4/4/2004
6:30 PM
John (Sowa),
Your note tells of a struggle that is going on. For you, many others and myself.
What is on the horizon that might change the situation in a positive way?
As CEO of In-Q-Tel, Gilman has a responsibility for outcomes. Is the capability that has been developed because of computer science, and all that goes with it, sufficient to the intelligence needs of the nation? What can be done within the investment rules and a few tens of millions each year so as to make a difference?
(Of course, I must say, I do not know what he really feels about my attempts to contribute. When he returns perhaps he will meet with me for the first time.)
I see solutions that would help broadly, but I also feel that a lot of R&D is not productive, often BECAUSE the issues are defined poorly or in fact incorrect.
I see Corporations invest big in technology that has no chance of doing anything remotely similar to what is advertised. Not only is this a waste of everyone's money, but it gives the pure information scientists a bad rap - for not having given the business people what they wanted (etc etc).. (sorry.. i have said this before.)
So, first - I think we (someone powerful ?) have to decouple business and science for a while’ so that the science can redefine itself. Again, this is why the concept of a National Project to create knowledge science curriculum is interesting.
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm
The nature of innovation and some type of measurement of value, even long term, is envisioned in the BCNGroup Charter were patent development and business development are assisted. (The nature of innovation is deemed a private experience within the minds of people who often do not have ownership or business skills)
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/techInnovation/home.htm
What I think is possible "now" as a catalyst is
1) a six month Technology Collaboration [8] , [9] where methods and patents are exposed within a virtual (but still IP protected) environment (The Knowledge Sharing Core).
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm
2) a National budget item ($60,000,000 - two year) that creates transparency on methods and patents with a "knowledge technology tool kit" and a deep and scholarly review of all awarded patents (systematically examined)
These two steps might lead to rational arguments as to the value on specific types of new research expenditures. Within these new expenditures, individuals would be given a different type of support than what is now provided by universities or industry. Something has to be worked out, as you point out.
The plateau reached in AT&T research expenditure may be based on the belief that in the areas where work is being done, more than enough innovation exists. The problem is adoption and the stability threats that fundamental innovations might cause to existing business models.
Gilman is out of the country, but may be able to make a comment on this.
My emails are not circulated so broadly as some might expect from Jim Hendler and others remarks.
Right now, I am acutely interested in your thoughts in regards to the proposed Technology Collaboration.
For purposes of laying the idea out, I have two "budgets" both not very satisfying.