Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival?

Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/3/2011 7:35:47 PM)
The American Chemical Society recently advocated a strategy of giving techies the tools needed to spur technological innovation on the basis that new technologies equate to business and thus job growth. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18783382 Comments? I'll go first. I kinda agree with the idea of making business tools available to techies, but am very leery that the focus will be on developing and administering the infrastructure rather than on the health of the businesses produced and the concomitant jobs. And I don't like the idea of assuming that the problem is that prospective entrepreneurs need access to funds to succeed - before making that assumption, we need to know just what ARE the factors preventing more startups, especially since we used to not seem to have this problem - what's changed?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/3/2011 8:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The American Chemical Society recently advocated a strategy of giving techies the tools needed to spur technological innovation on the basis that new technologies equate to business and thus job growth. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18783382 Comments? I'll go first. I kinda agree with the idea of making business tools available to techies, but am very leery that the focus will be on developing and administering the infrastructure rather than on the health of the businesses produced and the concomitant jobs. And I don't like the idea of assuming that the problem is that prospective entrepreneurs need access to funds to succeed - before making that assumption, we need to know just what ARE the factors preventing more startups, especially since we used to not seem to have this problem - what's changed? Do you have a link to the paper?

Termyn8or -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/3/2011 10:45:12 PM)
FR Unless US patents have the force of law overeas, it is all futile. T^T

joether -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/3/2011 11:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The American Chemical Society recently advocated a strategy of giving techies the tools needed to spur technological innovation on the basis that new technologies equate to business and thus job growth. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18783382 Comments? I'll go first. I kinda agree with the idea of making business tools available to techies, but am very leery that the focus will be on developing and administering the infrastructure rather than on the health of the businesses produced and the concomitant jobs. And I don't like the idea of assuming that the problem is that prospective entrepreneurs need access to funds to succeed - before making that assumption, we need to know just what ARE the factors preventing more startups, especially since we used to not seem to have this problem - what's changed? Do you have a link to the paper? American Chemical Society That was a simply google search willbe, even you could have done it. As to which article/paper the author in the Denver Post refers to is a good question. Any of 19 papers could have been the basis for the article.

DarkSteven -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 4:50:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The American Chemical Society recently advocated a strategy of giving techies the tools needed to spur technological innovation on the basis that new technologies equate to business and thus job growth. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18783382 Comments? I'll go first. I kinda agree with the idea of making business tools available to techies, but am very leery that the focus will be on developing and administering the infrastructure rather than on the health of the businesses produced and the concomitant jobs. And I don't like the idea of assuming that the problem is that prospective entrepreneurs need access to funds to succeed - before making that assumption, we need to know just what ARE the factors preventing more startups, especially since we used to not seem to have this problem - what's changed? Do you have a link to the paper? http://web.2.c2.audiovideoweb.com/va92web25028/InnovationChemistryJobsReport-PDFs/InnovationChemistryandJobs.pdf Interesting report. I'm not sure who the target audience is, because it's written at about a fifth-grade level, with lots of pictures that look like a college recruitment brochure, but the four suggested actions are to be taken by the ACS itself, which would have no use for pretty pictures and non-techie presentation. Some of the analysis is for the tech industry as a whole, and some of it for the chemical industry compared to the rest of the tech industry. On page 28, it claims that only 15% of applications qualify for BOTH SBIR Phase I and Phase II. To me, that percent is incredibly high, especially since it indicates that the percent qualifying for Phase I (basically the government footing the bill for a proof of concept) is higher than 15% - I would suspect significantly higher. On page 29, it suggests a very serious problem in the VC industry, claiming that VCs got spoiled by software companies and the resultant quick returns on equity, and are unwilling now to deal with the messiness and long return to equity times inherent with hardware ventures. Page 33 talks about universities doing chemical research. I was surprised to see that no mention was made of Chen-Yen Cheng, a professor at the University of New Mexico when I attended there in the early 1980s. He was a faculty member who got free grad student work and facilities to innovate, in return for teaching courses and giving some 30% of patent royalties to UNM while keeping the rest. Maybe the system he set up no longer exists. Page 51 contains the explosive suggestion that the country needs the ability to import foreign talent more freely, in a report that bemoans the high and increasing unemployment among US chemists.

