The role of speed in innovations needs to be explored more
          thoroughly. I advocate here that for innovations which rely on
          scarce materials, research into more abundant substitutes needs
          to be accelerated while a regulatory-driven extension of the
          product life should slow down the number of incremental
          innovations and reduce our overall footprint on scarce resources.
          Chemical elements need to be established as global commons
          whose overuse can be regulated if required. Part of the efficiency
          gains of innovations could be used for research to offset the
          ‘rebound effect’ and provide the public with a return on early
          infrastructure investments

Vogt, Thomas

English

PhilPapers

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjri20Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 28 December 2016, At: 21:43Journal of Responsible InnovationISSN: 2329-9460 (Print) 2329-9037 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjri20How fast should we innovate?Thomas VogtTo cite this article: Thomas Vogt (2016) How fast should we innovate?, Journal of ResponsibleInnovation, 3:3, 255-259, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1258941To link to this article:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1258941Published online: 21 Nov 2016.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 10View related articles View Crossmark dataCiting articles: 1 View citing articles DISCUSSION PAPERHow fast should we innovate?Thomas VogtNanoCenter & Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USAABSTRACTThe role of speed in innovations needs to be explored morethoroughly. I advocate here that for innovations which rely onscarce materials, research into more abundant substitutes needsto be accelerated while a regulatory-driven extension of theproduct life should slow down the number of incrementalinnovations and reduce our overall footprint on scarce resources.Chemical elements need to be established as global commonswhose overuse can be regulated if required. Part of the efficiencygains of innovations could be used for research to offset the‘rebound effect’ and provide the public with a return on earlyinfrastructure investments.ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 14 September 2015Accepted 7 November 2016KEYWORDSInnovation; innovation andspeed; commons; reboundeffect; non-equilibriumeconomicsRecent claims that innovation is slowing down (Huebner 2005) and focused primarily onincremental improvements of technologies rather than the emergence of new transforma-tional general purpose technologies such as electricity, internal combustion engines, or theintegrated circuit (Gordon 2016) have been met with ridicule by Bill Gates (Friedman2014) and scorned by seasoned utopians such as Ray Kurzweil (Kurzweil 2005) whosees us on a path towards ‘the singularity’, where computational capabilities will matchthe pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelli-gence of humans.While the question of how long exponential or hyper-exponential growth of certaintechnological capabilities such as epitomized in Moore’s law can be sustained (TheEconomist March 12, 2016), or of whether in certain fields we are currently witnessingan equilibrium phase that will be punctuated by discoveries and innovations in the nearfuture are indeed important, it appears to me that we need to ask more a fundamentalquestion, namely what speed should a particular innovation have? Are there reasons forus to accelerate or slow down an innovation? Is there an optimal speed for any giveninnovation? Is fast innovation always better? Do we need to depart from our timelessnotion of innovation described within the framework of equilibrium economics andexplore time as an important parameter within a non-equilibrium framework where, asW. Brian Arthur (Arthur 2015) points out, ‘ … time, in the sense of real historicaltime, becomes important… ’? An equally important question is who, if anyone, shouldcontrol the speed of innovation? Can and should local, national and internationalbodies of governance intervene by using financial and regulatory tools to deliberately© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupCONTACT Thomas Vogt tvogt@mailbox.sc.eduJOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, 2016VOL. 3, NO. 3, 255–259http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1258941accelerate or slow down the pace of certain innovations? Is there such a thing as an ‘over-heated innovation environment’?In the following, I will focus only on innovations based predominantly on matter(atoms) and not algorithms (bits), and I posit that for material products speed will increas-ingly become an important parameter in the innovation cycle. I advocate a highly con-tested position, namely that public interventions need to target and slow down certaininnovations relying heavily on limited resources and accelerate the search for more abun-dant substitutes to ‘buy us enough time’ to develop new sustainable economic and civilstructures. Part of my underlying thinking that innovations are inefficient processeswith unpredictable time lines and speeds was outlined in more detail in a previouspaper (Vogt 2010).Equilibrium macroeconomics allows us to understand how prices and goods producedand consumed are consistent with observed price pattern and quantities of goods. Thiseconomic model does not take into account time as an economic parameter. In contrast,in dynamical complexity economics time becomes an important parameter because oneis not at equilibrium. Equilibrium describes a balanced system in which all rates ofchange cancel each other. Arthur (2015) uses traffic flow as a simple metaphor for non-equilibrium processes and points out that traffic jams cannot occur at equilibrium butemerge spontaneous and are best explored using statistical approaches. Emergenceimplies a certain level of unpredictability and time-uncertainty for the occurrence of anindividual event. While many traffic models are statistically quite accurate, the questionof where and when a traffic jam will occur is often not answerable. Furthermore, trafficjams do not occur at the individual