Sports and Innovation November 13, 2007
Posted by rhoeboer in EZ, Government, IPR, Innovatie, Ministerie van Economische zaken, Overheid, TWA, funding, innovation, research, sport, sports.add a comment
Last Tuesday we went to a meeting sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ in short) and hosted by The Netherlands Office of Science and Technology. The meeting was on Innovation in Sports Technology and from the moment we entered the meeting we knew there was something different going on here than what we generally experience.
On stage was Erika Terpstra, former Olympic Athlete, former member of Dutch Parliament and current member of the Netherlands Olympic Committee. I hope I am not insulting her when I say that she doesn’t show how smart she is. Actually, on stage, she doesn’t take herself very serious at all. She jokes about her own short comings with abandon, but there is no lack of ambition and passion when it comes to what she has come here to say. She takes her message seriously: Sports unite people!
The atmosphere during the breaks and in the afternoon break-out sessions is relaxed, informal and enthusiastic. Everybody is passionate about sports and it shows. People are open and willing to communicate with each other, there seem to be no, or far less hidden agenda’s. A breath of fresh air compared to the frantic, ‘In your face’ atmosphere of a business context. On most business seminars people are openly hunting and for most there is a lack of passion for what they do. Most attendants keep their cards close to their chest; so unlike the sports context which is clearly about more than the bottom line! However vague the goal essentially is, everybody wants to improve the enjoyment of sports. Sports is about being active and doing something that acknowledges your body and thereby yourself and your team mates.That experience unites the room.
We talked with two American Professors (MIT and Virginia Tech), and two Europeans, one from Austria and one from Germany. The funny thing was that the American professors who have to work in a competitive environment were very open about what they did and we should call them anytime to discuss and share ideas. The professors from Austria and Germany, who are used to working in a collaborative and government supported environment were cautious and had both had bad experiences where people stole their ideas and left them in the cold. If ever there was a contradiction. Funny thing is, the American Professors are jealous of the European way of doing government sponsored research, in stead of their 80% business sponsored research model that is more and more characterized by fighting over IPR’s instead of doing valuable research. Apparently they hadn’t talked to their European colleagues yet.
Coincidence? I am afraid not. In the US model you need to constantly prove that your research can improve the bottom line of the funding companies. A nice statistic is that US universities make much more money on ’selling’ research than they do on IPR’s, 80% to be exact. Even including Stanford and Google. In Europe mixing business and research is a taboo, and therefore can never be about improving the bottom line but has to be research that stimulates the European Knowledge economy. This is pretty vague, so who decides whether it does? Civil servants off course! Based on Government and EU policy. That makes getting funded about two things. Knowing how the system works and knowing what the politicians and by extension their civil servants find interesting. A good idea that is not politically favourable doesn’t stand a chance. Suddenly it is about doing research that helps a politician gain or retain power. Call me a cynic, but if you are a person with a good idea, in Europe, you will always see the big companies get the big subsidies. Hundred and fifty million (yes, 150.000.000€) from a Dutch innovation fund to a marketing campaign for the Philips Senseo tea springs to mind.
Europe shouldn’t copy the US system, it is far from perfect. At the moment, Universities are more and more fighting over IPR’s with research funding companies. All with the hope of owning the IPR’s for the next Google. This is highly illogical in face of the earlier mentioned statistic. For Europe, I am of a mind to compromise between the two systems.
First, whomever funds the research gets the IPR! Let us copy the open sports mentality. Off course the individual athlete doesn’t like his improved shoe, skate or training methods known to other athletes before he has won some medals, come to think of it, he probably won’t like it until he has won them all. But, he also knows that if it improves the whole of his sport, there will be more spectators, more opportunities for sponsoring and more money to be made in his relatively short professional life. Some even want a level playing field in order to really show they are the best. In the end isn’t it about the record books? We all still remember Bob Beamon! So, let’s offer the athlete who contributes to successful research a sponsorship to last him the rest of his short career. He’ll love it, takes his mind off of sponsors, management and on to the task at hand, improving and winning. I see some nice parallels with universities here. They are good at research so let’s keep them focused on doing their job instead of managing IPR’s.
Second to this openness, let us also copy the approach of sports towards innovation. It is about teamwork and involving as many disciplines as possible. An athlete in the current environment can not win alone. Not even Roger Federer can do without a trainer and a coach during the Grand Slams. Roger is a team effort. The team can not be copied! Don’t go for point solutions, go for integrated ones that are much harder to copy and by extension have a much longer life cycle.
