Recently, I interviewed master inventor Dean Kamen, well known as the inventor of the stair climbing wheelchair and the Segway, as well as the creator of the FIRST Robotics competitions for school children. I explained to Dean how R&D World’s Global Funding Forecast was reporting that China will outspend the U.S. for the very first time in R&D in 2021.
As our report predicts, China will invest $622 billion in R&D this year, versus $599 billion for the U.S. I asked Dean what he thought about China’s R&D investments in areas like robotics and AI — and from a technology standpoint, are we going to keep up? Did this concern him at all? Here is his insightful answer.
Yes, it concerns me a lot, but I think overly simplistically saying, no, we as a country should always spend more than anybody in the world is both neither practical or fair or realistic. They have a multiple of our population, they eat a multiple of the amount of food we eat every day, even if it’s the same amount per capita. The fact is, they have less food per capita, but they still eat more than we do. You have to normalize that. So, it’ll come a point, I hope, where the world has a much better distribution of educated people that are all working on solving problems. And part of me says, “I’d rather have 10 times as many people racing towards curing this form of cancer or that form of cancer before I find out it’s the one I have.”
I think, whether we come up with a great new engine that doesn’t pollute, whether that’s invented in the U.S. or China, or Israel — or any other country in the world — as long as it’s properly disseminated, we all win. In a world where good ideas can be spread across the whole globe, why wouldn’t we want as many smart kids everywhere doing that? But having said that, am I worried that it’s not just that China is spending more and more on research and development, but maybe on a per capita basis, the U.S. isn’t doing everything it should be doing to stay globally competitive? I am worried about that.
All you have to do is look at this country. We started out with 13 little colonies that somehow escaped from one of the biggest empires the world had ever seen. And these 13 little colonies certainly didn’t start with massive amounts of libraries and universities and research institutions like all of Europe had, or thousands of years of China. Yet, from the time this country became what we now think of as America, from the very beginning, we just screamed ahead of the rest of the world in terms of almost every metric that we claim we value today: public education, standard of living, quality of life, access to health, you name it. How could that be?
How did that happen? This country was about innovators. They created wealth. We didn’t conquer other countries. We didn’t take over other countries. We were a country built on innovation. It’s not a coincidence that Thomas Edison was here, that Wilbur and Orville Wright were here. When you look at the history throughout the industrial revolution and up until today, whether you think about the modern versions of some of these super innovative companies, whether it’s Apple or Google, they are here, and they create industries, they create great jobs, they create a future.
And by the way, a lot of the technologies they create are sustaining and protecting our independence and our freedom. So, if America has any question about whether there’s a return on investment at the government level for research and development, all they have to do is ask themselves why has America always been so uniquely great and always outpacing the rest of the world? And if we stop investing in innovation, I really want most of these people that think there’s a debate about that to look in the mirror and say, “You think you’re just entitled to a better standard of living? You think it’s just going to come free because of what your great-grandparents once did?”
America needs to keep reinvesting in its future, in education, in kids, in innovation, taking the risks, reasonable risks, and doing things first, and doing things best, and doing things that are scalable, and doing things that will be valuable to us, and then valuable around the rest of the world, so that we can maintain and justifiably maintain a high standard of living without doing it at the expense of other people. I think, ironically, a lot of countries in the world have figured this out, while we’re sitting back taking it for granted.
A lot of countries around the world, not just China, are highly motivated to make technology, STEM education for their kids, a very, very high priority, because they just look at the model, America. They all think that’s a great, great, great aspirational model to have. They don’t think it’s because we have Democrats or Republicans, they think it’s because we’ve been innovative — and we have technology available to so many people that have this high standard of living because we use these technologies. And the rest of the world is determined to create that next wave of technology where they are.
Let’s make it a competition where we all win because everybody’s creating more and better technologies at a faster rate, hopefully to keep us ahead of disasters, whether that’s global warming or other shortages. But as the rest of the world picks up their pace, yes, I am worried. If the U.S. doesn’t pick up our pace, we’re going to wake up one day and say, “Huh, we’ve lost that edge, we’ve lost that lead.” We can’t assume that this is going to be the best place for all of us to retire. That’s not a birthright, that’s something that every generation has earned. And I want our culture to make it clear to the next generation, the kids, “You better earn it, or you won’t have it.”
For more information on the FIRST Robotics program, please visit www.firstinspires.org.
Greetings:
Our Patent Process is cumbersome! I believe it should be FREE and Protected by our Government so individual do not have to Pay LAWYERS to win their cases !
This would allow more patents to go through the system and the Government get more
TAX DOLLARS into the treasury !
Fully agree on what Mr. Kamen said. That’s what a wise and intelligent person would think. On the other hand, a lot of people in this country don’t realize it. Everyone blames the failure in education, but a lot of time people only focus on the resource but ignore the use of resource. People care about grab more resource but forget to ask themselves if the resources have been used efficiently. Resource itself doesn’t create anything without people’s diligence. So wake up and work harder, Americans!
Excellent dissertation. If we (USA) do not keep up doing our very best, there are many competitors working very hard to take over the lead. I really do not want to be superseded by anyone (certainly not by socialists / communists!
In a free market economy, the law of supply and demand, rather than a central government, regulates production and labor. Companies sell goods and services at the highest price consumers are willing to pay while workers earn the highest wages companies are willing to pay for their services. A purely capitalist economy is a free market economy; the profit motive drives all commerce and forces businesses to operate as efficiently as possible to avoid losing market share to competitors.
You say you agree with the article, however, you extrapolated pure capitalism as something that is related to what Mr. Kamen was saying. I don’t think the two are congruent.
Why?
Because the purely capitalist economy that you are talking about is what keeps getting us into trouble. The economics of pure capitalism has transferred the manufacture of many strategic goods to other places — places with inexpensive labor. This is why we have no meaningful PPE, rare earth metals, lithium, integrated circuits, solar panels, etc.
Capitalism works, but only if its buffered with strategic policy — investments in technology and goods that are strategically aligned with global competition. For example, we’ve been subsidizing oil because of the old standard slogan of “energy independence.” Unfortunately, the rest of the world has already moved their investments to more forward-thinking technologies. As a result, as the US builds out our grid with solar, wind, and other new energy solutions, it will be the rest of the world exporting their products to us — and they’ll use the proceeds to advance their own countries.
David West —
You say that this article was an excellent dissertation, however you go on to say, ” I really do not want to be superseded by anyone (certainly not by socialists / communists!” Unfortunately, this is exactly opposite of what Mr. Kamen was asserting.
Mr. Kamen was advocating that as long as beneficial technologies get developed and disseminated in order to solve the world’s problems, he doesn’t care where they come from — and I agree. His quote was…”whether that’s invented in the U.S. or China, or Israel — or any other country in the world — as long as it’s properly disseminated, we all win. In a world where good ideas can be spread across the whole globe, why wouldn’t we want as many smart kids everywhere doing that?”
Notwithstanding, we in the US need to strategically invest in new technologies for ourselves, otherwise we won’t be able to compete — i.e. won’t be able to support ourselves. Or as Mr. Kamen states it, “…the U.S. isn’t doing everything it should be doing to stay globally competitive? I am worried about that.”
Even during the height of the space race of the 60’s and 70’s, the schools were doing a poor job of science and technology education. The closest was a class in auto mechanics, with (very) basic biology, chemistry, and physics. In high school, with about 3000 students in my school, there were only about a half dozen of us that were even interested, and you didn’t want to show it lest you be targeted by the “jocks”.(Yes, that was a very real thing.) The school was geared toward supporting sports, not science or innovation. I already knew more general science and physics than the teachers, and at least as much biology and chemistry from my own hobbies.
I hear a lot about STEM studies and extracurricular activities now being made more available to students, but I don’t see the same support or recognition as for the sports teams, with the lone exception of the FIRST robotics teams in some schools. But, how many of the students in a given school get to participate in those activities? The students need to be excited and receive at least as much attention and encouragement for the psychological effect and to change the otherwise complacent attitude toward the sciences.
Now I’m of the firm opinion that “gym” classes in Junior and High School should be mandatory every year, but so should the science and technology classes, not just as rote learning, but encouraging the students to push beyond the basics and apply it. And as for math, coordinate it with the science classes where you can apply it. For example, teach physics and calculus as co-requisites. For most, math can be very boring unless you actually apply it.
While not every student will benefit, is suited, or will benefit from a STEM program, how many of them will end up in some related science, technology, or business career where the advancements and innovations will occur, compared to those who end up in a sports career?
“We didn’t conquer other countries.” This is oversimplification. Politically ruling other countries has given way to ‘modern’ modes of ruling! The Us indulges in it.
Unfortunately, USA’s technology edge is powered by the military agenda, maintaining a war-like situation so that they can sell arms and compel others to abide by US terms–called power trade. Although individual creativity started the innovation journey, USA’s current technology is primarily derived from the military mission as opposed to individual creativity or curiosity-driven academic research. Innovation success stories like Apple have been picking, fine-tuning, and assembling defense technology components in an architecture suitable to serve consumer preferences. Moreover, the USA used defense programs to create a market for the primitive emergence of many great inventions. How can the USA use civilian missions to maintain the technology edge should be a subject of discussion.