tv National Competitiveness Forum CSPAN December 15, 2017 11:04am-1:05pm EST
pisa. we can now narrowed down to where the locations of the sources are, and in order to achieve such a technological triumph, a lot of engineering had to be done and in successive ways, and all of those have produced outcomes that are now being enjoyed by startup companies and others who just would have had no motivation for going in those particular directions without the motivation of trying to nail this effect down and make this detection. we don't know where it all will lead, it's just in its first exciting moments, but apparently the nobel prize committee thought highly enough of it to award the prize to just three of the thousands of people.
it takes up more room than the actual article itself. want to introduce the subject of this next session which is this booklet here. it's called transform which is very beautiful and it's about an initiative that we were privileged to fund called exploring innovation frontier. i want to give a shout out to promote the head of our engineering director at the time a few years ago when we made the decision to fund this. he has gone on to uc irvine where he is a vice chancellor for research. during this time there have been several workshops around
the country and i'll say a few words about that and then you will hear from two of the people that were greatly involved in those workshops more about this. let me make now that i've kind of introduced the subject of basic research, leading to innovation and leading to engineering applications, let me make some formal remarks. i will just begin with the quote from our inspiration of the national science foundation who believed that there must be a stream of new scientific knowledge to turn the wheels of private and public enterprise so that was a very smart person who could lift way forward. he was asked by president roosevelt, at the time just after the second world war to write up a statement of why it was important to have scientists and engineers
involved. they had been so successful in helping with the wartime effort and why it was so important for them to be involved in the peacetime effort. so at that time, as you heard of the quote, he is talking about the importance of private and public enterprise and how there needs to be a new stream of scientific knowledge constantly feeding into that. that really is the basis of the national science foundation. it's continually looking to support new discoveries and new discoverers because it's the people that make the discoveries and keeping that engine going is really the source of all innovation. we heard at some of the workshops around the country, and you'll hear more about it from the next group about the importance of diversity and inclusion of discoverers and
how that was vital to ensure that we had always a plethora of new advances, and that we were really tapping all the potential that the united states has. so flowing from that founding spirit, the funding has resulted in countless advances for u.s. citizens and really worldwide from doppler radar to mri scans in the internet and nanotechnology, from google to barcodes and computer aided design systems to tissue engineering, i as i go about the country in the world, i'm always amazed by the number of people come up to me and say thank you, they gave me the first grant i ever had and now i've gone on to nih, national support funds me for my mission oriented work,
but that very first grant, we were the first grant to the originators of gene editing. the first grant for 3d printing. i think they would be pleased to see today that for the first time in this past couple months since we moved headquarters from arlington virginia to alexandria that we brought, that we had made a statue. it's hard to imagine that a person who has such a decisive impact on science and technology 70 years ago, that there are no statues of him around so we investigated and found in the basement of an out building of the smithsonian, there is one that stands about this tall and it's bronze and it was made back in the 1940s with a number of other famous people. the smithsonian wouldn't give
it to us so we 3d printer the. it looks just like the real thing. you have to come visit us. it was all painted browns and nicely toned and rubbed in the right places. so the neighbors back at this home, i think he would be, he would've had no idea what 3d printing was about, a think he would have been pleased to see how technology brought him back. our consistent backing of high-risk research and our support of the initiative such as the engineering research centers where there are more than 30 around the country, the small innovative research program, the ichor innovation core program which is now all over the country and helps
graduate students and even undergraduates become entrepreneurs very quickly, and our ten big ideas which is our signature vision for the future. they all signify our long-standing commitment to innovative breakthroughs that have been critical to the nation's economy, health and to keeping us a global leader. the same ambition drove the creation of the council on competitiveness and it's an indispensable foundation purposed to robust growth and face global challenges. i will be speaking later this afternoon at a forum on philanthropy and science and innovation, together with francis collins, and it's being hosted by the science floor and to pay alliance. i'm going to use the council on competitiveness as a great example of bringing public and private entities together
successfully to drive innovation through discovery. so organizations like the council have consistently encouraged a national climate in which science and engineering discoverers have adapted to new changes and continue to thrive, and centuries of progress have led us to the verge of new frontiers of discovery. but we still have a lot of challenges. we face all sorts of concerns at home and abroad, and of course we have the very big challenge of educating and inspiring future innovators. i think that's why a lot of people at the national science foundation and at the council and in this room, that's one of our major concerns. how to include and inspire them so they can in turn
inspire the world. we've navigated a lot of major barriers in order to come this far. the question is how do we, as a nation, continued to explore the next frontier. our history has shown that american discoveries and discoverers have consistently driven innovation. as the place where discoveries and discoverers began, that's our motto, we know that the same determination to discover is what will secure our future. to address this challenge, they have partnered with the council to come up with creative approaches in pursuit of transformative discoveries. that is why this is called transformed. two years ago, at georgia tech, deborah smith joined me in announcing that the national science foundation had awarded a grant to the council on competitiveness to launch the exploring innovation frontier and initiative. the eif i we call it was
organized as a series of national dialogues on how to drive u.s. competitiveness in the decades ahead. so we had, at all of the venues, the dialogues around the country representatives from industry and academia and national labs and research institutions, we had labor leaders, key opinion leaders all gathered together. let us through clearly the transformative models to meet global concerns. dialogues touched on fostering environments conducive to discovery on ensuring diversity and inclusion in america's future talent base of events inventors and analyzing specific technologies to help drive innovation. i also had the opportunity to attend the opening dialogue in atlanta, as i mentioned, and the final event in st. louis. i want to take a moment to think our host sites,
university of california riverside, texas a&m and washington university in st. louis. as well as the many people in those areas who work hard to make this a success. being part of those dialogues is why some of us are very excited about this. today the council is going to release this final report capturing insights and recommendations from the past two years of dialogue and i'm interested in hearing about the proposals that will keep our nation competitive in the generations to come. this upcoming session should have some enlightening insight for us all. i would like to end with a quote that is in this report that i found when perusing it. i just actually received the final report yesterday so it's under the summary section it says as a major source of
federal research and development funding in the science of innovation and participant in the ecosystem, the nsf brings an invaluable perspective on the current state-of-the-art and models of innovation. moreover, the nsf is the only federal agency unconstrained by a subject specific commission and thus is the natural partner for a topic as broad as innovation. i really hadn't thought of it that way before. that our strength, that we spend all areas of science and engineering and we do so because you never know where the next great discovery will come from. we need discovery in order to be at the root of innovation. it is nothing without all our discoverers. so, thank you to all who have been part of this dialogue. thank you to coc, and now
please help me welcome our group of speakers who will be talking about the specific dialogue and their outcomes. thank you very much. [applause] >> to discuss insights and findings from the reports transform, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the council president and ceo, deborah smith, the provost and executive vice chancellor for academic affairs at washington university in st. louis, doctor holden, and the chancellor of university of california riverside, doctor kim wilcox. >> thank you for your remarks and your leadership. we are really thrilled that you are leaving the nsf and all the things you do for our country in the world. thank you so much. i think we will just jump right in to talk about some of the findings and excitement
and energy that came out of the two dialogues that you both hosted. we will maybe start with you because you're fairly new university in the famous university system and we were really focusing on the talented continuum and how to get more americans into the innovation journey for our country. not only was everybody excited and thrilled about the new models you're creating, but i think we took those learning back into our own world and very much is reflected in our report. i would like you to start wherever you want, but tell us what really is unique about your university. we purposely went to uc riverside because you are new model and then kind of share with us some of the findings and where you think we should go from here. >> thank you deborah. thanks so much for making us a part of this. let me do a little bit of context and purpose.
