Thank you for your
thoughtful introduction.
It is my pleasure to
be here in Philadelphia not only as a participant in the national meeting of
the American Chemical Society, but also to witness my good friend and colleague
receive the 2008 Paul J. Flory Educational Award by the Polymer Chemistry
Division.
Indeed, Dr. Frank
Kelley, who is Dean Emeritus of The University of Akron's College of Polymer
Science and Polymer Engineering and Professor Emeritus of Polymer Science,
epitomizes the requirements of this coveted award as a promoter of polymer
education.
He was chief
administrator for the largest academic polymer program in the United States. Since 2000, The University of Akron program
has been ranked as #2 in the nation by U.S.
News and World Report.
Dr. Kelley has been
widely published and received even wider recognition for his academic work.
Congratulations
Frank!
At the outset of my
presentation, let me provide a bit of context.
I will do this by sharing some perspectives on our innovation ecosystem and
related data. This will give a set of
reference points for the U.S., the funders and performers of R&D and the
place of colleges and universities in this domain.
Then, I will turn to
suggestions and examples that I hope you may find useful in your deliberations as
all of us seek to "connect the dots . . ." of the innovation ecosystem.
Above all, I intend to
be somewhat provocative, as we need to be candid about these issues and
challenge ourselves to innovate on innovation.
I have three basic starting points for the major themes of my remarks:
-
First, innovation and R&D do not
occur in splendid isolation.
-
Second, the components of global
research and development systems are varied in size, areas of emphasis,
productivity and capacity, thus requiring new ways to efficiently and
effectively interact.
-
And, third, that a global economy
will increasingly require efficiencies in the utilization of R&D
investments through cross-country public/private collaborations that leverage
talent and resources and exhibit "strategic intent" - that is, a
focused strategy that signals economic purpose.
Erich Bloch, a former
director of the National Science Foundation, commented that those of us in
academic science who are faced with these forces of change seem to be caught in
a sort of scientific "midlife crisis" because 50 years of doing research one
way has fostered the belief that it cannot be done another way.
Indeed, academics have
not come to the opportunity of innovation easily nor quickly. As recently as
the 1990s, the majority of university leaders did not think that the academy
should even be involved in anything related to commercialization.
Universities did not
accept or take responsibility for any aspect of economic development. Some even
went so far as to consider any partnership with industry a sort of Faustian
bargain, believing that such relationships forced universities and faculty to
sell their souls and corrupt their noble purposes in exchange for worldly
riches.
Other universities, if
not to that extreme, simply were so conservative that they succumbed to
analysis paralysis. It made them anxious just to think about engaging with
industry.
In contrast to the
conceptual models of old, and much to the chagrin of many of my academic
colleagues, innovation does not happen in isolation, it happens within what
many are calling an innovation ecosystem
- that system of loosely inter-connected elements that has enabled our society
to make new discoveries, capture their value in the marketplace, enhance
productivity and increase our standard of living.
To be sure, the innovation ecosystem is a complex and interactive
one. It is shaped by the funds
available to support research activities, by capabilities of the scientists and
engineers who conduct research, and by the settings in which that research is
conducted - that is, its "infrastructure" - which is increasingly
global and devoid of boundaries.
The innovation ecosystem also is shaped by prevailing public attitudes
about the importance and usefulness of research in the broader context of
societal pressures and economic opportunity.
Quite simply, the work we do at colleges and universities and in
industry is not conducted in splendid isolation - rather, it is impacted by
complex regulatory and support environments which, in turn, interact with
financial opportunities and challenges across the world in an ever-evolving
model.
Indeed, a shortcoming
in any piece of the ecosystem could be the debilitating disconnects that
undermine our capacity for commercialization and economic growth.
It is our task to find
ways to optimize the positive interactions, to minimize or eliminate the
negative ones and to seek ways in which we can further enhance the process by
whatever means we can.
One such disconnect is
between industry and the academy. There is much to be gained by stopping the
finger-pointing between industry and universities and learning each other's
cultures better.
I want to focus on some data by
which we can describe the size and distribution of the R&D marketplace. Globally, the R&D marketplace is now
approaching a trillion dollars - which is a sizable industry by any standard.
Presently about 75% of global
R&D is done by the 30 OECD countries, of which 83% is dominated by only 7
countries, including 45% (approximately $340 billion) by the U.S. alone.
