21 November 2006

Europe a laggard in research?

Europe is sometimes described as a laggard when it comes to the commercialization of intellectual property. New research comparing technology transfer on both sides of the Atlantic shows that the reality is rather different.

Researchers at the United Nations University (UNU) recently published what they believe is the first critical comparison of patent and commercialization activity between Europe and the US. They sought to shed light on the so-called European Paradox, the notion that Europe has good ideas but doesn't make any money from them.    

They find that for every million dollars invested, Europe produces 20% more licenses, 40% more startups and earns within 10% of overall return on investment enjoyed by investors in the US. Measured in terms of these formal forms of technology transfer, Europe is not such a laggard after all.

In characteristic self-deprecating fashion, the European researchers hail the findings as a warning rather than a sign of success. They believe Europe may be focusing too much on formal technology transfer, in turn threatening the open exchange of ideas.

Borrowing from the language of software development, the UNU publication calls for a strengthening of Open Source Science, that is, for greater sharing of basic knowledge and intellectual property.

The US, they believe, is actually much stronger in this regard. Despite an explicit orientation favouring the Market over sharing, technology transfer in the US is conducted with a strong orientation towards sharing knowledge.

If anything, this is the paradox that deserves attention. How is that the country that believes in unfettered competitiveness could simultaneously be home to the planet's greatest achievements in open source software?

Might this come down to the difference between talk and action?

I recently attended a public lecture in Zurich, Switzerland, in which talk and action came into sharp contrast. A member of Switzerland's seven-member governing committee was warmly acknowledging Europe's communitarian instincts.

The Swiss governor explained that competition created jealousy, and that jealousy wasted precious human energies. Much better to do research as a network and share, said the Governor.

There followed a talk by a high profile Harvard professor. He began with the words "I luuurve competition". The lecture hall froze as he described how competitiveness was the foundation of the US dominance in research.

The Swiss Governor's face tightened visibly.

But as the Harvard professor went on it became clear that competitive advantage was not the only factor behind the US's superior research profile. The professor acknowledged a much simpler, and insidious factor behind US successes.

That factor was access to journals.

US journals, he acknowledged, had a clear bias towards US research. Everyone else was somewhat off the radar, he explained.

You can talk the talk, but the action came down to jealous US journal editors.

Talk. Action.

If the US can't resolve the disparities between the two, let's hope Europe can, and that Europe's Open Source Science will flourish.

19 November 2006

Filling the gap between R&D and commercialization

The European Institute of Technology (EIT) moved back onto the agenda on October 18th with the publication of a revised proposal for its funding and organizational structure. According to its supporters, the EIT will bridge the gap between Europe's rich knowledge-base and commercially valuable innovation.

What began as a plan to create Europe's answer to the MIT has now changed considerably. In the new proposal, the EIT is a two-tier institution comprising a small organizational body and a network of collaborative groups called Knowledge & Innovation Communities (KICs).

The KIC's comprise researchers and entrepreneurs employed at universities and other public sector bodies, and the private sector. They will be expected to come up with the innovation, as well as €2.1Billion of the €2.4Billion budget.

Industry and academic interest in the proposal is lukewarm. Industry groups wonder why they should give generously to something that is, in effect, little more than an administrative department of 100 people.

Supporters of the EIT battle on. One name that stands out at the moment is Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek. Buzek talks about Europe's poor ability to deliver innovation, by which he seems to mean, products and services that generate a direct profit.

"It is impossible to finance innovation directly through FP7", remarked Buzek in a reference to the EC's research funding program. He believes the task comes down to filling a gap between research and commercialization.

The EIT would fill this gap, claims Buzek, and would not participate directly in either research or education. This would create unnecessary competition between the EIT and Europe's universities and research institutes, he claims.

Some comment that the latest proposals for the EIT pose more questions than answers. Eurochambres, the 17 Million member association of European chambers of commerce raise several questions.

They believe the proposal lacks clarity about how the KICs will be organized. They also claim that the proposal leaves open the question of how the EIT will rate, and therefore rank, the projects it will become involved with.

Buzek claims these questions reveal the EIT's strengths rather than its weaknesses. On the issue of how KICs would be organized, Buzek believes that the innovation programs will benefit from being able to decide themselves on their composition and organization.

This is a curious response from Buzak.

If the EIT will not participate directly in research, then its existence will be justified in terms of its guidance in technology transfer and commercialization. Filling the gap and all that.

But if it cannot describe how those goals would be translated into some kind of organizational formula or plan, how can we evaluate its quality as an organisation? Seems that the gap between research and commercial success is as empty and unclear as ever.