if you, i've noticed in the clarion call, analytics is one of the top perceived technologies in advanced manufacturing. we do advanced predicaments in universities as well pretty want to predict a high schools likely success in college and you had to choose one data point, what would you choose? you wouldn't choose gpi or sat score or numbers of clubs in high school, you would choose the family zip code. the zip code is simply a proxy for family wealth. if your family is in the upper quintile of income in america you have a six times greater likelihood of graduating from college than someone of equal abilities in the bottom income. we can't afford to leave that much of america behind. if you're an african-american and you get into college, you only have a 40% chance of graduating from college.
for riverside, the lesson is about a lot of programmatic changes in things we do, but the real story is deliberate now spread decades ago, our university was deliberate about recruiting students from across all sectors and helping them graduate, supporting them in ways that make a difference. the impacts are starting to gro grow. we are starting to see that deliberateness and lots of places. there's an american talent initiative that is 80 universities across country that have the express purpose of helping students from low income families graduate. the doctor and i are part of the university alliance, 11 universities that been together three years ago with the express purpose of increasing the numbers of graduates from college from
lower-income families. we've increased the number of graduates in our 11 universities by 25% in three years. those are stories about deliberateness, but were not done yet. a place like this, the council is so crucial to combining the efforts of the academic world and the private worlds, and i have a challenger, a challenge for our corporate partners, if you go on the websites of most of the major fortune 500 companies and identify their key university partners, you will generally see the same list of schools, the ones we think of as the elite universities in america and the elite universities are trying to catch the elite corporations, you don't see is carolina, you don't see unc greensboro. you don't see cleveland state. you don't see universities that really are embracing the diversity of america today. so for you to change the leadership of the nation and the foregoing to really include all of america in innovation economy, we have to find ways collectively to be deliberate.
so my key lesson from riverside is deliberateness. >> thank you. would you also share with us what was the magic, what was the strategy that you all developed and deployed at riverside to get women and a huge number of the hispanic population moving through college and into graduate school. we saw that. everybody was blown away by it. >> i talk about two key pieces. there are lots of them but two key pieces. one is the notion that you can make a big university small. you can't make a small university big. by that i mean we've taken our university and created small living and learning communities for groups of students that really support them and you feel connected, for families who send their students to college and no one in the family has been to college before. there is a lot of my goodness, but in a small group you can
find of find your way through it. the other piece of talk about, riverside, in much of america we talk about leveling the playing field and that usually means sticking a program in a corner, riverside did it completely in a holistic way. we built the field in a way that all parts, the faculty, staff, student body, everybody is embedded and motivated by the same set of values and so, it's ubiquitous. each of our pieces fixed together in a way that's whole, but that again is deliberate. >> turning to st. louis, the council had a very exciting activity with washington university in st. louis, soon after our national innovation initiative was concluded in 2004, and there were many challenges in the city and the region around entrepreneurship and start up and building the ecosystem, but now st. louis has been named the startup
capital. you've got a tremendous energy and momentum and result in driving this entrepreneurial culture that depends on great universities. so, please share a little bit about that journey because again, the entrepreneurship path with washington you and st. louis really set us very much ahead in understanding your new models and what's going on in your region. >> think so much for letting us host the event. it was an honor to have you and the doctor. really it was a chance to bring together a lot of people to celebrate some of the things that we've done. first i just like to second everything kim said about access to higher education. it's critically important and i commend you. you have a chart that i wish everybody could see that will help with this reddic rhetoric that shows how much
better people are if they go to college. i think the council on competitiveness for helping us get that message out and doing all the things the chancellor was just talking about. as far st. louis in the ecosystem, we are very proud city with a magnificent history and a washington university is compelled to be an important part of that. i think a lot of the things that have happened long before i got st. louis, a lot of people in the city came together to create it core tech innovation district which is where we had our meeting which is really, long to have a lot of different startups and other kinds of parts of the economy and bring back the city that everyone wanted to focus on and is strategically located. that something that came about because 15 years ago some people who really cared about the city sat down and said let's get this plan and figure out how to engage the universities and let's start things. when i came along, we were looking to make this a better partner in all this,
universities are called on by the council on competitiveness and lots of other places to promote innovation economy to get our discoveries out into the marketplace. we have been doing a little bit of that at washington you, not nearly as well as we should, and some of the things that we do, one is to make sure that our policies for doing all this are as smooth as we can make them, we can do a lot on that, but it also has been said many times today that it comes down to the people. one of the things i've tried to do is to attract a team of people to work with that have been in the academic world and in the business world. these two worlds speak very different languages. if you are trying to bring people together, of course you need everything that they just said about basic research, but as i tell my colleagues who think they've invented a billion-dollar drug, i have to remind them it's not a
billion-dollar drug until you've sold it for a billion dollars. most of my academic colleagues have no idea how to sell billion-dollar drugs to big pharmacy. bringing people who can bridge that is in incredibly important. note that jenna matter how good your policies are or how excited you are about your region, you will have hiccups and the only way to get through is to have people who have been on both sides. i think the other thing that we've done that's been really good is attract the cic and there's some talk about that in the report and they do a great job and we were very lucky that the very first place they came was one of the great places where lots of startups can get going, but the first place they chose to come was st. louis after they decided they were going to get away from the operation they've had a cambridge. we've had a lot of new startups going, we've gone
enormously up in terms of the number of startups but also pragmatic about what's special about st. louis and what's good another places. i tell people, i tell the people who are gung ho about the city, i remind them it's better to have a startup that moves and succeeds than one that stays and fails. and so, it's important to have a pragmatic sense. we want to keep as many startups in st. louis as we can. not all of them, st. louis isn't the best location for all of them so we hate it when they leave but we want them to succeed. if we are pragmatic about it we will end up keeping more successful companies in the long run. >> you alluded to some of the regulatory reform at the university that has expedited this and last night, at our dinner, the director was telling me that they are going to be launching a whole new review looking at some of the things that need a new look
after some 30 years, but just quickly, what do you think you did that was very important in changing the status quo on how you do business. >> for startups, something i really believe in that was put in place at two schools is to have what we call the quick start which is something that's pre-negotiated, a founder can come in and if they want to do the quick start license, it's determine the equity in the world he and indemnification and all that. they're all there, and rather than spend a year negotiating that agreement and coming to exactly the same place would come to if you did it this way , we present this to folks and give them the opportunity to take advantage of it and almost always they do. i put this in place at north carolina before i came to washington university. we've gone from having two or three startups to having more than ten and i think that's a big part of the reason. it's not just that it's easier
to do, it's also a symbol that the university, we are willing to give up a little bit of upside that we might have gotten if we spent a long time negotiating in order to get things out there and get them going and partner with the venture community and the startup community. >> one thing alan asked both of you before we run out of time as this whole challenge from startup to scale and where we have the largest venture capital resources in the world and it tends to be located on the west and east coast, what have you done to change some of the models to attract and grow the capital to enable this transformation in your region? what you think we need to be doing going forward? >> for us, we are on the west coast but we are 60 miles from the coast so between us and the coast is caltech, ucla,
ucsb, and so we actually ironically have a challenge recruiting that much further east just 60 miles. we've taken a very holistic approach to centers that have faculty mentoring, support in the industry, venture-capital participation and created their own little ecosystem in a sense in riverside around the university to attract the venture capital, but we have just as doctor thorpe, we have companies who the investors will invest in the company if we move it 80 miles to san diego. they just don't want to leave it where it is because they live in san diego so there's still a challenge even near the coast where the money is. >> so geography still matter. >> it's the same thing in st. louis. we've helped the venture community in st. louis produce capital that can be used for
our companies. we prefer a model where we invest in what the university invest in local venture capitalist and we let them decide what investments they will make. we think that makes sure the market is providing the kind of discipline that it can. we've helped a number of venture-capital sources in the region so they have the money they can used to develop companies and stay in st. louis, but as i've said before, i think you have to have a blend. you have to have some silicon valley investors who invest in us and some of those companies may have to move a little further than they would if they were leaving uc riverside , but some of those will be able to stay in st. louis without a sound investor and some of our local investors can invest in companies in st. louis and we hope a lot of those will stay but capitalism dictates where successful companies are to be and you
can't fight that. you have to do as much as you can to increase the odds that will keep companies in st. louis and we do that by helping the venture capital sources and also partnering with firms around the world. >> and the large-scale big-company. >> absolutely. >> that's very important. >> whenever we talk about transfer we tend to focus on startups because that's sort of the glitzy thing, but of course, for most licensing revenue that comes to the universities, it comes from licensing from large corporations, big pharma, egg companies, technology companies and that part of tech transfer is very, very important as well and we have to make sure that our policies and the way we deal with corporations is done is professionally as we can. >> in the time we have left, i
would like to ask you, building on what we accomplished in the dialogue that you so kindly posted at your university and going forward, what issue would you really recommend that the council doubled down on as we move forward on the next platform for national and regional innovation and wealth creation and job creation and also having that thriving curve going forward in america? >> from the talent engagement side, i would offer this. too many high school students in america today, technology means coding. it simply ready software. but there's a whole bigger world out there. we have to collectively, and i think this is a public, private role as well, we have to help those students appreciate all the technology, as i'm looking at my friends from john deere and what were doing in the world of plants. we have a we are putting nano tubules in plants that call your cell phone when they detect explosiveness in the soil.
