Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
Raffi Cavoukian
Elaine Mah

GET UPDATES FROM Elaine Mah
 

Does Gov't Funding Help or Hurt Tech Innovation?

Posted: 11/07/11 12:08 AM ET

I was recently travelling in Western Canada and was amazed to see first-hand some of Canada's hotbeds of innovation -- technology clusters and centres of excellence gaining world-recognition, yet I'd argue few Canadians know they exist. I didn't know about many of these collaborative ventures driving advances in technology, manufacturing, and medical sectors. For example, did you know Edmonton, Alberta has a world-renown nanotechnology cluster? Or, that we've built a biotechnology clusters in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Montreal, Quebec? That Saskatoon is home to a leading plant biotechnology cluster?

While many Canadians are familiar with Kitchener-Waterloo's Tech Triangle (brought to the mainstream by companies like RIM), I doubt many are aware of Canada's other world-class research and innovation centres.

Technology clustering is a concept built on the premise that by encouraging like-minded entrepreneurs to develop their ideas in specific geographic locations, we encourage greater collaboration and partnerships. Canada's National Research Council (NRC) developed several clusters in Canada in the '80s with the following belief:

"Cluster players work diligently and creatively to build international relationships with compatible organizations and technology communities abroad. Working across borders attracts the world's best and freshest ideas to Canadian communities and, as a result, builds our pool of highly skilled workers. Successful clusters create a brain gain for Canada."

While I was pondering these amazing clusters at home (ones that I argue are helping to positively move Canada's innovation agenda forward), I attended a presentation by Deloitte's Bill Currie on Canada's productivity and clusters once again took centre stage. Currie explained that while some of the NRC initiatives have been successful, others have failed to reach their promised potential. He said a top-down (a.k.a. federal) approach doesn't work. It needs grassroots support to gain momentum.

"Businesses within an area, local universities, and all levels of government -- including municipal -- must collaborate for clusters to take root... Local businesses, municipal governments and nearby universities have the strongest grasp of local strengths."

Deloitte believes clusters have merit and includes them as a key strategy in its future of Canada's productivity report.

At the same time as we have experts calling for the encouragement of clustering, we seem to be on the cusp of dismantling them if the government follows recommendations in a recent report calling for changes to government R&D funding and the NRC.

Currie notes success in development of clusters needs to be measured in decades not years, which leads me to wonder if we measuring success too soon? I worry that policy changes could stifle the positive strides we have been taking in attracting and developing clusters of expertise that will, in time, effectively move us from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based economy of the future. Is now not the time to encourage science-based education and provide a fertile environment world-class innovation?

What do you think, are we tossing the baby out with the bathwater when we call on governments to cease funding? Are clusters the innovation-makers that can help us move away from our traditional resource roots or simply government spending run amok? Do you have a better way?

 

Follow Elaine Mah on Twitter: www.twitter.com/e_mah

I was recently travelling in Western Canada and was amazed to see first-hand some of Canada's hotbeds of innovation -- technology clusters and centres of excellence gaining world-recognition, yet I'd ...
I was recently travelling in Western Canada and was amazed to see first-hand some of Canada's hotbeds of innovation -- technology clusters and centres of excellence gaining world-recognition, yet I'd ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kdallas999
Entrepreneur, patriot and liberal
09:30 AM on 11/08/2011
Innovation by its very nature involves risk. If it didn't, it wouldn't be innovation.

Of course, there will be failures. To expect investment in innovation with no failures is to not understand the process.

Governments are the very entities that SHOULD step in and support innovative endeavours. As it has been since the Carnegies, Rockefellers, and all the other titans - government invests in the early stage and private industry invests in the commercialization.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:52 PM on 11/20/2011
Fanned for discernment.  I like the way you think.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Blackburn
08:29 AM on 11/08/2011
e cluster now most needed is one devoted to the development of the computer program of the human mind. Perhaps with everyone in one spot somebody would think outside the box and seriously consider the human mind being directed by a "survival" program. Only then will the human mind be programmed in the machine. Only when this program is functional will we understand how the mind operates and what we do to confound that operation in our societies. Perhaps clusters aren't the answer for artificial intelligence, and it will be the lone wolf who designs the first working model of the mind.
See: http://revolutionofreason.com and http://www.youtube.com/RobertLBlackburn
04:12 PM on 11/07/2011
We have the most technologically advanced army in the world and the best medicine almost exclusively due to government subsidies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:48 PM on 11/07/2011
Technology clustering is something I have closely watched working very well in India over the past fifteen years or more. Because the big divide between the rich and the poor in India, the government found it compartively easier to allocate capital to engineer these clusters.

Michael Porter at Harvard Business School, back in the 80's did extensive analysis on this. The type of clusters that he described across the world are the organic ones, not the so called engineered ones. For example, fashion and apparel in Italy or chemical industries in Germany.

I think for the US, if the US has to 'engineer' such clusters then its quite bothersome. Are we already a 3rd world country that it requires this finnagling. I would like to see an enviorment where there is a political and financial environment for such clusters to form organically and naturally. Such as Silicon Valley or Hollywood.
02:45 PM on 11/07/2011
Either/Or is the problem. There is govt. funding, there will be govt. funding. The idea of govt./no govt. is, and I am very nice, naive. Science always chases currency. Peer overview needed to maintain some integrity.
03:34 AM on 11/07/2011
Ms. Leaine Mah: For the dollars and cents part of funding we could provide a more democratic based solution. Every individual who pays taxes could decide which area of research funding a portion of their taxes are directed at. This enables the general public to "invest" directly into areas considered vital to society while stirring up interest from the general public in science and research. Each research team would have to spell out what has been already acomplished in their area, what they are now doing and where the next round of funding will be spent as well as the scientific facts and reports nesessary for laymen to properly access their funding request. As an example, a person concerned about climate change would be more inclined to direct their share of taxes to researching climate change while another person could direct their portion to medical funding such as AIDS or Cancer research. I think this would be a more direct way of involving the general public in science and reasearch.