America we have an 'innovation deficit'
The United States has an "innovation deficit". Of course, for those of us in agriculture, this is not exactly a startling revelation. But it bears repeating that we can't shortchange funding for agricultural research, which already is woefully behind funding in other areas, if the United States is going to lead in closing the productivity gap - the difference between the historic rate of productivity growth and the pace required to meet needs in 2050 when the global population is expected to exceed 9 billion.
But I digress to make the point that our "innovation deficit" is not lost on others. Eric Schmidt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Google, writing in a Washington Post op-ed last week mused that:
We have been world leaders in innovation for generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and our rising prosperity. But much of the cutting-edge research and development in key areas such as renewable energy now takes place outside the United States. There's a real chance that the "green Silicon Valley" will take root in Germany or China. We can't afford to let that happen.
Schmidt's real concern about the United States losing ground to other countries was echoed in a speech given last month by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke to President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Among other salient points, Locke noted that:
In the past, America has depended, above all, on one thing to keep growing: a continuous flow of new technologies and new ideas entering the marketplace that sweeps away old ways of doing business and replaces them with new ones. But today, America has a broken innovation ecosystem that does not efficiently:
- create the right incentives or allocate enough resources to generate new ideas;
- develop those ideas with focused research; and,
- turn them into businesses that can create good jobs.
The evidence is everywhere you look. You see it the industries that used to be dominated by American companies but are now led by companies in Europe and Asia. Locke added that we know how to fix our "broken innovation system": We've got to devote more resources to research and development -- especially at the federal level.
The Commerce Secretary is not going to get any argument or disagreement from this corner. The $429 million in President Obama's FY 2011 budget is a good start as it is an increase of $166.4 million over last year's budget, and the highest funding level ever - for competitive grants through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
Yes, while better, it's a drop in the bucket when compared to research dollars allocated in other areas. It's this kind of shortchanging of agriculture research that last year caused a coalition consisting of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and 70 university presidents, deans of agriculture and veterinary medicine and others, to write letters pointing out that "...for every $120 appropriated for the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. invests only $1 for food and agriculture competitive research."
Moreover, the group also noted that the "Agriculture and Food Research Initiative was one of the few federal science programs to receive no investment in the American Recovery Act of 2009... and that agriculture and food sciences receives only about 1 percent of total federal investment in research and development."
As one of the group leaders urged:
Enhanced investment in agricultural research is critical not only to American famers, but global economic and environmental sustainability relies upon better knowledge and innovative answers.
Eric Schmidt is absolutely on mark in saying we "can't afford" to cede our innovation edge to other countries. I would echo that, and add that we can't lose our innovation edge in any sector, particularly the agriculture community where we continue to lead in innovation, despite an all too obvious "funding deficit".