that's technology. and yes coding is important but that's real technology. we have to help the students of america see that opportunity for innovation. >> and move beyond the app economy, solving real problems in both of your universities are very much at the forefront of this merger of biology and agriculture and precision. it's very exciting for dealing with the issues that doctor kohn talked about last night on sustainability and food. >> i would say some similar things, but i think focusing on the talent, production, and helping america realize that higher education is producing the talent that corporations need and startups need and we heard so many encouraging things from sam allen and other leaders about how much they need our talent, and we've got a huge challenge in the country and higher education has to own part of it just as michael crow said this morning. we have to make sure people feel welcome and want to
engage in understand what we are doing so we can explain it to them and i think the most important thing for the innovation economy, of course we want the universities to be producing startups and licensing our technologies, but making sure that the young people coming to our campus with all the different backgrounds that the chancellor was talking about, making sure they are thriving according to the metrics that they pointed out, making sure they engage with the professors and are really excited about their courses and they have a mentor in the university who has taken an interest in them, helping us propose that, that is by far, that is the multiplier effect. we can do stuff in st. louis and riverside but you have to make sure that the people were coming to our university are setting the world on fire when they leave. >> thank you. [applause]
>> they formally launched the councils innovation on competitiveness, please welcome doctor mike crow, president of arizona state university and university vice chair council on competitiveness, and vice chairman and chief scientific officer of global research and development and industry vice chair council on competitiveness. >> so, thank you both for your tremendous leadership of arizona state, pepsico and being in the leadership for the council on competitiveness. i think we will just jump into why does it matter right now, at this time in our history for the council on competitivenescompetitiveness to bring together our leaders from industry, academia and labor unions to really launch
a next-generation national focus and commitment on innovation frontiers, and what parts both of you have on what are some of the new strategies, the new models, the new problems that together we can advance by bringing thought leadership and action leadership of our country together around the innovation future. let me start with you michael because you were involved with us when we did the innovation initiative that would lead by the ceo of ibm and the president of georgia tech and the world is completely different. what are your thoughts and ideas for moving forward around this imperative. >> it's interesting. i think people somehow don't realize that economic competitiveness does
contribute greatly to social change and social success. these are powerfully interconnected things and as the world economy has grown to the point now where you've got world gdp at the highest level and it's unbelievable and is moving forward like it has never move forward before, that means for the first time we have a truly globally competitive market on all levels of all things. that means the 70 years that we have had since the end of world war ii have reaped immense benefits but put us in a position where we have to huddl huddle, bring everyone together from the labor sector to the academic sector and in the new world with computing technology and all the things that we didn't have 15 years ago, all of the strategies
that worked in the past are insufficient for what's needed in the future. it's the exact moment where we have felt the impact of the great recession, where we felt the impact of social media in the impact of the new generation in the new millennial's coming on, all these things coming together, the need to advance all of our food and water system and sustainable logic, all of this is coming together in the old model, old simple corporate structures, the simple college university structures and the way that labor might view the world, those are old and no longer adequate. it's time for new playbook, new place, running new place, new assessments and measurements, this is a perfect time for renewal, we do have to find a way as powerful as the economy is
apparently performing at the moment, it's not powerful enough. we need 4% sustained economic growth year after year after year with some years at six and some years at seven, if possible and there are large countries that are able to pull that off. if we can't let off it will be difficult to secure a level of resources necessary to drive standard of living for the entire population as opposed to populations of the country. too do that requires reconceptualization and not being overly self confident or assured that we have a 20 trillion-dollar economy that we can just wipe her hands and be done with it move forward. there's no reason you can't drive all of the potential of the american people to the highest level. it's just that the old design have run their course. now is the moment for the new design to be put forth.
>> as always, i agree with michael on this. let me come at it from two directions. one is we think of historically linear progression and when we project out what we need to get done five years, ten years from now, the reality is, the future is not an extrapolation of the past. the trajectory is completely different. looking at the past, analyzing it is helpful but extrapolating it will get you in the completely wrong place. second, when i went to medical school, as an example we were talking earlier, there is medicine and biology and engineering over here. it was rare for the engineering students to ever talk to the medical students. it was more normal that they make fun of each other. heaven forbid the faculty would talk. most of the developments going on now are happening because
of the physical sciences. most of the problems are due to that engineers and mathematicians are working on is in the life sciences arena. over the past 100 years, if you go back 100 years ago and take a look at what were the top challenges for humanity, security, water, access to food, health, 100 years later guess what it is, the same issues. the difference in one way of looking at it that we have a make progress, of course we made progress, but today we are dealing with, within those categories brand-new tools that will have to leverage capability of multiple institutions from multiple backgrounds and the convergence of that talent where we uniquely can do now is bring that convergence to bear. i think this opportunity is just one more loud voice
hopefully that wakes people up and says don't sit on different sides of this, you're going to have to converge and use your resources. no one company is big enough, and frankly no one country has the resources to solve most of these big issues. we have to work together to solve these. >> they use the word convergence, and i want to talk a little bit about that and how we really elevate that theme and that platform for the work of the commission, and i want take one second to just quote from the transformer port because while we think that we can't learn from the past and we have to think of a new way for the future, this is very interesting. we sometimes forget it. american entrepreneurs and venturing adventures leverage the convergence of rail, oil, steel and electricity to drive american industrialization, agriculture, profoundly
changing the country and ushering in a new era of u.s. industrial might and jobs in the 20th century. convergence in the 21st century, digital, bio, nano cognitive, how are we going to address that in the context of this commission and ensure that we have inclusive participation of our citizens in creating this new age? >> it's going to be challenging because the last time that you mentioned rails, steel, et cetera, those were all at a sony and oriented industries built on trial by era geniuses. they were generally not scientifically based. all of the ones you just mentioned are scientifically based, deep science based on fundamental mathematical understanding and physical science and biological science. in the old model of that convergence of the past, it was easier for the general
population to grasp and understand because you could see it and participate. you could beat it, bend it, make it happen, plow it, grow it, it was easier for the general population so i've been arguing for some time that in the new economy around the things that are converging at the moment, it is necessary and their substantial resistance. everyone has to get to a certain level of scientific g scientific literacy. they don't have to be scientific engineers but they had to be literate in understanding what they mean. the gap we are expressing now with people questioning basic scientific theory, with people questioning fundamental thousand-year-old accumulations of knowledge about how certain things work, that is a sign that this is not an area where we will see alignment without substantially re- engaging the educational process. rather than retreating from high school graduates in the future don't need to know algebra. give up on it, it's too hard.
i thought you kidding me? it's not even about algebra. it's not about the literalness of algebra. it's about teaching people to solve for unknowns and complex settings. that's what algebra is about. i'm not arguing that everyone has to become a scientist or energy engineer but i would argue that the convergence driven economy on science driven platforms requires a reconceptualization of how we educate, this is almost impossible for everyone in this room to understand, but it used to be the case that people sat in the room and argued about whether or not people should be literate, whether or not it was worth the investment to drive people to understanding how to read. now imagine that just for a second. that is a true moment in history. likewise, going forward, we have to now rethink how to build a modern rapidly changing technologically driven scientifically underpinned society and that will require a different level of educational underpinnings.
>> i'm going to build on that but given industry perspective. i want to raise two points. one is, i say this having spent 20 years my career in academic scientists. i think scientists have cats but the arrogance behind them. i think there's been this tradition that because i'm the expert of x, y, and z and i have deep knowledge, you're not good enough to engage. >> i couldn't agree with you more. >> i'm the ivory tower and so people have felt left out of the conversation. >> absolutely. >> is not just a feeling of being left out but we've actually missed opportunities. we have to not only ask ourselves can we do this, and i'm mean for a lot of my scientists, but you have to say should we do this and what are the consequences. all too often scientist left
on their own will start to work on things without thinking through. i will give you a quick example. i had the opportunity of looking at a project with somebody who said we could take a crop that is grown around the equator and we could actually transform it genetically to a much healthier, much more resourceful crop and i asked the question, i said that sounds great, we can solve the health problem from this crop. what you think is going happen on the d4 citation of every rain forest in the world if we unlock that genie. that's the question of should we do it? what's the alternative we should work on. some of this convergence in my mind is not just convergence of technologies but convergence of the thought process in the thinking of the stakeholders that come and prioritize, what should we be working on, how should we be working on it, who are the
stakeholders at the table. without that, we're actually going to perpetuate and repeat the problems we've had and society won't give us the right. >> let me just, let me augment that and agree with that wholeheartedly. this has been one of the errors in academia and the separation from actually understanding and thinking through the impact of what's done. we started a couple years ago the school for the future of innovation and society and brought together couple dozen faculty members who are trying to put forth the intellectually based philosophical base notion of responsible innovation as an outcome of everything that we do and not cut out for science goes, but to make certain that we are always conscious of where were going in that were always connected to people that we need to be connected to. there's a philosopher that has had an immense amount of innovation but filled at columbia wrote a book called science, truth and democracy where he said science without moral purpose is in fact without purpose.
by itself is and in moral act and he's not saying that scientists are immoral. he's saying that there has to be some purpose to what one is working toward so we've reached that realm were now our driving businesses, our driving's are underpinned and we don't have everybody connected. we don't have everybody understanding where were going so to be more successful we have to figure that out. >> thank you. when we look at convergence, as we build on the structure, the ethics and values will be very important and i know our time is running out, but i want to ask both of you if you can think forward five years, even less, what do you hope will be an outcome of the work that we are launching under the national commission in terms of the future of our country and our role in the world? >> from my perspective we need alignment about what it's going to take to drive an
economy forward that doesn't leave half the population behind. that it doesn't leave it disconnected in deeper and deeper rounds where people are arguing to maintain jobs and roles that aren't even economically viable so that requires us to rethink everything, to work together in ways that the council really provides for where industry and national laboratories and universities and labor unions and other kinds of educational institutions and work organizations can come together. we need an alignment. we do not have that alignment right now. >> i would say as michael has said, we have, for the first time in history, and uncoupling of wealth creation from job creation. this is the first time that that's ever happens. we have the brains and the capability to figure this out, there are lots of applications necessary which means what i hope will happen in the next
five years, we leverage all of our technical know-how to actually bring to bear and focus on multilateral problems which are impacting not one country, this is not a case of us versus them, but multiple countries, no one is now's a solution. i always remind my environmental scientist, we all breathe air from the same environment. we better protected together. this is not about their problem, our problem. most of our challenge will be global challenges. they're not single country challenges. do we have the wisdom to come together? >> i also get people pushing back thing it's about restraint and control and you will lower economic opportunity. if we can figure out how to build this collective way of thinking, the economic opportunities are far greater than anything we've seen up to this point. we have been economically limited by thinking in these
separate boxes then we should be. >> so we think about convergence, these tremendous challenges, opportunities and a poor mission as a council on competitiveness and it's really how to raise the standard of living of our citizens to be leaders in the world. inclusive, sustainable competitiveness will be an outcome of the work of the commission. i want to thank you, for both of you for assuming the leadership for industry and academia and all of you have an interest, we look forward to working with you. we are very excited. we will team with the national governors association and other leaders to really this out as a next platform for our future. thank you so much. the work will begin next year. [applause] >> the latest collaboration between the council explores the tremendous disruptions and opportunities in the next generation of manufactured technology. to share insights from this study, please welcome the
chairman of lt. [applause] >> the morning thank you for having me here. it's just been a fascinating conversation listening to everything that we see and hear in today's world is actually backed up by the research that we've done. it's always worked really, really well. he has really enjoyed being part of the council for competitiveness for the last decade. we believe we have a deep relationship because we kind of have the same vision. we actually believe in the whole concept of the future, around talent and making our country more competitive and having more jobs. i think it's because of that, if we go back over the last
decade, do hit the wrong button? over the last decade we've actually collaborated on a number of important initiatives. first, in 2010, 2013 and again in 2016, we surveyed senior executives and ceos around the world, around what is competitiveness mean around the manufacturing standpoint. the study that we did sought to define excellence in manufacturing and draw implication for manufactures and that required to develop an sustain the new competitive landscape. we also had a chance to conduct face-to-face interviews with ceos to gain
perspective around what it's going to be critical to improving the competitiveness through everything we do. we've produced something called the ignite series and we had ignite one point oh which was actually the output of what i just said. we've also worked with the second piece of output, working with american university presidents and the third was with american labor unions. over the past six years or so, we have looked and produce some research across different spectrums which all support the area of competitiveness. there's no surprise there are similarities across the three including actual recommendations about the right steps for the country. as a result of our research, the basis for what we believe transformational change from many companies in the industry started. we're real proud of that and
it helps raise the gain for how some companies look at the future around competitiveness. in our 2016 mobile competitive index, we conducted with the council, manufacturing ceos ranked nations in terms of current and future competitiveness. one of the things that was amazing about the results was that for the first time the u.s. projected to be the number one country taking over from china around competitiveness which is fantastic result for us. it also was an important note that ten of the 15 most competitive nations in the future are based in asia. it's two very important facts that came out of this whole concept of what were seeing in the future. what are the drivers of
manufacturing competitiveness? with our collaboration with the culture, we explored the key drivers through a competitive landscape. manufacturing sectors once again cited talent as the top need. hearing the last couple of panels, my background is. [inaudible] it's interesting, i've always said that for many years that talent does drive strategy and it was great to see that is still the number one concern. matching the availability of the skilled talent we need was actually the skilled workforce. in areas like engineering and manufacturing, the agent workforce is just not getting replaced with enough skilled labor. :
him so we need to continue to work on. and companies are moving forward, higher value of values and processes. workforce productivity was the third thing on the list of things of importance. the other thing that was very interesting is traditional developed nations, manufacturing such that the us, germany and japan, high labor productivity seem to be winning again in the eyes of globalization. there is consistency in that part of the world, where that is leading. these nations are back on top
on global manufacturing competitiveness and we expect them to remain there through 2020. with that said and what i heard earlier we are rapidly evolving. the landscape is changing and if you want to stay with an employer of choice you need to realize what you did to obtain, create, isn't the same thing will happen in the next we 10 years. it was a more difficult task. walls are falling down, countries are coming together, globalization gets more difficult to maintain and create the talent we were able to do years ago and because of that, it can be fierce. it will be difficult to get exactly the talent we need and building it will be key. the latest clarion call, i
fully agree the exact phrase, technology and trade skills, no issue in which to councilmembers on works united as progress on building talented, diverse workforces. we have seen this through our research every day and the diverse workforces, that is key. and diversity of thought, and gender. a different way of thinking, companies succeed over the last decade. the other thing we are seeing and research proved is the concept of ecosystems are very important and developing everything your self is not the way of the future.
and what used to be, every organization wants to build everything they need, the way technology is doing, an incredible amount of ecosystems developed and that is the way of the future, they are teaming with technology firms and other firms. the development of ecosystems is key to the next decade. we are in the fourth industrial revolution. with that the landscape is changing. if you look at technology, the word we like to use is we are in exponential technology, the report we are going to talk about is the concept of what got us where we are today is not going to get us in the future, this analogy, world will not experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century
at the rate it is going today, it will be 20,000 years of progress. if you believe that a lot of people don't believe that. if you do believe that, we think that is where it will go for the next decade. it is not just about physical products anymore consumer demand is changing, marketplace is changing, when you put that together it is more exponential increase in development. we agree and support many elements of the clarion call including the fundamental notion that innovation driven productivity is the foundation for a growing vibrant economy. interesting is four -- the company called singularity university which we have done a lot of work with and i took the
board through a day there to talk about the concept i call governing over disruption. it is hard enough to manage disruption, how do you govern over disruption? spending a day there was interesting because i left in a very uncomfortable state because there were so many concepts that were talked about, what the next we 10 years would look like, i left thinking how what i govern over stuff that is hard to manage. it did leave me with some sleepless nights for a couple days but i looked at it, not telling us what is not going to work but assume it will be this way, the key to how this happens, disruptive, deceptive, digitized, democratized, the monetized and dematerialized
and the concept of exponential technology and futures look like and singularity university has a good job of pushing that forward. as we talk about the study will underway right now, technology and manufacturing, brings together singularity and broader manufacturers and technology ecosystems. take a look at how our technology is performing for future. if you believe what i said that ecosystems are going to be the wave of the future think about it as a partnership among lots of different organizations, that is the way of thinking about it. that is what we are doing in our study. our objective is to focus on how global manufacturing companies can best happen to the transformational shift to evolve, grow and thrive.
help manufacturing executives assess and utilize the promising future technologies and capture value. the study is underway right now and we are doing this internally. i believe you need to see it your self, talk to others about it. process automation and analytics to develop and change the core services we provide, and if you believe that, that is going to be we have seen amazing change and success the last couple years. what have we seen so far? the survey is shown thoughtful, engaged and brave leadership. a lot of people engage in this conversation but it is going to take resources to believe and invest in it. taking resources and putting
them on the journey here, not just talking the talk but walking it. there's a lot of hype around advanced technologies, know which ones make the mark for you directly, not just everything you hear but amazing stories you see in the news and read research on. everything is not going to be effective but overwhelming technologies, how many days you get any request for an apps to come on your phone, some things will not make sense. trusting small teams on the edge, you heard that before, really is protect a group of people to actually innovate and not worry as much about that product. if you allow innovation on the edge, we see that as one of the
ways companies will be more successful. this one makes sense, hard to do in an economic period, trying to manage earnings but something we see coming out of the survey. operating outside the traditional walls, don't say why, say why not, sometimes. that is another thing coming out of this, this concept of looking at it with a different paradigm. lastly just raise the national dialogue on this to be an enabler. we are hearing it a lot, the more people talk about it the more everyone will see this is the wave of the future. as each of us go back to our day-to-day jobs, remembering how we operate or how we operate to get to this point we may have to operate differently in the next decade. with that i thank you for being here and really appreciate it. [applause]
>> for almost a decade the united states has seen an unprecedented surge in nonrenewable and renewable energy resources turning what was once an economic and national security weakness into a strength. to discuss whether we have leveraged this opportunity for us manufacturing at the federal, state and local level to maximum effect please welcome mister sam allen, chairman and chief executive officer, chairman council on competitiveness, the honorable rebecca blank, president of the university of wisconsin medicine, doctor walter co.pan, undersecretary department of commerce. and national institute of standards, mister steve stephenohfitch, member, board of governors at argonne national laboratory.
mister bill bates, executive and vice president chief of staff council on competitiveness. >> welcome. thank you for that presentation. i know there were some slides that were supposed to go with that. apologize for technical difficulties that prevented that and we will see if that is something we can share after the session. we will talk a little manufacturing for the next 20, 25 minutes or so. we touched on a lot of topics we will get to in the next session but looking through specifically through this lens of manufacturing is the step to take especially if it is something the council has been so focused on over the last decade of work, in 2009 the council issued a report that concluded that energy is
everything, the lifeblood of the economy. 3 years later we should another report specifically on manufacturing. while we were doing that report the entire landscape of the energy situation in the united states changed. we went from discussing energy scarcity and security to talking about low-cost energy abundance and independence. this was due to proliferation of the tracking movement. and we explore as an organization, the implications across various sectors of the economy. we look at the aerospace sector, energy, advanced materials, biosciences, agriculture, to try to understand what is happening out there. the question that pervaded our work has been are we leveraging this tremendous opportunity we
have with low-cost abundant energy to capitalize manufacturing capacity. i have a terrific panel with me to get at that question looking at some specifics, what i would like to do is start with you because we talked a lot about talent over the last couple panels here. i want to look at it specifically thinking of the manufacturing space. over and over in each of these sessions whether it was agriculture or bioscience or aerospace it turns out we are not ready or finding the talent we need and the discussions about the need for diversity, expanding the pool. are you seeing this as well in your sphere? are we doing the right things looking at manufacturing opportunity. >> we have growing demand for
engineers, people in a broad number of areas, wisconsin is a manufacturing state and regularly hear from employers saying wish you could turn out more. i should note this is a diverse pipeline, people trained seriously in technical skills, phds and biotech, it is not 1-size-fits-all, and it is a long process. and the council talked about this in the past. and the only alternative to that is a broad.