However, I hasten to add that the
U.S. share of the world's R&D has been declining, just as other dimensions
of U.S. dominance in science and engineering:
-
In the late 1970s the U.S. was home
to 30 percent of the world's college students, whereas today our nation is home
to only 14 percent.
-
In China and India, 60% of their
students are pursuing degrees in STEM disciplines, whereas in the U.S. only 10%
of our students are studying these disciplines.
Within the U.S., 62%
of R&D expenditures ($224 billion) are derived from industry, 30% ($94
billion) from the federal government and 7% ($23 billion) from foundations,
states and our own research universities.
In terms of
traditional R&D terminology, the U.S. performs about $60 billion of basic
research (18%), $75 billion of applied research (22%) and $204 billion of
development (60%).
Colleges and
universities perform nearly three-fourths of the country's basic research, but
only a nominal percentage of development. Industry alone performs about $184
billion of the nation's $204 billion of development.
Within the U.S.,
academic performers garnered about $47 billion, or 14% of the $340-billion U.S.
total, in 2006. Of special concern is the fact that industry-supported
university research has dropped to below 5% of all university research.
Although, in 1995, 875 of 4314
degree-granting institutions participated in the U.S. research economy, the top
100 captured 80% of all available funds. In general, universities are largely
disconnected from industry support and this explains why we remain so far apart
on many issues.
This discussion of innovation economies leads naturally to some general
comments on globalization and the emergence of open innovation. The speed of globalization and the sourcing
of new technology from any person anywhere in the world are rapidly
transforming science and technology.
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
"Open market innovation works for the same reason that free trade works:
It enables the laws of comparative advantage to govern the allocation of
R&D resources. In essence, a company
gets lower cost, higher quality ideas from the best sources in the world,
allowing it to refocus its own innovation resources where it has clear
competitive advantages. With the right people in place to recognize beneficial
trade-offs, the company is able to ‘export' ideas that other businesses could
put to better use."
(Darrel Rigby and
Christopher Zook, Manager's Column, The Wall Street Journal, December 3,
2002, p. B-2)
Another manifestation of the impact of globalization on science and
technology is the growing number of cross-country alliances, which have
increased dramatically in the last two decades.
In the United States, about 800 formal research joint ventures were
formally registered between 1985 and 1999. They involved about 4,200
organizations, nearly 90% of them industrial firms. Thirty percent were
foreign-owned participants, indicating a broad interest in this form of
activity. Universities were important partners in many of these research joint
ventures. Between 1985 and 1999, they participated in 16%of them.
(Ibid, pp. O-14-15)
I think that the U.S.
can learn from what many other countries are doing, and I also believe that
some U.S. states hold lessons for other countries and for the U.S. itself.
For example, although
the U.S. federal government has a large and diverse framework for considering
R&D policy and funding, most states lack a framework for considering
R&D activities, or for integrating R&D at the state level with programs
at the federal level.
Notably, a 1995 report
of the State-Federal Technology Partnership Task Force chaired by the Governors
of Ohio and Pennsylvania (the Celeste-Thornburg Report, as it has come to be
known) called attention to this disjunction and offered policy recommendation
to remedy it.
PCAST has wanted to
address this gap in the U.S. innovation ecosystem and focused its 2004
Cleveland meeting on topics related to what different states are doing to
better deploy its R&D resources.
I think it is
important for us to note that other countries are effectively solving policy
disjunctions within their national boundaries and that even the new European
Union is going beyond the U.S. in integrating its science and technology
policies and strategies across its individual "states."
What is more, the
traditional benchmarking of one state against another is no longer sufficient.
Regional clusters of innovation, as studied by the Council on Competitiveness,
must today be benchmarked not against other states, but also against other
world regions that support similar competitive industries.
Having thus provided a
context and background, let me now turn to a series of specific topics . . .
elements and pieces of the innovation ecosystem that need to be connected,
enhanced or optimized. The biggest challenge we face is ourselves - our human
partiality and the habits we have cultivated over many generations.
I will begin with the
challenge of the two cultures, business and industry and ask (at the risk of
mixing metaphors) "where is Copernicus when you need him?"
Human partiality
notwithstanding, the first thing that the concept of an innovation ecosystem
tells us is that neither industry nor academia is exclusively central to
innovation.
