When it comes to technology, the U.S. has long been regarded as a leader in global innovation. Having mobilized the computer, the microchip, the internet, and more, America’s tech leadership has propelled the economy forward and edged out competitors for decades. But according to the Aspen Cybersecurity Group, a number of countries may soon close in on the U.S. if the government doesn’t begin to act.
The United States became the undisputed global leader in innovation following World War II. From transistors to personal computers, from the development of the Internet to the evolution of the smart phone, America was at the frontier of the world’s technological transformation. Multiple factors drove this advancement in the post-war era: consumer demand, Cold War competition, the relentless pursuit of advancement, and strong federal leadership.
John C. Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy, made the assertion during a panel discussion today at the Center for European Policy Analysis Forum in Washington. "The National Defense Strategy very clearly lays out a blueprint for America's role in the world and how we see it," the undersecretary said. "It starts with recognition that in this highly complex, dynamic security environment, the great power competition has returned," he said.
The report argues that the U.S. needs to put a national security innovation strategy in place to make sure that America maintains its predominant power position in emerging technologies such as AI and data science, battery storage, semiconductors, genomics and synthetic biology, fifth-generation cellular networks (5G), quantum information systems, and robotics.
Contrary to what the mainstream media would have you believe, China is still behind and second to the United States in artificial intelligence (AI) innovation, according to Lux Research, a leading provider of tech-enabled research and advisory services for technology innovation. Over the past four years, Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) startups have received $6.1 billion in funding.
The evolutionary process of “creative destruction” introduces new industries and new opportunities, but in its wake, less efficient industries and jobs are left behind. Even longstanding industries can struggle to keep up if they fail to innovate--just ask newspaper and magazine publishers who experienced the upheaval of one of the most disruptive technologies in history: the internet.
A growing body of research shows that innovation actually gets better with age. This research prompts us to develop a more inclusive and sustainable innovation paradigm that could be a game changer for the way we address our country's growing talent crisis. U.S. Census data shows that 40% of Americans are now 45 years of age or older. Compare that to only 34% in the 20–45 age range, and it becomes abundantly clear that we don't have enough people in their so-called innovative prime to shore things up.
Since its founding, America has valued free speech and equal access to business opportunity. U.S. policies, along with sources of capital, have encouraged innovation and a culture that enables the next startup. One not-so-secret ingredient is disruption. The U.S. has thrived with a vibrant mix of successful companies and startups that eventually disrupt incumbents, like AT&T and IBM, and replace everyday items that were once cutting-edge, like dial-up telephones and fax machines.
Delaware is the first state to be highlighted in the American Innovation $1 Coin Program, and on September 19 at 12 noon (ET), the Mint will release four different product options for the coin. The Delaware coin features Annie Jump Cannon, an internationally renowned astronomer born in Delaware.
If the U.S. economy is to regain its international competitiveness, especially vis-à-vis China, it will have to accelerate innovation, including in advanced-industry production. There is a growing consensus from both Democrats and Republicans that the federal government needs to play a stronger role in that process. So how is the federal government doing? Not so well, if you think that government needs to approach innovation success in a similar way as the most innovative corporations.