and intelligence skills-based immigration policy on the list. a short-term solution to the shortages firms are experiencing. the lower cost energy to say here, whatever it, internally, and make manufacturing and science and technology that goes into it more sexy in the public conversation, i hear regularly from people in the business schools or engineering schools, they don't see what they think of as online manufacturing experiences. everyone knows about manufacturing left in the united states, that is the edge of where us manufacturing will grow and remain. students don't understand that and parents don't understand
that and get very little exposure, unless parents have worked in it or been in a town where it is present and a lot of students coming in, think about careers in science and engineering, why would i want to do that? that is a marketing media campaign and a number of companies, at a fundamental level, to direct more people in junior high and high school, this is a sexy and exciting thing to do. a number of things we need to be doing and one of the most important is the information you give to freshmen and sophomores when they are choosing majors. we do a good job of that in professional schools if you are in engineering or business but most schools including us have done a lousy job for the
majority of students in liberal arts degrees and looking around what the majors are going to be, no idea what they can do with a major in mathematics or physics or social sciences leading them into interesting jobs, we are trying hard to push career-related information bringing alumni, local companies from wisconsin in freshman and sophomore years. two of the last comments, i regularly talk to manufacturers that they need to come in early, they can't show up, a great company, growing company, in oshkosh, wisconsin, most never heard of them or why they should work for them. they will not know that at the end of their senior year.
that company has to be in some of the departments and schools at wisconsin early getting their name up sponsoring competitions, doing internships, the last comments and a number of others, if we want to keep the pipeline going we have to have federal dollars for the high end researchers, vast majority of federal dollars, paying to be part of research projects and that is how they are innovators for high-tech manufacturing in this -- it is your document in front of you says we got to keep the dollars in basic sciences, so crucial not just for invention but pipeline as well. >> are you seeing challenges in hiring up and down the skill spectrum from phds to
entry-level, having trouble finding people? >> very much so. we had quite some time at the high skilled level we are talking about for embedded software engineers and found it in a number of different areas but now as we ramp up production, us and our supplies, the number one thing limiting us, a talent for manufacturing operations and a hard time coming back in these jobs. it is definitely a challenging factor. >> another issue coming up repeatedly for all these sectors of the economy the ability of startups, entrepreneurs and midsized businesses to get access to capital to get the idea out of the lab, the small business
scaled up to a midsized business. what is your perspective on how this is looking for potential for manufacturing. >> i'm optimistic for a number of reasons. one of them for example is the fact historically silicon valley has seated information and technologies companies, the last several years, manufacturing, the aircraft sector which is one that i followed closely, in the last several years silicon valley firms funded 22 aircraft companies to the tune of $350 million. a lot of that stems from silicon valley companies like uber, uber f8, and follow them.
and a force multiplier to manufacturing. the other thing, because of the last couple decades of investment, one of the things we see that is interesting, the social media and much easier for companies to access, and testers through social media sites like linkedin reaching out directly, to introduce them to investors and help place their products, crowdfunding where you can say i want to manufacture this and have a discounted price to put down a deposit that i can use for manufacturing. that is a proliferation to seed infrastructure.
i mentioned crowdfunding but accelerators, they are everywhere. the university of chicago has the largest accelerator in the midwest and invited national labs to join, fermilab is part of it and other universities like illinois with engineering school has become part of it. what is interesting here is the military has gotten into the game, the army research lab opened in the university of chicago and large fortune 500 companies setting up venture where they did not have those before so for example in the energy space you have energy ventures, entrepreneur somewhere in the us can access money in saudi arabia and china
and so forth and over the last three years in a row venture capital funds of raised $50 billion a year and that is important because that size made it easier for institutional investors to participate more and that will add more fuel, so optimistic where it is easy to access capital. >> the comment about the focus on the apps economy, you are optimistic there is money there for the long term, the productmaking thing. >> even things like crowdfunding to participate so it broadens the investor base, you still have to sell someone on your product to get an investment but it is easier to
find those investors. >> representing the federal government on the panel. what is your perspective on the role that the director of controls, the federal role in enabling manufacturing and create the right environment and rules of the road to accelerate this area. >> thank you, great to be back with counsel. thank you for the work you do and your advocacy, and driving manufacturing advanced. and the competitive dynamics of our world has shifted dramatically and so whether we look at advanced manufacturing
institutes, this was the only area in the previous clarion calls that got an a grade so that is a wonderful thing, some of you know the lead on advanced than you factoring initiatives and roles to coordinate public-private engagement, engagement with leading industry, engagement with the entrepreneurial community, academia, driving workforce development, and ongoing theme, manufacturing institutes, leverage of the manufacturing extension partnerships has had tremendous focus bringing capabilities from publicly funded research into prototyping access to user
facilities. it is a great leverage provided for the nation. i was pleased to provide over the 50th anniversary celebration of the national center for neutron research, advanced materials optimization and studying biological positions to optimize biological drug manufacturing and systems control. we see ourselves as a convener within the federal government to bring all the federal sector together with stakeholders in the public side as well as corporate america as well as within academia. i believe we see ourselves as the nation's laboratory for
industry so addressing all market verticals, great conversations with folks in the high-tech sector. the -- to guide the infrastructure and into the future of 5g and wireless, this nation would have been a decade behind the rest of europe in the development of those capabilities so i had folks from corning and intel and hewlett-packard come up to me and say thank you for the work you have done in the federal sector, helped drive us innovation manufacturing and technology transfer. deborah mentioned in her
comments tech transfer is one of many tools we have access to, so much innovation in this country, as a representative of the federal laboratory system and department of commerce we have also identified opportunities, i would challenge the council to engage as we kick off a national initiative under authority of the federal technology transfer construct, time to revisit where we are today and how we can move forward in an increasingly connected world who copied the act. they have copied the national manufacturing institutes that we have, we had a meeting with the major delegation from china who said they come to benchmark how they can replicate that in
asia. an opportunity for challenging us competitiveness as a network and i look forward to engaging with all of you on that. >> if there were two issues that came up in every one of the sectors, they would be talent and the other would be the implication of the internet of things to the manufacturing process. it came up in two ways, one was potential efficient these of knowing the amount of energy, the amount of water you are using in the process and the other was the downside, potential for cyberattacks and manipulation by outside entities of these new sensors. we are what stands between everyone and lunch but this issue cuts across industry, academia, government, open up to the panel for any thoughts
on how do we capitalize on the good side of that and minimize the bad. >> some of you may know because of our leadership in the national cybersecurity framework as well as systems interoperability to look at the internet of things on behalf of congress. it is a huge upside and risk management driving of a framework and testing interoperability's of systems, open, transparent but also industry sensitive way that is critical and we have as the national cybersecurity center of excellence a test bed for the smart grid and advanced manufacturing systems to be able to have the leaders of industry, technologies to work together and to privately
understand what their systems are doing and what are the vulnerabilities they experience? we really see this is an area that needs top-level leadership in this nation to drive the awareness and creation of new workforce in addition to new standards to enable the country to take advantage and harness opportunities around the internet of things. >> we spent a lot of time talking about things like facebook posts and they have to be careful how they had the growth of that and an enormous need for universities, for everyone who got into the workforce to be aware of how all the devices with which they live can be used in ways that can harm them and can harm their families and places where
they work and increasingly, we are training staff about all sorts of issues with regards to cybersecurity, the internet of things takes this to another level and most of our staff and students are completely unaware of the risks that would be run. >> i would echo what has been said. our view, we are in the process with the internet of things, every part of the value stream from the customer through the dealers to factories through the supply base at the second and third level, tremendous upside opportunity with it and our number one threat we see everywhere is cyber and it is a risk you have to manage that you can't get away from. you better stay on top of it
because it is here. the only way you will mitigate it, on top of it. >> the quick comments i was going to add was the same block chain technology, driving bit coin to tulip levels would be part of that solution. >> fantastic. interestingly or importantly, two topics, cyber, bit coin, on this afternoon's agenda. sounds like we are talking about the right things. a terrific discussion, really appreciate it, i ask for a round of applause please. [applause] >> please join us for a buffet lunch in the foyer. it will begin probably at 1:00 pm.
[inaudible conversations] >> the national competitiveness forum is taking a lunch break for 30 minutes. when it resumes, we will bring it to you live on c-span2. some of the discussion earlier with academic and university officials on productivity, and innovation. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. great to be back with the council again. i only have half a voice. i left the other half in stockholm a couple days ago. i was very privileged to get to the nobel prize ceremonies because the national science foundation has supported the census system that won the
price for the discovery of gravitational waves for 40 years. that is a good place to start. [applause] it is good for all of us to appreciate just what a high risk, high reward investment is all about so that was progress of technology and superduper engineering challenges that had to be overcome. a lot of people, as you might guess, came and went and it involves multidisciplinary teams who did the numerical relativity using supercomputers so they knew when the first gravitational wave was detected, what the source was and it was took -- colliding black holes that were not close by in the system and the most
recent gravitational wave detection, because there have been several, neutron stars. it was a long tail. there are many nsf directors and program officers involved, national science board change to overcome a large number of times during that interval and had to prove funding and congress is the ultimate arbiter for appropriations and making the decision to continue an investment nobody was quite sure would have a result. how risk-taking is that? we all knew einstein had his stuff right so we could expect accelerating masses somewhere in the universe which produce gravitational waves but when the calculations were done, the
difference, the little jiggles the earth experienced for a fraction of a second, very small, 100 years ago when einstein predicted this would happen that we ever had the technology to find something so technically challenging. so since the observatories have been built we have two widely separated in the us, one in the state of washington, one in the state of louisiana, livingston and also another observatory in italy near pizza, we can narrow down the locations, to achieve such a technological triumph, a lot of engineering had to be
done in successive ways and they have produced outcomes that are now being enjoyed by startup companies and others that would have had no motivation in those particular directions without the motivation of trying to nail this affect down and make this detection. we don't know where it will leave in this first exciting moment that apparently the nobel prize committee thought enough of it to will award the prize to three, thousands of people who worked on it. on the latest paper were 3500 authors, so that amount of print takes up more room than the actual article itself. i want to introduce the subject
of the next session transform which is very beautiful and it is about an initiative nsf was privileged to funds call exploring innovation frontiers initiative and i want to give a shout out to the head of our engineering directorate at the time a few years ago when we made the decision to fund this and got onto irvine, a vice chancellor for the search. during this time there have been several workshops around the country and i will say a few words about that and we will hear from two people that were greatly involved in those workshops, more about this. let me make, now that i have introduced the subject of basic research leading to innovation
and engineering applications, make more formal remarks and i will begin with a quote for the inspiration, the inspiration from the national science foundation who believed there must be a stream of new scientific knowledge to turn the wheels of public and private enterprise so that was a smart prescient person, he was asked by president roosevelt after the second world war to write up a statement of why it was important to have scientists and engineers involved, so successful in helping with the wartime effort and why it was important for them to be involved in the peacetime effort. at the time, as you heard in this quote, talking about the
importance of private and public enterprise and how their needs to be a new stream of scientific knowledge feeding into that and that is the basis of the national science foundation. it is continually looking to support new discoveries and new discoveries because it is the people that make the discoveries and keeping that engine going is really the source of all innovation. we heard from the workshops around the country, you will hear more about it from the next group about the importance of diverse city, and how that was vital in ensuring that we had a plethora of new advances and tapping all the potential
the united states has, funding resulted in countless advanceds for us citizens worldwide from doppler radar to mri scans, the internet to nanotechnology, google to barcodes, computer-aided to science systems to tissue engineering. as i go about the country and the world i'm always amazed by the number of people that come up to me, nsf gave me the first grants i ever had and the department of energy, nasa support funds me for more mission oriented work but the first grants in gene editing, we were the first grants to the originators of gene editing, and pleased to see that for the first time in the last couple
months since we moved headquarters from arlington, virginia to alexandria, virginia, that we made a statute, hard to imagine a person that had such a decisive impact on science and technology 70 years ago, that there are no statues of him around so we investigated in the subbasement of an out holding of the smithsonian there is one that stands this tall and of bronze, made in the 1940s with a number of other famous people, we 3-d printed its, you have to visit us, it was painted bronze, rubbed in
the right place, if a neighbor is back at his home, he would have had no idea what 3-d printing was about, but he would have been pleased to see how technology brought him back. consistent backing of high risk research and support of initiatives such as the engineering research centers, 30 around the country, small business innovative research program, the innovation program which is all over the country and helps graduate students and undergraduates become entrepreneurs very quickly and ten ideas which is the signature end vision for the future, they signify long-standing commitment innovative breakthroughs that have been critical to the nation's economy, and keeping
us a global leader. the same entrepreneurial ambitions drove the creation of the council on competitiveness, indispensable foundation purposed to find avenues to robust economic growth in the face of serious global challenges. i will be speaking later this afternoon at a forum on philanthropy, science and innovation with francis collins, it is being hosted by the science philanthropy alliance and i am going to use the council on competitiveness as an example of bringing public and private entities successfully together to drive innovation through discovery so organizations like the council have encouraged a national climate in which science and
engineering discoverers have adapted to new changes and continued to thrive and centuries of progress have let us to new frontiers of discovery but still a lot of challenges. we face all sorts of concerns at home and abroad and the big challenge of educating and inspiring future innovators. people at the national science foundation, those are the major concerns so they can in turn inspire the world. we navigated a lot of major barriers to come this far. we as a nation continues to explore the next frontiers. our history has shown american discoveries and discoverers have consistently driven innovation. as the place where discoveries
and we know the same determination to discover will secure our future. to address the challenge with a partner to come up with creative approaches in pursuit of transformative discoveries and this is why this is called transform. two years ago at georgia tech, joined me in announcing the national science foundation awarded a grant to the council on competitiveness to launch the innovation frontier initiative. the efi was organized as a series of national dialogue on how to drive competitiveness in the decades ahead. with all the venues and dialogue around the country representatives from industry and academia and national labs and institutions, labor leaders
on key opinion leaders gathered together. that led us to examine the transformative innovation models that address global concerns. dialogue touched on fostering environments conducive to discovery, ensuring diversity and inclusion in america's talent base of inventors and analyzing specific technology to drive innovation in that future. i also had the opportunity to attend the opening dialogue in atlanta and the final event in st. louis i want to take a moment to thank our host site, georgia tech, university of california riverside, texas a&m university and washington university of st. louis and many people in those areas who made it a success. being part of those dialogues is why some of us here this
morning are very excited about this, today the council is going to release this final report capturing insights and recommendations from the last two years of dialogue and i'm interested in hearing about the proposal that will keep our nation competitive in generations to come. this upcoming session should have some enlightening insights for us all and i would like to end with a quote in this report here, when perusing it i received the final report yesterday so under the summary section it says as a major source of federal research and development funding in the science of innovation and active participants in the emphasis, the nsf brings an invaluable perspective on the current state-of-the-art and models for innovation and is
the only federal agency unconstrained by a subject specific mission and that is the natural topics as broad as innovation. i hadn't thought of it that way before, our strength is in our breadth. we stand all areas, science and engineering and we do so because you never know where the next suffering is going to come from. we need discoveries at the root of innovation, innovation is nothing without discoverers. thanks to all who have been part of this dialogue and the coc and please help me welcome our group of speakers who will be talking about specific dialogue and their outcomes, thank you very much. [applause]
>> to discuss insights and findings from the reports transformed, please welcome the council president and ceo, debra smith, provost and executive vice chancellor for academic affairs at washington university in st. louis and the chancellor of the university of california riverside, doctor kim wilcox. >> thank you for your remarks and leadership. we are thrilled you are leading the nsf and all the things we do in the world. i think we will jump right in to talk about the findings and excitement and energy that came out of the two dialogues we hosted.
and the california system, the talents continue them and how to get more americans into the innovation journey for the country and not only was everybody excited and thrilled about the new models you are creating but we take those back into our own world and very much affected the report so start wherever you want but tell us what is unique about your university, we purposefully went to uc riverside because you are a new model and share with us the findings and where you think we should go from here. >> thanks for making us a part of this. let me do a little context and purpose. noticing the clarion call, one of the top perceived
technologies in advanced manufacturing and predictive analytics as well. if you want to predict a high school student likelihood of success in college and had to choose one data point what would you choose? you wouldn't choose high school gpa or sat score, numbers of clubs in high school, you choose the family zip code and the zip code is a proxy, if your family is in the upper quintile of income in america today you have six times greater likelihood of graduating from college then someone of equal abilities in the bottom of the income. we can't afford to leave that much of america behind. if you get into college you only have a 40% chance of graduating from college, so riverside, the lesson is programmatic changes and things we do but the real story is deliberate of nurse. decades ago the university was deliberate about recruiting
students from across all sectors and helping them graduate, supporting them in ways that make a difference and the impacts are starting to grow, we are seeing that deliberateness and a lot of places. and american challenge initiative that have the purpose of helping students from low income families doctor crow and i are part of the university innovation alliance that band together three years ago for the express purpose of increasing numbers of graduates from college, lower income families. we increase the number of graduates in our 11 universities by 10% in three years and those are stories about deliberateness but we are not done yet. a place like this is so crucial to combining the efforts of the academic world and private world and i have a challenger,
a challenge for our corporate partners. if you go on the websites of most of the major fortune 500 companies and identify their key university partners you will see the same schools, the ones we think of as the elite universities in america and the elite universities are trying to catch the elite, corporations, you don't see east carolina or unc or cleveland state or universities that are embracing the diversity of america today so if we are going to change leadership of the nation and include all of america in the innovation economy you have to find ways collectively to be deliberate so my key lesson from riverside is that. >> thank you but what you share with us what was the magic, the strategy that you developed and deployed at riverside against
women and a huge number of the hispanic population moving through stem into graduate school, we saw that and everyone was blown away by it. >> i talk about two key pieces. one is the simple notion that you can make a big university small but can't make a small university big. we have taken our 23 student university and created small communities, portraits of students that support the menu feel connected. for families who send their students to college and no one in the family has been to college before, there's a lot of oh my goodness but in a small group you find your way through. the other piece is riverside, in much of america we talk about leveling the playing field which means dipping the program under one corner of the initiative. riverside did it in a holistic way.
we built the field in a way that the faculty, staff, student body, everybody is embedded and motivated by the same values so it is ubiquitous, each of our pieces fit together in a way that is whole but that is deliberate. >> the council had a very exciting activity at washington university in st. louis after national innovation initiative was concluded in 2004 and there were many challenges in the city and region around entrepreneurships and building the ecosystem but st. louis has been named the startup capital, we have gotten tremendous energy and momentum and resolve in driving this entrepreneurial culture that depends on great universities. please share a little bit about that journey because the entrepreneurship in washington
and st. louis set us very much ahead in what is going on in your region. >> thanks for letting us -- it was an honor to have you over there and was a chance to bring together a lot of people to celebrate some things that you have done. and the clarion call, and help with this corrosive rhetoric. how much better people are if they go to college, and helping us get that message out and doing things the chancellor was talking about. >> as far as st. louis and the ecosystem are concerned we are a proud city, magnificent history and washington university is compelled to be
an important part of that and a lot of things that happened before i got to st. louis, a lot of people came together to create a cortex innovation district which is where we had a meeting, to have a lot of different startups and other parts of the economy and bring back part of the city everyone wanted to focus on 15 years ago some people who cared about the city sat down and said let's figure out how to engage universities and start things. when i came along we were looking to make it a better partner, universities are called on by council on competitiveness and other places to promote innovation economy to get discoveries into the marketplace. we have been doing that, not nearly as much as we should and
some of the things we do, one is to make sure our policies for doing this are as smooth as we can make them. we can do a lot of that but it also has been said many times it comes down to the people. .. as i told my colleagues who think they have invented a billion-dollar drug, after remind them it's not a billion-dollar drug until you've sold it for a billion dollars. most of my academic colleagues have no idea how to sell a billion-dollar drug to big pharma. bring people who can bridge that is incredibly important because no matter how important your policies are and you're excited about your research, you have hiccups and the only way to get through them is to have people who
have been on both sides. the other thing we've done nothing really that is affecting the cic and there's some talk about that and they do a great job. we were very lucky that the very first place they can, one of the great places where lots of startups can get going in the first place they chose, st. louis after they decided they were going to get away from the operation. >> my job was to stand at the house for and ask every congressman what they thought of the day's news during the monica lewinsky scandal. i quit my job and went as far as away as i could go and i went to cambodia. i spent a year end half reporting on events there and it was an amazing experience. they were emerging from civil
war in genocide where one in four people died of murder, starvation and disease. what really struck me was the theme of human resilience. to be seen people's lives and how they bounce back changed how i looked at journalism and what i wanted to do. when i came back i wanted to write more about human resilience. i found that in the u.s., some of the most exciting stories are being unleashed by technology and that's what my book is abou about. it's about bio engineering i guess my presentation is less data-driven than some of the stuff but when i tried to do was put these trends that we keep. about into context. some of these fields like bionics and brain computer interface and regenerative
science, that's what my book is about. what all these things have in common is that we sort of reached a tipping point. in the last century we had incredible engineering feet spread we went to the moon and built skyscrapers and mastered flight. my argument and what i've seen in the past ten years of covering this for the mit technology review, popular science and others is that the new frontier now, they're turning their sites inward to the human body. we've always tried to do that, but now many of the technologies we've heard about , sensing and computing technologies are allowing us to do things we could never do before the reverse engineer
the human body and mind in a way that wasn't possible several years ago. i tried to talk to people to find out what's going on and what were learning about our limits and how we might overcome them. it's pretty obvious this will be a tremendous area of growth in the next century. you guys are the ones who can figure out how to monetize it. various different areas are coming along in different places. the first person wrote about, the first person i talked to sort of demonstrates an area where already there is progress that can be commercialized. that person is a man named hugh and i'll tell you little bit about him. the sky, twa