We need a "Copernicus"
to tell us that the innovation economy's "sun" does not revolve around either
one of us or even both of us uniquely. Rather, and to return to the ecosystem
metaphor, globalization and the new economy are increasingly demanding that we
move towards one another - and the sooner we realize this, cease the
finger-pointing and stop fighting the inevitable, the sooner we will see much
needed convergent evolution.
Indeed, ad hominem
attacks and less than well-informed suspicions or accusations only serve to
distance and antagonize. For example, I know of no evidence to support notions
that industry is any better than universities at technology transfer.
Although many
universities are still new to it, some such as MIT, Purdue and Wisconsin are
highly effective and seasoned veterans. Others, such as Akron, have been
nationally recognized as exemplars and are pioneering in new, innovative
directions.
Many companies, on the
other hand, have large stockpiles of patents which they have accumulated for
various reasons - perhaps defensively, perhaps because they simply didn't know
what do with them or because they represented non-core technologies in which
they had neither the experience nor inclination to commercialize.
What is more, a
telling reversal of fortunes is underway as some universities like Akron are
now assisting industry in commercializing their shelved, non-core technology
patents. Imagine that!
We can learn from each
other. Schooling ourselves, as
universities, in the language of business would be a good start. Understanding
the full dimensions of Bayh-Dole, which many universities and industries
misinterpret, is a necessity.
Adapting our
university structures to more closely address applied and business issues, as
Arizona State University and The University of Akron are doing, will also help
bridge the divide.
And I am encouraged by
the fact that the University Industry Demonstration Partnership has been formed
by a consortium of companies and universities to identify solutions and models
that will improve our mutual appreciation and support the essential
partnerships that are being formed.
Recognizing that the
growth of federal R&D investments has slowed and may be declining as a
percentage of GDP, and that industry has reduced the number and size of its
R&D activities, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) has undertaken a study of how the federal government can
facilitate and promote successful innovation strategies.
Not surprisingly, my
PCAST colleagues agree that engagement between industry and universities is
increasingly important for innovation and that additional government funding
and personnel should now be put in place to support emerging networks of
collaboration and reward those who find solutions to regional problems.
Of course CRADA's,
SBIR's, STTR's and a host of other collaborative programs and tax credits that
support R&D and technology transfer have, in the experience of nearly all
PCAST members, done much to promote innovation by building an appropriate
infrastructure, but new tools are needed.
Of course, part of the
reason that universities and industry have not come together easily derives
from the fact that in many disciplines the time between discovery and
innovation was previously often measured in decades - with notable exceptions
to this disconnect in the fields of agriculture and engineering, both of which
(thanks to the Land Grant Act of 1862 and the Hatch Act) had experiment and
extension stations in each state.
These experiment and
extension stations actively interacted with industry to solve problems in
agriculture and industry, increasing efficiency for farmers and industry
through the process of innovation.
Other disciplines
witnessed a major paradigm change with the information technology and biotech
revolutions when almost any new discovery or improvement was seen by corporate
sectors as an opportunity to translate to the asset ledger in an intellectual
property form or better yet monetized or otherwise turned into a revenue
stream.
Today, as business
clamors for innovation in all fields, we neglect to implement collaborative
models, similar to those used by the experiment stations, with proven value.
As we discussed
before, universities perform the lion's share of the nation's basic research,
but very little applied or development work. We also saw how little university
research, less than 5%, is supported by industry.
Clearly, if universities
account for only a fractional percentage of development and industry is
responsible for 90% of development, the two naturally must work together for
university-developed technology to be commercialized.
Conversely, with
governmental organizations, which perform less than 10% of development (and
most of that is on military technology), providing 63% of the funds going to
support university research, government is in an excellent position to serve as
matchmaker by structuring appropriate incentives for both parties. I think
there is a lot that we can do in this space.
Universities, however,
are not the only group in need of logical innovation partners. IBM, Bell
Laboratories and Xerox all have significantly reduced the size of their core
research facilities.
Others, like Intel, have established
research centers at Carnegie Mellon, University of California Berkeley and
University of Seattle Washington.
This clearly points to
an increased demand for external research capabilities, but I believe that in future
years universities will again face increasing competition to fill that void,
both from within and outside of their ranks.
Not only do universities
and industry seem to need each other's support, but also their work together
creates connections that streamline the technology transfer process and help us
to keep up with the rapid pace of development. That is why, Don Alstead, the
former Chairman of the Lord Corporation, kept an office or made regular visits
to many universities - so he could be the first to benefit from the linkages.