car level (micro level) or at the macro level of overalltraffic flow, but at an intermediate meso-level, such as a localized cluster of cars. Optimiz-ation strategies and policy arguments for or against the implementation of traffic speedlimits focus on cost functions such as fuel efficiency and the reduction of accidents. Externalcost functions such as gas prices can fluctuate considerably and not be predictable. Inno-vations are also subject to external cost functions such as unpredictable funding streamsand fluctuating resource prices possibly caused by political unrest. This can have significantimpact on the market penetration of new products. Not considering the speed of inno-vations does not capture the essence of innovations being both path- and time-dependent.In a recent study, Graedel et al. (2015) showed that in the case of resource constraints of62 technologically important metals, not one of them can be substituted by another one forall major applications, and that for a dozen metals potential substitutes are inadequate ordo not exist at all. The materials and chemical element footprint of complex technologiessuch as modern computer chips, which can contain more than 60 different chemicalelements, often includes scarce metals which currently cannot be substituted by moreabundant ones. Developments in existing and emerging economies with rapidlygrowing consumer populations will exacerbate resource demands for key chemicalelements. In some cases this might lead to a temporary depletion of one or more keychemical elements which could result in a compromised product performance or evenits availability. Resource management of chemical elements and materials has becomean increasingly important part of cradle-to-grave product development. Importantresearch efforts for more abundant elemental or material substitutes have very unpredict-able time lines and require prolonged financial commitments to be successful. Besidessustaining such research efforts, a regulatory-driven lengthening of certain product256 T. VOGTlifetimes and the elimination of product lines not meeting a certain innovation thresholdwould reduce the materials footprint. In the current political context, both interventionswould most likely be challenged as heavy-handed governmental interference. However,the impact of temporary resource constraints for chemical elements such as the RareEarth metals has been debated intensely in the past years (Department of Energy 2011).Rare Earth metals have been identified as critical resources for many technologies suchas compact fluorescent and LED lighting, magnets, catalysts, catalytic converters, batteriesand pigments. Programs to substitute more abundant chemical elements have been slow ingetting off the ground and have difficulty in securing longer term funding. The lead timeon such research is long and unpredictable and the expectations for success are initiallyoften too high. Responsible innovation needs to identify potential resource constraintsearly on and accelerate research for more abundant substitutes. Lifecycles of productsbased on scarce materials and chemical elements should be extended. Users routinelyabandon products such as hand-held devices and computers due to the availability ofnew products with often only marginal performance improvements. An artificially accel-erated innovation cycle attempts to generate profits from hardware upgrades even thoughless expensive software upgrades could be supported by an existing hardware platform.Prolonging product lifetimes can be incentivized by providing tax deductions andhigher trade-in values as well as by exploring more efficient re-cycling and re-purposingof traded-in products made from scarce resources.This would help counterbalance the fact that, in some cases, more efficient use ofmaterial resources can lower costs while concomitantly increasing demand and therebytriggering economic growth, which itself further amplifies resource use. This is calledthe ‘rebound effect’ and has been discussed in many sectors (Greening, Greene, and Difi-glio 2000; Freire-Gonzalez 2010; Jalas 2002). It has been suggested that removing certainefficiency gains from the economic cycle and replenishing natural (Constanza and Daly1992) (‘strong sustainability’) and human made capital (Rees and Wackernagel 1995)(‘weak sustainability’) would be a more responsible approach to innovation. One coulduse part of the sequestered gains for the research and development of products withmore abundant materials, increase the product lifetime and explore creative re-uses ofrecycled products. Policies to assess resource limits, develop and use more abundantmaterials in products and sequester part of the financial returns for R&D efforts tomove towards an economy with weak sustainability is likely to be challenged. However,there are compelling arguments for this approach.Chemical elements should be viewed as global commons which, like water, can be pri-vately owned but their use still regulated. The fact that chemical elements, in contrast togenes and man-made radioisotopes, cannot be patented suggests that they represent a tacitcommons and provides a leverage point for arguing against their excessive use. The argu-ments for international regulation to protect them as commons for future generations aresimilar to those made against excessive logging, overuse of water, over-fishing and thedepletion of wetlands and forests.On a larger scale it is often the ‘visible hand’ of the state rather than the free market thatenables innovation due to substantial and early high-risk investments. Perez (2013)suggests that ‘given the massive returns generated by their success, shouldn’t entrepre-neurs then return some of the rewards to the government, so it can continue taking thebig risks that can later be turned into market game-changers?’ Replenishing publicJOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 257funds used for the initial development of large scientific infrastructure projects such as inthe National Nanotechnologies Initiative (www.nano.gov) with some of the returns ofcommercially successful innovations could be a way to provide a more sustained long-term support for science and engineering research.Innovation is an unpredictable, non-equilibrium process which is strongly dependenton invention (basic and applied R&D) and societal acceptance and is ultimately judgedby the market penetration of the developed product. These three processes have verydifferent time scales and each can determine the success of the final technology. Strandedtechnologies such as supersonic aviation and declining technology platforms such asnuclear energy production based on nuclear fission point to the importance of societalacceptance of technologies, whereas the up to now unfulfilled promises of nuclearfusion exemplifies cases where science and engineering has not yet provided a market-ready device and thus large-scale projects such as ITER (www.iter.org) or NIF (https://lasers.llnl.gov) cannot be managed within projected time lines. Time is a very complexparameter in innovation and it clearly needs more attention. Certain projects wouldbenefit from much longer incubation periods with lower end-use expectations andmore time spent for unaccounted basic research. Other innovations based on the use ofmore abundant materials need to be accelerated and not treated as an afterthought.There is a long tradition describing technological changes and innovation using themodel of punctuated equilibrium grafted from evolutionary biology (Levinthal 1998).Extended periods of little or no developments are interrupted by short bursts of change.I posit here that in the long run slower innovation can be a more efficient process as itallows the exploration of a wider parameter space and allows sustainable materials com-positions to be developed. Brian Arthur describes technologies as being assembled fromdifferent components and hierarchically organized in many different layers of groupingsand combinations – a property referred to as recursive (Arthur 2009). Invention, a prere-quisite for innovation, is thus a process of recursive problem-solving and innovating toofast can lead to suboptimal solutions.Our view of innovation has radically changed over the past 50 years. We now realizethat every innovation has a Janus-faced kernel that is capable of both developing into adesirable and enabling technology and harming our environment, depleting some ofour commons and having unforeseen impacts on our daily lives. Innovation and riskare the two faces of modernity. Technological and political complexities create uncertain-ties which often defy long-term planning – the future is no longer foreseeable (if it everwas); rather, it must be felt out every step of the way. Such a process requires sufficienttime and ample resources.AcknowledgementsThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or notfor-profit sectors.Notes on contributorThomas Vogt is the Educational Foundation Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Biochem-istry at the University of South Carolina. His research focuses on the structural characterization of258 T. VOGTnew materials. His other interests are in the history and philosophy of science, epistemology, inno-vation and science policy. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Associ-ation for the Advancement of Science.ORCIDThomas Vogt http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4731-2787ReferencesArthur, W. Brian. 2009. The Nature of Technology – What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: FreePress.Arthur, W. Brian. 2015. “Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economics Though” toAppear in the Book “Complexity and the Economy” W.B. Arthur. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Constanza, R., and H. E. Daly. 1992. “Natural Capital and Sustainable Development.” ConservationBiology 6: 37–46.Department of Energy. 2011. “US Critical Metals Strategy.” Accessed 21 August 2014. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf.Freire-González, J. 2010. “Empirical Evidence of Direct Rebound Effect in Catalonia.” Energy Policy38 (5): 2309–2314.Friedman, Uri. 2014. “The Idea that Innovation Is Slowing Down Is Stupid.” The Atlantic, 12 March2014. Accessed 21 August 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/bill-gates-the-idea-that-innovation-is-slowing-down-is-stupid/284392/.Gordon, Robert J. 2016. The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Sincethe Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Graedel, T. E., E. M. Harper, N. T. Nassar, and Barbara K. Reck. 2015. “On the Materials Basis ofModern Society.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (20): 6295–6300. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312752110.Greening, Lorna, David L. Greene, and Carmen Difiglio. 2000. “Energy Efficiency andConsumption – The Rebound Effect – A Survey.” Energy Policy 28: 389–401.Huebner, Jonathan. 2005. “A Possible Declining Trend for Worldwide Innovation.” TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change 72: 980–986.Jalas, Mikko. 2002. “A Time Use Perspective on the Materials Intensity of Consumption.” EcologicalEconomics 41: 101–123.Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York, NY:The Viking Press.Levinthal, Daniel A. 1998. “The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism andPunctuation in Technological Change.” Industrial and Corporate Change 7 (2): 217–247.Perez, Carlota. 2013. “Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths.” In The Entrepreneurial State,edited by Mariana Mazzucato, xxiii–xxiv. New York: Anthem Press.Rees, W. E., and M. Wackernagel. 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact onEarth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.“Technology Quarterly – After Moore’s Law.” The Economist, 12 March 2016. Accessed 30September 2016. http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-03-12/after-moores-law.Vogt, Thomas. 2010. “Buying Time – Using Nanotechnologies and Other Emerging Technologiesfor a Sustainable Future.” In Understanding Nanotechnology, edited by U. Fiedeler, ChristopherCoenen, Sarah R. Davies, and Arianna ferrari, 43–60. Heidelberg: AKA Verlag.JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 259

How fast should we innovate?

https://philpapers.org/archive/VOGHFS.pdf

How fast should we innovate?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers