Continuing Vannevar Bush’s Spark of Genius

Panelists

Mr. Chad Holliday
Chair, Global Federation of Competitiveness Councils; Chair Emeritus, Council on Competitiveness 

Dr. Sunil Kumar
President, Tufts University

The Hon. Deborah L. Wince-Smith
President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Moderator: Mr. Jim Clifton
Chairman, Gallup

Session Overview

U.S. colleges and universities are the lifeblood of the nation’s innovation economy — developing the talent, the research, and the pathway to technologies that have differentiated the United States from every other nation over the past 75 years. Born from the vision of Tufts University graduate Vannevar Bush, this science and innovation model has evolved and responded to the challenges and opportunities facing the country for nearly a century. As America approaches its 250th birthday — and the Council its 40th — what role do America’s universities play today in driving not only the research at the heart of innovation, but also in seeding the economic development crucial to place-making innovation in an era of disruption and discontinuity? This leadership dialogue explored this issue — and offered ideas to keep the U.S. university and college system strong, relevant, and responsive to the competitiveness realities of today.

Key Discussion Points

Having been a business executive for many years, Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton observed that, while the United States is the best country in the world at academic and intellectual development, it has too often left entrepreneurial and commercial success too much up to chance. He cited a story about a mathematics savant suffering from significant communications disabilities who, after being “discovered” by a university, was able to go on to develop his talents and become a leading contributor to his field. Mr. Clifton noted, however, that if the man in question had been an entrepreneurial genius, rather than a mathematics one, he would have languished in obscurity. Better developing the U.S. entrepreneurial ecosystem is just as important to national competitiveness as ensuring world-class educational opportunities.

Mr. Clifton offered three quantifiable metrics to measure the innovation economy. The first was the “Money Economy”- global GDP distribution. The United States holds about 29 percent of global GDP, while China and Europe each hold another 18 percent. While the United States remains the clear leader, many believe that China is the largest, which Clifton noted as a failure of education. The global economy stands at $100 trillion today and is expected to reach $200 trillion within a generation; Mr. Clifton made it clear that it is whoever makes that “next” $100 trillion that will win the future.

The second metric is the “Entrepreneurial Economy,” which Mr. Clifton defined as the number of unicorns – startups valued over $1 billion – per country. The U.S. lead here is even wider, with 729 – 51.4 percent of the global total – compared to second-place China’s 313. Mr. Clifton called for the U.S. to double down on this advantage as one of its best ways to “win” the future. Importantly, he also noted the lack of any wealthy Middle Eastern countries in the top 10 unicorn markets, something he argued proves that money cannot buy unicorns; they need an integrated innovation economy, not just investment, to flourish.

Mr. Clifton’s final metric was the “Emotional Economy,” defined as whether workers are “engaged” in their jobs. The United States ranges in the low-to-mid thirties, while China approaches 20 and Europe remains stuck closer to 13%. This gap in enthusiasm for work points to a U.S. workforce that is better able to “push the envelope” of new ideas in the workplace.

One idea that all the panelists agreed on was that underpinning all of these positive metrics was the U.S. research university system. Council on Competitiveness Chair Emeritus Chad Holliday, formally the DuPont chair, relayed a story where he met a company scientist who, despite having over 100 patents, was unable to get permissions to work on the novel catalysts that were his true passion. When Mr. Holliday assumed that universities would take care of that work, he was unable to answer when the scientist asked him what would happen if the universities were not there. The basic research being done at universities – something industry is often less eager to do – is a critical component of the U.S. economy.

Tufts University President Sunil Kumar echoed this sentiment, lauding universities’ capability to filter radical new ideas through many people, creating breakthroughs where otherwise there would have only been marginal improvement. He also highlighted the importance of developing the next generation of innovators. He gave the example of a thousand students lined up by IQ or test scores; even in such a distribution, the potential billionaires who would create a world-changing technology cannot be easily picked out. Therefore, it is the job of the university to provide them all a “safe place to fail,” and to teach them three critical lessons: how to turn basic research into a useful product, how to fail quickly, and how to pick up and move on after a failure - otherwise, the unicorns go extinct. Tesla, he reminded, faced the flop of their first Roadster before they succeeded; without learning how to fail, and learn from failure, the world’s most valuable automaker would not exist.

In addition to teaching the capacity to fail, Council on Competitiveness CEO Deborah Wince-Smith raised imagination as something critical that universities nurture. She separated imagination, the ability to create a whole new idea, from creativity, turning new ideas into reality, calling the former the “highest human discipline.” Unicorns flourish environments where solutions are not obvious, and where radical ideas can be generated and gain traction – exactly the environment a university offers.

But universities are facing unprecedented challenges; Mr. Clifton mentioned that, while a 10-point drop in opinion was bad, a 30-point drop – like universities have experienced – is disastrous. Dr. Kumar pointed to messaging problems from universities as the culprit; universities have not done a good enough job explaining how their work benefits everyday people. Instead, they have often been exclusionary; Dr. Kumar specifically called out the perverse pride taken by many universities at how many students they reject as an abysmal strategy for making the case that they serve everyone. Instead, universities should focus on the real good they do in their communities; it was unsurprising to Dr. Kumar that Tufts’s veterinary school was the most well-liked part of the university, because that’s the part that normal people see going out and doing good in their communities. Mr. Clifton noted how, on reading the mission statement for the University of California system, he was surprised it said, “To be an engine for economic growth and jobs for the state of California.” How much more support would university systems get if that purpose was better known?

Mr. Holliday echoed the point about greater focus on community good, noting how DuPont’s refineries had seen greater local support and trust when safety officers began regularly engaging with the community on a one-on-one basis. He added that universities could also revive their public image by focusing more on the innovations that come from them. DNA analysis, MRIs, radar, computers, web browsers, lasers, and synthetic insulin all came out of university labs, and all tangibly benefit ordinary citizens.

To combat a perception of political bias, the Hon. Wince-Smith concluded by asking why so many universities had been reticent to sign onto the “Chicago Principles” of free speech and expression. Dr. Kumar noted that, while more than 100 schools had created their own version of the statement, including Tufts, this particular wheel keeps getting reinvented as each school wants to put their own spin on it. However, the ideas in the statement are spreading.