Among my industrial
colleagues, an important practice for optimizing innovation is that of linking
technical needs to discovery and innovation in real time. Thus, in order to
optimize our national innovation ecosystem, real-time connections between
universities and industry seems a logical way to improve the speed with which
we create, assess, apply and distribute new technology.
Proctor & Gamble,
Nike, Innocentive and the X-Prize, among others, have created a new reward-based
innovation model - Open Innovation - that has been getting a lot of attention.
Open Innovation
reaches inventors globally and challenges to solve specific problems with the
promise of large cash rewards for those who are successful. For the funder of
Open Innovation, the risk is minimal in that payment is made only for
successful results. Moreover, the X-Prize Foundation has found that often those
who aspire to earn the prize leverage resources far in excess of the prize
money.
Quite simply, the process
of Open Innovation, a model for which The University of Akron Research
Foundation hosts semi-annual events, tells us that universities, major industry
and small entrepreneurial companies often must look outside their own
organizations to find solutions to problems.
Even the venerable
Encyclopedia Britannica, perhaps succumbing to the pressures of Wikipedia, has
begun to openly invite corrections and contributions to its entries.
Although the Encyclopedia's editors retain the
prerogative to accept or reject any of suggested changes, this indicates an
important shift in that corporation's cultural mores. An entity that began in
the 1700s has embraced a form of "open innovation," what the computer
generation refers to as Web 2.0. Such
change is surely reason to wonder if academia is willing to embrace similar
behavior. Are U.S. universities bold
enough to create a 2.0 campus culture of innovation, centered on externally
focused research and open collaboration, and grounded in the needs of our
consumers and constituents?
I think that any
person or entity that professes to have and distribute knowledge will need to
embrace a form of open innovation to remain credible and current.
This is an interesting
reality for many in higher education, who value "academic freedom" and the free
and open sharing of information (including peer review), yet who in many ways
are themselves not adept at seeking or accepting input, regardless of the
source, or of making appropriate adjustments in a timely manner.
Likewise, open
innovation also will pressure industry innovators, who will need to look
outside of their own organizations to keep pace with the speed of discovery and
progress.
I will be among the
first to openly admit that, thus far, our nation's universities have not
redefined and restructured themselves to sufficiently facilitate discovery to
innovation in today's economic, technologic, and social environment. There are,
of course, fine examples of innovations within universities (MIT's Media
Lab comes to mind).
If a 300-year-old
compiler of knowledge, Britannica, can embrace an emerging model of
collaboration based on public faith, surely innovative higher education
research institutions can as well.
Perhaps, an
appropriate first step would be the creation of an open Wiki for specific human
and world conditions with the elite scholars, scientists and engineers from
both industry and academia participating as well as anyone who can provide
reliable information.
Intellectual Property and Technology
Transfer
I would suggest that many
in industry, and some of us in academe, need to revise our perspectives and
positions, as well as expectations on technology transfer and innovation for
our economic community to flourish.
In an effective
innovation ecosystem, any company and any university should be able to
participate in strategic partnerships that are mutually beneficial through the
exchange of comparable value.
The key is comparable
value. By comparable value, I do not
mean only money, but also the exchange of personnel, technology, research
commitments and other reciprocal agreements that can bring comparable value to
both parties. Strategic partnerships, in which mutual interests are satisfied,
hold great promise.
Yet, some in industry
have begun a disconcerting campaign to gain the maximum access to university
work for less than comparable value.
Their efforts and
sweeping statements often leave you false impressions and have led to confusion
as well as Congressional hearings.
The complaints leveled
by industry tend to focus on three things:
1. The slowness of negotiating agreements and on two particularly
contentious issues,
2. Access to and ownership of intellectual property rights (including the
IRS private benefit to industry problems, wherein some public universities are
avoiding agreements with private industry to avoid jeopardizing tax exempt
financing of buildings) and
3. Third party access to the research information that has been supported
by a company.
The slowness of
negotiating agreements is a concern for industry and increasingly for
universities.
More and more universities
are putting in place university-related research foundations with decision-making
authority and the ability to make immediate decisions. And some of us have seen significant delays
as deals are vetted through corporate legal offices. All parties can improve in timely
responsiveness.
Regarding the IP
rights, the apparent limits resulting from the IRS private benefit rules need
to be resolved by legislation. However,
the IP issues are much deeper than the IRS matter which impacts only a relatively
small portion of the higher education community.
The more problematic issue
is that of accepting the premise that there should be a fair or comparable value
exchange in the relationship (and I would submit in any relationship for it to
flourish).
Recently, some
companies are telling us and Congress that international universities are much
easier to work with.
They also suggest that
foreign institutions are willing to grant university IP rights to the company
sponsor without license commitments and that many international universities are
willing to limit third party access to research.
Some companies allege
that U.S. universities insist on these things because of provisions in
Bayh-Dole.
In a similar vein, a business
executive recently advocated that "a university and its faculty should not own
IP".
The argument is made
that in the private sector, IP is developed by the enterprise that makes the investment.
"That (sponsor) enterprise, therefore, owns the IP exclusively and thus has the
right to exploit that IP at its own discretion..."
Our colleague further
said "...it is (his) opinion that a university and therefore faculty have a ‘duty
and obligation' to consider the public as an investor and stakeholder in any IP
developed with public funds."
We find the conclusion
that the investor owns the complete research results, regardless of relative
contribution, and fair market value considerations to be erroneous.
If the sponsor pays
the fair market value of the research, including a component for its commercial
potential, then we would agree that the sponsor should have the benefit of the
commercialization potential.
However, industry does
not seem to want a fair-market pricing and prefers to use the historical cost
reimbursable basis pricing model.
If the innovations are
turned over to the general public, not a private company, there would be a loss
of proprietary position and thus the loss of incentive to invest in development
and commercialization. Such would reduce
innovation rather than support innovation.
If we agree with our
friend that industry sponsors do own the IP, then we have these additional questions:
1. How then should research be priced?
2. If it is priced as cost plus as most university research is priced, then
there is unequal exchange of value distorting the value proposition.
3. How do we select who has the opportunity to sponsor?
4. How do we fairly invite potential sponsors? Is it a bid process?
Also, university
faculty members are entitled to revenue sharing and if the IP is handed over to
the sponsor, then there is no additional reward from the university to the
inventor for his or her genius.
The federal Bayh-Dole
law states that inventions developed by a university using federal funding
belong to the university, not the federal investor. Some in industry may wish differently, but
fairness and the law suggest otherwise.
We invite those in
industry who are decreasing their U.S. university collaborations, to reconsider
and help develop models that are consistent with a highly interactive
innovation ecosystem and are based on a fair exchange of value.
I would note that a
2003 PCAST report on technology transfer had important recommendations to
advance the understanding of Bayh-Dole and the practice of technology transfer.
Also, the Kauffman
foundation is suggesting that the boundaries of universities and industry need
to become more porous.
They suggest that universities
should push up the volume of technology, rather than seek the individual
economic home run and we are seeing examples of this emerge. For example,
Carnegie Mellon University has adopted a "Five percent and go" policy
in an attempt to reduce delays and lower transactions costs.
At the very heart of
IP law and the functioning of the USPTO is the premise that even while
protecting IP, we should facilitate further discovery and innovation.
This is worth
examining fully in the National Academies and Council on Competitiveness
reports on IP.
It is not that the
premises are wrong in law; it is that the practice of IP law has now been
subverted by two things: the inability of the USPTO to appropriately examine
patents and the degree to which some lawyers go to obfuscate the very thing
they should be clarifying. Much more is to be gained by advancing basic
understanding of the issues than by trying to defend the core mission of the
academy.
Perhaps, the
intellectual property system itself could benefit from open innovation. The
constitutional basis for intellectual property recognizes the need to encourage
disclosure of new inventions and creations.
The quid pro quo of
the patent system is that in exchange for making the invention public, the
inventor shall be provided exclusive rights for a limited period of time.
However, there are
significant delays in making the inventions public with our current system. So
why not consider a patent system, at least for selected technologies, that
truly leads to immediate public disclosure.
Recently, a University
of Akron intellectual property management class discussed the possibility of
major changes to the patent system that would include disclosing all inventions
publically on the Internet.
The concept is that
public online disclosure would clearly meet the constitutional objective of
promoting the progress of science and useful arts, and could help determine
inventorship, encourage increased discussion on prior art, improve the quality
of patents, and eliminate some research and development redundancy as one could
consider in near real-time what other experts were thinking and doing, and then
build upon it. It would truly accelerate innovation.
