text: Today I was at a business conference in Las Vegas where Bill Clinton and George W. Bush appeared, together, for a wide-ranging, hour-long discussion about the economy, regulation, taxes and education. At one point in the conversation, the two former presidents were asked to talk about how America can do more to encourage innovation. Clinton and W. both agreed that making the research and experimentation tax credit permanent would be a good first step.
  This wasn’t terribly surprising, since both presidents had tried (but failed) to make the credit permanent; nor was it surprising that a business audience would greet their comments on this subject with polite applause. I, too, managed to put my hands together and restrained myself from jumping to my feet and exclaiming to the assembly that before we start giving tax credits for research, we need to revisit the idea of “research” embedded in the tax code.
  So I did not end up having to explain to the secret service detail or my hosts that I had been agitated on this subject ever since I read Amar Bhidé’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and had just yesterday published a blog post on this very subject, where I wondered whether research into the human condition and the social world might not also deserve credit, provide much-needed checks and balances to the scientific and technical research the credit already covers, and yield new ideas of what constitutes true prosperity, real wealth, or sustainable growth.
  Now, at the airport, waiting for a redeye back to New York, I am still in the grip of this idea, which, as I admitted in my previous post, probably sounds a little far-fetched. But there is a line of inquiry here I don’t want to lose: that research into culture and society, into language and history, into how people learn and how things change, will balance innovation with – I guess this is the word I would use – orientation: a sense of the right direction, an understanding of limits and where propriety and restraint should be shown, of where judgment needs to be exercised or informed choices need to be made.
  Think, to take just a small example, of the concern within business organizations around social media. This goes far beyond the fact that many organizations don’t know what to do about Twitter or Facebook or LinkedIn; that barely scratches the itch.
  The conversation has turned from the occasional remark on the role of business in society to anxious chatter about the transformational role that society, or the social, can play in business. There is a growing realization that the social matters enormously to the way people collaborate, the way organizations develop and change, the way business goes to market, and to the bottom line. If, as I might put it, every enterprise is already a social enterprise, why would organizations be reluctant to devote some small portion of their R & D dollars to original research into how peering works, or how social networks function, or how individuals surrender, or refuse to surrender, autonomy in exchange for belonging, or how trust is built or won.
  Still sound far-fetched? Maybe. I realize I am talking here in very broad terms, off the top of my head, and I’m also aware that some organizations are already taking these matters seriously, even if they don’t, or can’t officially consider them R & D. Still, it’s fair to say the vast majority are not dedicating resources or sufficient resources to these topics, primarily because, unlike scientific and technical research, they don’t promise to yield new wares, and because they seem soft, mushy, hard to define and pin down.
  I realize, too, that the broad trend I am describing here may be a manifestation of a much greater anxiety. It may be that we are trying to harness the constructive power of the social now only because we sense a loss, a lack of social cohesion, the demise of traditional social values and the disintegration of traditional human groups, the atomization of social life and the erosion of trust.
  Be that as it may, it is undeniable that how seriously organizations deal with these issues will bear on their performance, on their ability to innovate – broadly, as Bhidé would say — and to orient themselves in an increasingly disorienting world.
  Share this:
  Share
  Facebook
  Twitter
  LinkedIn
  Tumblr
  Pinterest
  Email
  Reddit
  Pocket
  Like this:
  Like Loading...
  Related
  This entry was posted in Louis V. Galdieri's Blog and tagged Bill Clinton, business, George W. Bush, humanism, humanity, innovation, knowledge, R and D, research and experimentation tax credit, social enterprise on September 16, 2010 by lvgaldieri.
  Post navigation
  ← Credit Where Credit is Due: The Human Side of R & D Another Postscript on Innovation- Where I’m Going With This "Orientation" Thing →
  1 thought on “Balancing Innovation with Orientation – An Airport Postscript”
  Pingback: O, The Humanities! « lvgaldieri
  Leave a Reply Cancel reply
  Enter your comment here...
  Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
  Email (required) (Address never made public)
  Name (required)
  Website
  You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
  You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
  You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
  Cancel
  Connecting to %s
  Notify me of new comments via email.
  Notify me of new posts via email.
  Δ
  Search for:
  Recent Posts
  Messerschmidt on Simone the Robot, Artificial Free Will, and AI Rights
  How did the DFC Handle Human Rights Concerns about Alto Maipo? Part Two
  A Newer Map of Lake Superior Mining and Mineral Exploration
  Why I Revised Dan Rapoport’s Wikipedia Page
  How did the DFC Handle Human Rights Concerns about Alto Maipo? A FOIA Request
  Twitter
  @stevetimmer I’m told that if we just bring nickel mining here we won’t have these problems. 3 hours ago
  This is worth a look. twitter.com/nouriel/status… 4 hours ago
  It would also help @SecVilsack set USDA's house in order after years of malfeasance, corruption, and abuse by the f… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago
  An IG investigation might or might not have immediate bearing on Twin Metals v. US. But setting out the facts would… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago
  USDA IG Phyllis K. Fong has received numerous requests to investigate Perdue's unethical conduct and his political… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago