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 the 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

Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton observed that, while the United States is by many metrics, observations, and outcomes the best country in the world at academic and intellectual development, it has perhaps too often left entrepreneurial and commercial success too much up to chance. He cited the example of a mathematics savant with a communications disability who, in spite of his challenges, was given the resources and opportunities needed to make major contributions to his field; Mr. Clifton asked if, had the man been an entrepreneurial genius rather than a mathematical one, would he have been afforded the same attention and opportunities for development? In his view, the answer was a resounding “no.” While the United States can pluck brilliant academics from obscurity and aggressively invest in them, doing the same for entrepreneurs is far less certain.

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 whichever country generates that “next” $100 trillion 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 unicorns – 51.4 percent of the global total – compared to second-place China’s count of 313. Mr. Clifton called for the United States to double down on this advantage as one of the best ways to “win” the future. He also noted the lack of unicorns emerging from wealthy Middle Eastern countries – arguing money alone cannot produce unicorns. Unicorns 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 – on a scale of 0 to 100 percent engagement. The United States ranges in the low-to-mid thirties of workers expressing themselves as fully engaged with their jobs, while China approaches 20 percent and Europe remains stuck closer to 13 percent. 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 fact on which all the panelists agreed: the U.S. research university system underpins all of these positive metrics for the United States. Council on Competitiveness Chair Emeritus Chad Holliday relayed a story from his service as DuPont Chair and CEO, when a highly prolific patenter and scientist in the company complained that he could not secure permission to work on a set of novel catalysts that were not core to the company’s business direction. Holliday recalled sharing with the scientist that others would take care of such work. But Holliday also shared having to take a pause and reflect deeply when the scientist asked him what would happen if universities were suddenly not there or not funded to do such work. This reinforced for Holliday the absolute criticality of university funded and performed basic research to the U.S. economy.

Tufts University President Sunil Kumar echoed this sentiment, lauding universities’ capabilities to filter radical new ideas through many people, creating breakthroughs where otherwise there would have only been marginal improvement. He also highlighted the important role universities play in developing the next generation of innovators – as well as a “safe place to fail,” teaching 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.

In addition to teaching the capacity to fail, Council on Competitiveness CEO Deborah Wince-Smith contended a higher level role for universities: to empower and nurture student imagination. 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.”

But universities are facing unprecedented public relations challenges; Mr. Clifton, a longtime pollster, suggested that a 10-percentage point drop in public approval is what he considers “bad.” Universities, by comparison, have seen a 30-point drop in the previous decade; according to Mr. Clifton, that qualifies as “disastrous.” Dr. Kumar pointed to messaging problems from universities as the culprit; contending universities have not done a good enough job explaining how their work benefits everyone. Instead, universities and their messaging and engagement with broader society 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. 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 is a part of the university the community most often engages and sees as a benefit.

Mr. Clifton pointed out how, even with good intent, messaging is often obscured, not well known, and not well shared. For example, upon learning a colleague was assuming the presidency of the University of California System, Clifton discovered the System’s mission statement was not what he thought it might be. He was surprised it is “to be an engine for economic growth and jobs for the state of California.” He rhetorically asked his fellow panelists and Conversation participants how much more support would university systems receive if purpose like that was better known?

Mr. Holliday echoed the point about greater focus on community good, noting how DuPont’s refineries garnered greater local support and trust when safety officers began regularly engaging with members of the community, on a one-on-one basis. He added universities could also revive their public image by focusing more on the community and society-enhancing 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.