Undoubtedly, some will
object to sharing any IP until inventions are verified, protected and
derivative inventions are considered.
However, this open
innovation model may be appropriate in selected technology areas. The public
good of early disclosure and its impact on innovation, may out-weigh the costs
associated with loss of proprietary position in some circumstances.
A final element in our
technology transfer discussion lies in our failure to tackle the optimization
of our education system.
Indeed, if the often
quoted suggestion that 95% of all technology transfer takes place as people
move from college into the workplace or from one company to another is true,
then why do we seldom include this in our technology transfer discussions?
Thus, I suggest that
close relationships between business and universities are the first step in a
talent supply chain optimization.
Our methods of
education have developed at an extremely slow pace when compared with virtually
all other value-producing endeavors.
Indeed, despite the
fact that the first responsibility of every university is that of educator - teaching
and training members of society in a way that will make them productive,
proactive and innovative - we devote precious little attention to research
designed to demonstrate what works educationally.
Do we hear anyone
clamoring for evidence-based education?
It is the
responsibility of universities to develop a serious academic approach to the
concept of talent supply chain management.
Recent reports such as
the Academy's "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," The Council on
Competitiveness' "Innovate America" and the Department of Energy's "Science and
Mathematics Education Task Force," which I chaired, point to future, significant
workforce development challenges in science and engineering.
Let me conclude with
one last concept, that of Innovating on Innovation.
Gary Markovitz,
founder and CEO of Innovation Business Partners, has shown a true recognition
of the wide variety of sources from which solutions can come in his work with
industry and with the U.S. Navy.
Gary developed
software that improves the hit rate of patent database searches, allowing his
clients a more effective snapshot of the research landscape in which they are
working.
However, his work goes
far beyond mapping existing technologies. Gary encourages clients to look at
all possible solutions to their problem, often leading them to combine multiple
technologies in widely disparate fields to create an entirely new product.
In a benchmarking
study with the Office of Naval Research, Gary's firm demonstrated the ability
to increase the rate of invention of Navy researchers by 50- to 100-fold and
shave years off the R&D cycle-time while reducing costs by millions of
dollars.
I need not tell you
that there are myriad university models for economic development: research
parks, venture funds, urban redevelopment programs, small business development
centers, industry collaborations and research consortia to name just a few. And
surely you know that some universities are far more successful than others in
creating and supporting strong and vibrant economies.
In our case, The
University of Akron has become particularly successful in providing added value
to industry by linking resources and by developing and commercially exploiting
technology. In fact, an NSF-supported study released just a few months ago
identifies The University of Akron and nine other smaller- and medium-sized
research institutions as exemplars for technology transfer, commercialization
and industry partnerships.
At The University of
Akron, we are innovating on innovation.
We have initiated a significant commercialization engine: The University
of Akron Research Foundation - consisting of our own technology transfer
personnel coupled with our programs in intellectual property law, science,
engineering and business.
The non-profit
University of Akron Research Foundation is a model for working flexibly with
industry and establishing long-term relationships that lead to future
opportunities. It has achieved success through the efforts of an impressive
team of professionals. Please feel free
to come to Ohio and spend time with us; we'll learn much from each other, I am
sure.
Here are examples of
the interesting things that this is enabling us to do:
First, as industries
adjust their talent and space utilization needs, we are managing their vacant
space to accommodate incubator needs of new start-up companies and expanding
research programs.
Likewise, we are
consolidating industrial research equipment within our own facilities. We are
assembling technical libraries, allowing us to expand our holdings as well as
to manage the holdings of industrial partners.
We also are managing
industrial talent and providing industry with the equivalent of academic
research and teaching assistants--namely, industrial assistants.
Finally, we are
exploring strategic partnerships that tie our research activities more closely
with those of industry as well as partnerships that enable bundled intellectual
property portfolios to create new enterprises that benefit industry and the
university.
And we have started
and angel investment network, ARCHangels, and an entrepreneurial Guerilla
Ventures enterprise group.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
the task before us is not easy. The innovation ecosystem is a complex and
interactive one that grows larger and more intricate with every day. We must be committed to innovate on
innovation...to focus our entire society on innovation.
Perhaps, as we do in
most aspects of human affairs, we simply must be committed to muddling through,
so . . .
Be cheerful, and
plunge ahead!
Thank you.