Dr. Joseph Bordogna
Chief Operating Officer
National Science Foundation
National Academy of Engineering
October 3, 1999
I am delighted to be here. The National Science Foundation
extends its congratulations to the new members being
inducted into the Academy of Engineering. We look
to you for wisdom and vision.
Congratulations also to Stephen Bechtel, Guy Stever,
and the Draper Awardees. Who among us does not know
them as giants in our midst? As I listened to their
remarks, I began writing notes on my notes, becoming
increasingly concerned about warranting their approbation
for what I was about to say.
Today, I want to talk about the nature of our challenges
in science, engineering, and technology policy, the
context in which we should address those challenges,
and the robust innovation that can derive therefrom.
The trajectory of science, engineering, and technology
over the last half century has consistently moved
toward greater complexity. This escalating complexity
is powering us to a greater focus on intellectual
integration, that is, understanding the characteristics
of the whole demands more than inference from knowledge
only of the parts.
Inflection points in the trajectories of technological
change are subtle signals in the larger context, which
are to be read with more care than mere supposition
from reading the remnants of tea leaves. An astute
understanding of inflection points enables us to judge
better where to steer policy for science, engineering,
Innovation is the task of breaking the rules and being
rewarded, over and over again. In a more formal sense,
Peter Drucker tells us that innovation is the process
of applying new knowledge to tasks that are new and
different, demanding that the nation's new knowledge
bank be constantly re-newed. Or a Bill Wulf just said
at the lectern, putting an idea to use.
And what can one say about policy? With some levity
of definition, policy is a facile term, especially
in Washington where anything becomes a policy if it
gets even peripheral mention on the evening news.
These somewhat irreverent definitions help to make
the point that the new trends in science, engineering,
and technology policy are breaking some old traditions
and some stubborn myths.
As I expand on these ideas, I hope to paint a picture
of a science, engineering, and technology future that
is vibrant, multifaceted, and purposeful.
Let us begin with policy itself. The objective of policy
is to move us toward our desired goals.
Thus, the first task in framing science, engineering,
and technology policy is to articulate what goals
we expect it to move us toward.
It is easy, but not very instructive, to say for example,
that, as a nation, we want the United States to be
preeminent in the world in science, engineering, and
technology in order to enable wealth creation, promote
prosperity, and ensure the quality of life. The prestige
of the best science and engineering will not automatically
result in a beneficial "economic domino effect."
Some of that can occur randomly, and has in the past,
even when our goal was to survive in the face of the
But, we all know that the global economic environment
is too intense for randomness.
We need to think strategically and holistically. We
need to learn to read patterns and trends from the
larger context to envision the future. We need to
educate our engineers and scientists beyond their
technical expertise. The best technical training must
be combined with an understanding of how that expertise
fits into the larger societal environment, into our
overriding national goals, and, indeed, into the goals
of other nations.
This may all sound too elementary to discuss with such
a distinguished audience so let me crystallize it
by an example:
Recently, Danny Hillis, computer philosopher and designer,
who pioneered the concept of parallel computing, and
in 1996 became the vice president of research and
development at The Walt Disney Company, related this
incident from his past. "I went to my first computer
conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years ago.
When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors
would eventually be in the millions, someone else
said, 'Where are they all going to go? It's not like
you need a computer in every doorknob!'"
Years later, Hillis went back to the same hotel. He
noticed that the room keys had been replaced by electronic
cards you slide into slots in the doors. There was,
indeed, "a computer in every doorknob," as well as
sensors and actuators -- and other hardware to make
the software sing.
Danny Hillis may have seen that future for microprocessors
but right there in the midst of a computer conference
two decades ago that insight was in short supply.
That's probably why Danny Hillis is now head of R&D
for Walt Disney.
There is an important lesson hidden in this example
which is far more than just ironic or amusing. In
fact, there is a responsibility here for us.
Part of the explanation for very smart people making,
what in hindsight, are not very insightful comments,
is that, even as prognosticators, we tend to think
of what is in front of us but not what is also around
This microprocessor-in-the-doorknob example tells us
of a person who sees in present time, not within the
larger, surrounding context and not imagining that
the future could or would be much different from the
The future is never easy to "see." But the chances
of having good vision are much better if you understand
the larger context in which you work -- the sector,
the society, and even the time in history, the moment
in civilization. Learning to read the larger context
gives you a path for imagining the future.
At our universities, we have the opportunity and responsibility
to help students learn how to "see" the larger context
of society and extrapolate good insight from those
pictures to project the future.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this
way last February, "Critical awareness and the abilities
to hypothesize, to interpret, and to communicate are
essential elements of successful innovation in a conceptual-based
In the United States, we are, for the moment, economically
stronger than we have been in decades. Service workers
predominate in our workforce, and partnerships among
our various sectors -- government, industry, and academe
-- are fashionable and increasingly effective. A new
inter-organizational way of business and academic
life is forming.
Corporate entities are transnational and the most talented
and highly skilled workers in every country comprise
the modern phenomenon of a global and mobile workforce.
They can easily gravitate to where the best jobs are
located. But information technologies have also made
it possible for them to stay home and yet work abroad.
Colleges and universities are facing information-age
transformations with virtual centers and institutes,
shared infrastructure, colaboratories and long-distance
learning. The future portends even more.
Science and engineering are moving toward interdisciplinarity
at the same time that they become steadily more complex
and vibrant from within.
And, accountability for publicly funded research is
a now familiar criterion.
Public understanding of science and technology has
permeated the lexicon of the science and engineering
community. However, there is still a great chasm between
"talking the talk" and "walking the walk" in this
realm. All of us must do better.
K through 12 education in science and math is not improving
fast enough for an information society that will be
increasingly dependent on those skills. All sectors
-- higher education, industry, and government must
assume greater responsibility for achieving our K
through 12 goals.
Young people today will have a number of distinctive
iterations in their career paths over a working lifetime.
Life-long education has become a necessity.
Demographic projections indicate a continually changing
America. Immigration is projected to become more important
to U.S. population growth than natural increases through
birth and death rates.
In industry, environmental concerns increasingly influence
product development. And there is likely to be continuous
movement toward sustainable manufacturing, not just
ethically, but because astute vision here can create
new wealth as well.
This is not necessarily a complete "context" but it
serves as example and as a beginning. I'm sure each
of you would have important additions. In any case,
the point is that "context" is not window dressing
or peripheral knowledge; it is, instead, a set of
clues and guideposts.
These clues and guideposts serve as subtle signals
that give direction and insight to our decisions.
We live in a global environment where new competitors
and partners are emerging like weeds after a spring
rain. The ability to read the subtle signals will
often make the difference between being the industrial
leader or laggard in a field. At the time when Hillis
heard that ill-considered comment about microprocessors
in hotel doorknobs, there was a lot more lead-time
in the global economy to recoup from such a miscalculation
than there would be today.
Grasping inflection points in seemingly solid trends,
that is, astute reading of tea leaves, is not just
for mystics anymore. It's job one for mentors, managers,
Broader insight brings me to the innovation piece in
our science and technology policy. I cavalierly described
innovation at the start of my remarks as the task
of breaking the rules and being rewarded, over and
This is true, but let me raise the discussion to a
different plane with a comment by Einstein. He said,
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Imagining is at the heart of innovation. As we learn
to read that larger context which I have been discussing,
imagination allows us to envision projections of a
future from a comprehensive perspective, and not from
what we see just directly in front of us. Here, imagination
has a great deal to do with integration. The disparate
pieces of a context tell us nothing in isolation,
but they tell us many things in relationship to each
In our expanding knowledge about the universe, the
human mind and body, the cycles of ecosystems, the
patterns of climate, the paths of infectious diseases,
the dynamics of economies, and the perturbations of
global politics, we see repeated evidence of integration
and interrelationships. There seem to be few, if any,
disconnections as we deepen our knowledge. What it
comes down to is being able to picture a completely
new way of seeing or doing something.
Our contemporary technique for producing sound, the
compact disc, is a good example of this imagining.
We rename it technological innovation when it occurs
in industry but the CD was a completely new way of
audioization, a totally new type of device. It was
not an improved version of anything already in existence.
The February 20th issue of the Economist magazine
included a major examination of innovation. One of
the sidebars to the text reads, "Innovators break
all the rules. Trust them."
The Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter, developed
a rule-breaking theory of economics in 1942 in which
he described a "creative destruction" of industrial
The Economist article on Innovation described
Schumpeter's work saying, "[according to Schumpeter]
a normal healthy economy was not one in equilibrium,
but one that was constantly being disrupted by technological
innovation. Disruption is an important characteristic
of innovation. As would be expected, it causes losses
in its path of making gains, creating the dynamism
of healthy economies. In fact, the disruption caused
by an innovation can bring down a whole industry,
while simultaneously creating new opportunities for
Transistor technology disrupted the vacuum-tube industry,
HMOs shook the foundation of the health insurance
industry, and the CD killed the needle in the groove.
As experienced practicioners, you will surely call
upon examples close at hand like the ones just mentioned.
But students can also learn the process of innovation,
risk taking, and rule breaking from models taken from
our collective experience, and long before they are
sent out into the world.
We should give them the opportunity to learn the path
of creativity taken by artists, musicians, dancers,
photographers, and architects. Art and artists, by
their very definition, breach barriers, define new
perspectives, and advance the frontiers of their field.
Impressionism, cubism, free verse poetry, jazz and
rock music - every field of artistic endeavor can
teach us something about unique perspective, creative
envisioning, and risk taking.
And to understand and imagine the nature of the "future,"
we also need to study the past. History offers us
a window on the consistency of human nature over centuries,
a description of social change, examples of mistakes
and miscalculations that altered the course of events.
Lastly, it tells us how the environment or culture
of a time or place can make it ripe for dramatic changes.
Scanning the world today for "hot spots" of innovation,
the Economist article on Innovation suggests
that the two leading centers for innovative activity
in the world are California and Israel. At first look
these appear to be an unlikely match. At closer look,
however, these two places share some interesting similarities.
For example, the practice of networking has been raised
to a high art in both places. They both rely on a
significant immigrant population and have competitive,
almost aggressive, business practices. In each, there's
a great respect for learning and for risk taking.
These conditions and qualities seem to create the
environment or culture for innovation.
It turns out that governments can help too. They can
develop policies that create fertile environments
and encourage positive behaviors. Policies should
not be designed to control the process of getting
to the goal but rather to allow the process to work
at its best, to create the best atmosphere for progress
The federal government, and I might add the National
Science Foundation in particular, has developed a
strong record in promoting partnerships -- making
marriages among some unlikely partners -- to move
us toward our science and technology objectives for
the coming decades.
Partnerships are yet another aspect of integration.
They introduce a different dimension to the process
of promoting science, engineering, and technology
because they bring to the table participants with
different expertise and resources, and a diversity
The federal government has provided strong leadership
here. For much more than a decade, we have been advocating
public-private partnerships in federal research and
development. In the beginning we merely exchanged
favorable rhetoric about the importance of partnerships.
Slowly we took steps to form genuine working arrangements.
Further down the path, we began to see results. Reality
suggests that the mix of partners will skew, in a
positive way, the perspective and objective of the
research and stabilize the important disruption of
A partnership of government and industry will move
differently from a partnership of government and a
university. When you include all three you have different
purposes and outcomes. Our greatest strength may be
in the very diversity of combinations and partners.
We should always view these combinations as creative
arrangements. They are not formulas to be automatically
replicated but rather new patterns to be ingeniously
enhanced each time we create the next combination.
As one example, the very diverse set of Engineering
Research Centers attest to this.
It is useful to remind ourselves that the context and
environment in which we have to operate will always
change and so will the competition. Part of building
a continuum of success in science, engineering, technology,
and in entrepreneurship is retaining the ability to
"see" and act upon a changing context.
Twenty years ago, the global economy was far less "global."
Our own domestic economy had a very different mix
of industries, and our workforce was far less service-oriented
than it is today. In addition, in every era, new enabling
technologies quickly influence our methods of commerce,
of manufacturing, of service, and even the very social
order of our society.
History gives us many examples of this influence --
the steam engine, electricity, and air transportation.
Today's composite of digital, electronic, and optical
technologies is reframing society as concept-driven
We can already calculate the impact. The Economist
probably said it better than I could. They recently
wrote, "America gets more than half its economic growth
from industries that barely existed a decade ago --
such is the power of innovation, especially in the
information and biotechnology industries."
There have been few that envisioned what the Economist
article revealed about the significance of information
systems and the revolution being created by the biotechnology
The astute "readers of the context" and accurate "predictors
of the future" for the last several decades have proven
to us that envisioning is a worthwhile endeavor.
I began these remarks with trajectories, inflections,
and innovation. This short journey that we have taken
along all three paths brings us to a conclusion that
speaks to connections, integration, interrelationships,
and overlapping consequences. There is something quite
beautiful in that intricacy, like a mathematical equation
or a poem that leads us to its central place without
ever naming the place.
There is also great challenge here for the nation and
the world in the next few decades. As we contemplate
those challenges for our science, engineering and
technology, we must understand that supremacy in research
and education, in innovation, and in competitive entrepreneurship
is an enduring quest, an on-going process.
There is no peak that we can reach that will assure
continuing success. It is not a matter of sticking
to the task for the long haul. It is the "haul."
We will always need to keep improving the process with
fresh ideas and a fundamental commitment. We will
need to break the right rules and take the right risks.
It will be demanding, exciting, and a bit precarious,
as the unknown always is.