Third, and this is something I think is also already happening in Sports, combine the power of governments to improve the infrastructure for education and research (providing the people with places to do sports), with the power of business to select ideas with potential and fund them on an individual basis (sponsor the talent they believe in and fits their image). Ideally that would mean 50/50 funding between government and business so government facilitates and business helps to choose, both supporting development in their own way.
But I am probably just pissing everybody off for inviting the Devil to dinner. The US universities for having to share power with the ever untrustworthy government (didn’t George W. Bush singlehandedly prohibit stem cell research?) and European Universities for reducing their independence from the ever untrustworthy business. Still I have some hopes, because all professors I have spoken to this year are jealous of the other continent’s success. Funny thing, human nature.
Loosing a running battle February 25, 2007
Posted by rhoeboer in change, decisions, innovation, management, research.add a comment
Why is it so hard to make long term decisions? Why is it so hard to break out of conventional thinking when the facts tell you you should? There is a recurring theme here; why is it so hard to change when we know we really need to? I have been pondering these questions for many years. Last night I was watching a program on the battle against cancer showing that we are essentially loosing it. Not that the research into cures is without results, but the number of people getting cancer is growing faster than we can come up with cures. The holy grail of genetics is proving to be harder to find than we had hoped and can only be applied to very specific cases at high costs and at the moment you need to take the drugs for the rest of your live.
In the fight against cancer more and more treatments are found to alleviate suffering, halt tumor growth and postpone death. We are growing towards a situation where cancer will become a chronic disease like diabetes or asthma, with the lifelong dependency on the taking of drugs as a result. In this it is very much like the way our society deals with some of its most persistent problems such as multi cultural integration, social security and the ever growing pressure of economic growth on our environment. We create stop gap solutions that keep everybody happy on the short term without solving the issues on the long term. Hello asbestos, oil dependency and the hole in the ozone layer. Not to mention global warming.
When fighting a war, it is good to know who does most of the propaganda. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole has a vested interest in cancer as a chronic disease. Ninety-five percent of the annual budget for cancer research goes into finding new treatments; the meager rest goes into prevention. There is no drive to change the distribution of funds towards prevention, even though the scientific majority states that how we deal with our environment in preventing cancer will very probably deliver far better results than finding cures. This absence of willingness to change is completely in line with the political clout and deep pockets the pharmaceuticals have when it comes to deciding the agenda for cancer research. If we look at the part of the budget that goes to research into the mechanism of metastasis, the factor that causes ninety percent of all cancer related deaths, it is only ten percent. Metastasis is apparently too complex a mechanism to research and takes too long to provide a return on investment. Don’t get me wrong; from the standpoint of the industry this is a very valid reason not to pursue research. Why then are our governments not stepping in to fill the gap through sponsoring the scientific community in performing research into prevention and metastasis and provide legislation to prescribe the distribution of funds?
They do not know any better, pharmaceutical lobbyists have a vested interest and the power to get an appointment. The oncology professors with the knowledge to make a change lack the time to do a running battle with pharmaceutical lobbyists who not only have the time to plan their attack, but also have the time to translate their message into easily understood one-liners. Let’s face it, we did not choose our representatives for their superior knowledge of cancer, so we can hardly blame them for choosing to go the route of easily understandable sound bytes instead of the thorough route of understanding all the complex mechanisms involved in fighting cancer. If we can not cope with cause of death number one and prevent people from getting cancer in the first place, what does that tell you about the society we live in?
It is not the fact that our representatives do not make an effort. They do and do so with our best interests at hart. The problem is the way in which they do it. They are not making a collaborative effort together with industry, science and patient organizations even though they think they do. They go to big conferences, speak to all parties separately and then draft a proposal with their civil servants, a proposal that is then sent to the involved parties for their OK. The result is a compromise with all pieces of the puzzle and no holistic view of the whole. Talking to all parties involved and giving them a voice may be politically correct, but is by no means the same as collaborating with them to get win-win policies.
To ensure you have all the relevant pieces and a holistic view to combine them in the proper order, you need to work together closely with all parties involved. Not sequentially, but at the same time and with proper interaction between them all. The only way to make informed long term decisions is with all parties with a vested interest. For this you need a process to synchronize their value systems, provide a common goal and meet all individual goals at the same time. This takes hard work and strong direction, but certainly less time than the current approach, so why not give up the running battle for funds and start the battle against cancer?
