Tag Archives: European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment

Innovation in Europe—don’t copy a policy unless it works (amongst other salient comments)

There are very trenchant comments coming from the European Science Foundation (ESF) and the European Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) brief of  the Science of Innovation conference held Feb. 28, 2012.

From the July 18, 2012 news release on EurekAlert,

Innovation has improved human living standards to an unprecedented level, and is the key to further progress; however it is a complex phenomenon that is not easy to understand and whose effects are unclear. This is the conclusion of the policy brief published by the European Science Foundation and STOA on innovation policy. …

It summarises ten thought provoking issues that the science of innovation poses to policy makers:

1. Innovation policy: ‘uncommon sense’ needed – innovation is not always benign and its effects are not clean cut. It is important to understand how best to optimise, not maximise, innovation

2. The ‘science of innovation’ – diversification of innovation policy is vital. In particular a better understanding of innovation policy for the service sector is important, as this is the largest and fastest growing sector, making up more than two-thirds of European economies

3. Policy myths and rituals – there are many ‘myths’ in the world of innovation policy, such as the role of venture capitals, SMEs and the state. Innovation policy sometimes has a ritual dimension, in which policy-makers apply certain principles from elsewhere – often the US – because it seems like the thing to do, rather than because of clear evidence that it will work in their particular situation. Innovation policy has to be context-specific, and this is a big challenge for those who want to develop European-level innovation policy [emphasis mine]

4. Blind spots in innovation policy – knowledge transfer from other sectors than universities have been largely omitted in the discourse on innovation; the focus on tertiary education has for instance in some cases reduced the quality of the output of secondary education [emphasis mine]

5. Creative destruction, or destructive creation? – rather than ‘creative destruction’ we are increasingly seeing a process of ‘destructive creation’, in which new products and services diminish or destroy the usage value of existing ones, to the benefit of a few rather than many [emphasis mine]

6. Cognitive lock-in – the increased proximity between innovation policy and innovation research may have the effect of inhibiting the creation of new knowledge that could change policy directions

7. The ERA and academic disparities – the effect of European Research Area (ERA) policy may be uneven, as the opportunities it presents are unevenly distributed

8. Evidence-based innovation policy: limits and challenges – innovation policy is often not really evidence-based, or even based on distorted evidence. Available evidence from innovation research is fragmented, of variable quality, hard to interpret and often used inappropriately [emphasis mine]

9. Sharing risks and returns: toward a new model of knowledge governance – a new model of knowledge governance is considered, with innovative financial tools to give returns proportional to the very active high risk-taking role of state in investing in innovation

10. Innovation aimed at public value – stimulating the right type of innovation requires a clear idea of ‘public value’ and how to measure it

The brief (all 12 pp.) can be found here. Having read the brief, I highly recommend it. They actually have some imagery accompanying the text that I would describe as satirical. You just don’t expect that kind of thing in an official joint non-governmental agency/government  document.

There were a few things that I didn’t quite understand including the image of the turtle jumping out of a glass of water and seeming to fly (front cover) but perhaps someone could leave a comment explaining it to me.

To whet your appetite, here’s an excerpt from an item in the brief,  from 3. Policy myths and rituals on p. 5 PDF,

Features that work in the US may not work as well in Europe [or Canada for that matter], and in fact many of the ideas that Europe [or Canada] has about what works in the US are incomplete or distorted. For example, in the US, it is in fact in existing, large firms (rather than small new start-up SMEs) and in non-R&D intensive sectors (rather than R&D-intensive sectors) where the main productivity gains are being realised. The real importance of universities in the innovation system is not the direct commercialisation of research-derived knowledge. It is rather a range of other highly influential effects, notably the ‘production’ of an educated workforce able to generate and/ or absorb innovations, and of educated consumers able to use innovative products, both necessary for realising the value of innovation. Also, contrary to the ruling perception of many European policy-makers, active intervention by the state is key to innovation in the US. Innovation policy has to beware of myths and rituals, and needs to be highly context-specific (national, regional).

ETA July 27, 2012: David Bruggeman in a July 26, 2012 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog comments,

In general, the report strikes me as a more pragmatic, operational focus on science, technology and innovation than what I see being supported through the NSF program.  (Of course, YMMV.)

He too was quite interested in their point on myths and policy.