DarkSteven -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 5:49:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR Unless US patents have the force of law overeas, it is all futile. T^T Do not even GO there. I would assume that would require reciprocity, which would require that we honor all foreign patents. Next thing we know, some third world countries would start allowing invalid patents, so that the fake-patenters could tie up legit patents in US courts, essentially for shakedown money.

samboct -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 6:22:15 AM)
On a personal note, back in the mid 90s, I applied for a Washington internship with the ACS to look at the problem of unemployment amongst recent Ph.Ds and postdocs. Needless to say, I got dinged- because my thesis was too radical and there was no evidence that the job market was weak. (I asked for feedback from the reviewers- they said my writing was OK though.) Of course, anyone looking at the job postings in C+E News as they went down from several hundred a week in the mid 80s to a few dozen a decade later might get the idea there was a problem. I knew just from talking to my colleagues and attending meetings that there was a problem. Faculty jobs a few years prior that got half a dozen applications got over a hundred- and most of the applicants were damn good. Madeline Jacobs, editor of C + E News and later head of the ACS disagreed with me. I utterly despise that woman- I've met her and I must admit, I've never given anyone a chillier reception. Somehow cursing her out at a social gathering didn't seem appropriate, but maybe I should have. Anyhow, Whitesides is very much an ivory tower scientist. He's brilliant, and often comes up with new directions, but he hasn't been great at starting companies. The idea that you can wave a magic wand and produce 5 $20billion companies is ludicrous- and it shows a lack of awareness of what the current market needs are and might be. As our economy has evolved from producing large volumes of durable (or not so durable goods) to higher value products on the basis of mass such as silicon chips (and yes, we actually still do produce high end chips in this country, and God and Intel willing, will continue to do so.) the amount of labor and volume of chemicals needed decreased. Our best bet is to push for a moon shot style approach to get rid of fossil fuels. But if we look at the companies spawned by the space program- it's not a few massive firms, it's lots of smaller firms. Whitesides has been touting the drivel of the ACS which is funded by large chemical companies and is utterly unresponsive to its membership as a whole- that's why the comment that we need to allow foreign postdocs and grad students easy access to the industry. This is a separate problem- if it would be a matter of brains, the answer is yes. Unfortunately, the reason has been to depress wages. Its now really coming back to haunt us as the Chinese grads don't stay in the US any longer, they're going back to China to work in companies that are now clobbering US firms-their wages back in China rose rapidly over the past 5 years or so. Good topic for labor day weekend.... Sam

DarkSteven -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 6:45:19 AM)
Sam, I really appreciate your insight here. Your statement "Whitesides is very much an ivory tower scientist. He's brilliant, and often comes up with new directions, but he hasn't been great at starting companies." explains a lot - one of the things that confused me about the report is that it didn't have a clear focus or target audience. If the guy on top gave fuzzy direction, that would explain that. And the idea that the megacompanies feed the ACS explains that completely puzzling suggestion that allowing foreign chemists into the US will somehow create a business boom that creates more jobs for domestic chemists.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 10:36:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The American Chemical Society recently advocated a strategy of giving techies the tools needed to spur technological innovation on the basis that new technologies equate to business and thus job growth. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18783382 Comments? I'll go first. I kinda agree with the idea of making business tools available to techies, but am very leery that the focus will be on developing and administering the infrastructure rather than on the health of the businesses produced and the concomitant jobs. And I don't like the idea of assuming that the problem is that prospective entrepreneurs need access to funds to succeed - before making that assumption, we need to know just what ARE the factors preventing more startups, especially since we used to not seem to have this problem - what's changed? Do you have a link to the paper? American Chemical Society That was a simply google search willbe, even you could have done it. As to which article/paper the author in the Denver Post refers to is a good question. Any of 19 papers could have been the basis for the article. LMAO. I asked for a link to THE paper not any of the 19 it COULD be. Apparently even your brilliance couldnt do that. Some of us like to actually read about what we're responding to first.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 11:07:16 AM)
FR Thanks for the link. It is an interesting paper, fairly typical of studies done in many areas of science and technology, but reflective of current economic realities. I think it has a mixed audience...decision makers in the industry, and high school students interested in majoring in Chemistry and wondering what the future looks like. For me, the most important aspects of it in the context of this board is the recognition that the model of large internal R&D departments are not likely to be a source of "disruptive innovation"...significant advances and discoveries, rather than the incremental refinements to target audiences. The model of the future is partnership between the giants and the entrepeneurs. While it makes a plea for R&D tax credits and other Federal inputs into the market, there isnt much of a case made for continuing the social engineering through the tax code. The importation of foreign talent isnt all that explosive to me. Its essentially a "trickle down" theory of talent. If you are unable to attract domestic talent immediately, then bring in innovators from the "outside" in the hope that they generate new ideas that in turn generate jobs that in turn generate interest on the part of young domestic talent. Read in the context of the current environment, moreover, demonization of big business, big pharma, the profit motive are antithetical to the chemical industry as it is to all industry. Government needs to get out of the way more than it needs to provide direct support.

DarkSteven -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 11:51:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy FR Thanks for the link. It is an interesting paper, fairly typical of studies done in many areas of science and technology, but reflective of current economic realities. I think it has a mixed audience...decision makers in the industry, and high school students interested in majoring in Chemistry and wondering what the future looks like. Maybe you're right. I still believe that the message was diluted by the broadening of the audience. Your explanation sounds as plausible as any. quote: For me, the most important aspects of it in the context of this board is the recognition that the model of large internal R&D departments are not likely to be a source of "disruptive innovation"...significant advances and discoveries, rather than the incremental refinements to target audiences. The model of the future is partnership between the giants and the entrepeneurs. While it makes a plea for R&D tax credits and other Federal inputs into the market, there isnt much of a case made for continuing the social engineering through the tax code. I agree with your basic stance here, and have to say that it's refreshing to see a blueprint for the future that consists of something other than government subsidies. Hell, back in 1980 I remember some hydrogen energy proponents pushing for government funding for hydrogen energy. quote: The importation of foreign talent isnt all that explosive to me. Its essentially a "trickle down" theory of talent. If you are unable to attract domestic talent immediately, then bring in innovators from the "outside" in the hope that they generate new ideas that in turn generate jobs that in turn generate interest on the part of young domestic talent. We disagree here. If it's true that the unemployment rate among chemists is high, then it seems to me that we have an obligation to them first. Innovators from other countries are liable to be less able to navigate the US system than the homegrowns, especially those with industry experience and contacts. quote: Read in the context of the current environment, moreover, demonization of big business, big pharma, the profit motive are antithetical to the chemical industry as it is to all industry. Government needs to get out of the way more than it needs to provide direct support. While I agree with you generally speaking, I think that the SBIR award system has produced a lot of technological innovation for a relatively small investment. Speaking of which, I'd like your opinion - does a 15% award rate for both SBIR Phase I and II sound way high to you?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 1:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Speaking of which, I'd like your opinion - does a 15% award rate for both SBIR Phase I and II sound way high to you? Well, since Im against Federal grants for pretty much anything Im probably the wrong one to ask! Putting that aside I really would have to know the quality of the proposals to comment. If they were typical SBA fare Id say yes, it sounds too high. However, given the technical nature of SBIR I would assume a good deal of research and talent goes into the proposls. BTW I dont find SBIR as objectionable as specific grants to specific industries, since it is more of a shotgun approach across all research budgets...sd long as it is administered with an eye toward actual innovation vs favored endeavors.

DarkSteven -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 1:58:34 PM)
Mea culpa. I phrased that poorly. What I MEANT to say was that I assumed that there would be SBIR projects cancelled, multiple prospective vendors, etc, and that I would expect the Phase I award rate to be around 10%-25%. I would expect that maybe one in four would make it to Phase II, so I would expect a Phase II award rate to be something like 2% - 6%. I was asking you if you felt the numbers sounded wrong based on knowledge of the Federal contracting system, not on philosophical grounds.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 2:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Mea culpa. I phrased that poorly. What I MEANT to say was that I assumed that there would be SBIR projects cancelled, multiple prospective vendors, etc, and that I would expect the Phase I award rate to be around 10%-25%. I would expect that maybe one in four would make it to Phase II, so I would expect a Phase II award rate to be something like 2% - 6%. I was asking you if you felt the numbers sounded wrong based on knowledge of the Federal contracting system, not on philosophical grounds. My experience was just on the pricing and cost recovery/accounting side, and it was for large established companies where there might be 2 or 3 competitors. A different world from SBA/SBIR grants. Your numbers for Phase I sound reasonable...maybe a little low for Phase II.

samboct -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 5:52:31 PM)
Hi Stephen In terms of your guesstimates for SBIR awards- they're in the ballpark from what I recall from attending SBIR conferences. However, some agencies are more competitive than others- and STTR awards can be somewhat less competitive. Phase IIs are much rarer, and Phase IIIs occasionally were termed on par with Big Foot. It's not quite that bad, but one of the major flaws in the program is that the customer is often structurally unable to buy- so that getting Phase 1 research done successfully doesn't necessarily lead to a gov't contract. In fact, too many SBIR awards don't get contracts- even though the research and products are well thought out. What happens is that the Defense Primes function as gatekeepers to the defense agencies- it's kind of like the foxes guarding the hen house. Basically anything that the defense agencies buy, has to come from the Defense Primes- who in a marvelous example of circular reasoning, say that they only develop stuff at customer request. It's incredibly idiotic and is one of the major reasons why there have been so few spin outs out of the defense industry as of late. In terms of large firms research capabilities- don't make me laugh. Large centralized R +D went out in the 80s- most of those buildings are empty these days. The idea that they'll get research from small companies- well, hell, that's been our niche, so we've seen some of this first hand. Doesn't work well in general- most large companies until desperate have NIH problems, (NIH stands for not invented here.) People in those companies don't want to go and find other companies with good research-they may be out of a job. Also- how do small companies pay for this R+D? From investors? Given the long time frame to commercialize new materials, there's no way VCs find materials firms attractive. Plus, the margins generally aren't there either. So there aren't enough small firms doing research and those that are on a government nickel. In terms of tax stuff- yeah right. Most small companies don't have profits, and if they do they're modest. Taxes are not high on their expenses. Wanna start new companies? What's been missing is a first customer willing to pay for performance. Sam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 6:42:09 PM)
The paper discusses an intermediate model that (at least in essence, if not exact form) worked well when I was at AT&T. The entrepeneurial company is actually part of (or dropped down out of) the parent, but doesnt report through the normal channels. They are both independent but close enough to home to (theoretically at least) avoid NIH problems, have a built in customer and deep pockets with out going VC. Usually the structure of the baby is entrepeneurial enough that management can LBO out of the parent relationship, as we did.

outhere69 -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 7:29:00 PM)
Bell Labs generated a bunch of innovative, revolutionary stuff, and it was the product of a large monopoly. HP's also done some cool stuff on the test side and it's a large corporation. A variety of government labs/organizations (Los Alamos Nation Labs, NASA, etc.) also came up with revolutionary products...with a hell of a lot of tax bucks. I believe Intel was fairly large when it came up with EPROMs, but I'd have to go diving in my library for the financial details. From what I've been hearing, the VC community in Silcon Valley's become quite stodgy and there's an increasing trend of relatively inexperienced MBAs making decisions to invest, or running the companies in tight little circles with endless paperwork and meetings before a decision is made. The problem with some hardware prospects (say in semiconductors) is that they require big bucks and have to compete with companies that have far more engineering and financial resources.

samboct -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 7:37:19 PM)
I'm sorry, but both of you guys are talking about companies that are long gone, along with business models that considered R+D to be part of a companies life blood, rather than a needless expense that can be outsourced. As an example these days- GEs research lab has maybe 125 folks in it- and that's one of the wealthiest corporations out there. HP is on the rocks, as is Lucent and AT+T doesn't do research any more. Oil companies do R+D? Don't make me laugh.... Defense contractors still do some R+D, but they've got the aforementioned structural issues. Sorry, but I'm on the front lines with these companies and I've seen them pull in their R+D when it doesn't deliver results instantly. Big companies don't do spin outs well often, it's not their core business. Like I said- what's lacking are first customers, like Uncle Sam. Sam

Termyn8or -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/4/2011 9:13:21 PM)
"Do not even GO there. I would assume that would require reciprocity, which would require that we honor all foreign patents. " If you only knew. a deisel engine should be called a "white". Interesting story behind that, when it comes to internatonal patent laws. Very interesting. Now here's another problem with that idea, there are what, maybe 150 elements in our universe ? they can only be combined in so many ways, some of them useful and others not so useful. Chemistry is getting like electronics in my view. There are only three circuits in electronics, rectifiers, amplifiers and oscillators. Yes, they have done quite a bit with them but the fact remains. The hundred something elements we know of are OK, they served us well. The rest to be discovered who cares. There are a shitload more but most of the new ones don't have any stable isotopes, shit, now it seems even carbon doesn't, but who cares ? Now setting people in a laboratory with a shitload of chemicals may seem like a good idea to some people, but remember that is what led to the development of LSD. As much fun as it was, it was a lost generation. I hope you can understand what I mean by that. What will these chemists make ? That is the question. Discovering how this shit from the pancreas affects the liver or some shit could help ten, maybe even twenty people. What we need is fuel for our cars. And I bet they tried it and found out that you just can't grind up humans and make any kind of useful substance out of them. Go figure. T^T

DarkSteven -> RE: Letting techies innovate - key to economic revival? (9/5/2011 7:35:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or There are only three circuits in electronics, rectifiers, amplifiers and oscillators. Um, Termy, that holds for analog electronics. Digital's been here since the 1970s at least.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875