught of new competitors and retain its leadership position into the future, as well as be able to evolve and become a leader in important new areas

Fostering a spirit of innovation among talented people is very difficult.  Why is that?  Lots of excellent management books have been written on the subject, but I would like to offer a more personal explanation.

Continue reading "Nurturing a Healthy Innovation Environment "