A/Prof Jeffrey Funk

Author of Technology Change and the Rise of New Industries, Stanford University Press

For information on other technologies: see http://www.slideshare.net/Funk98/presentations

Peter Thiel Understated the Problem

In reality, we mostly got more science and engineering papers

Because of (or in spite of) dramatic increases in R&D

Non-Defense

Government R&D

has Risen by more

than 50 times

since 1953

and 2.5 times

since 1970

Excluding Space,

it has risen by

more than 3 times

since 1970

http://theconversation.com/drop-in-uk-research-spending-leaves-it-trailing-rest-of-the-eu-24311

Similar Increases for University Research

35 times

increase

since 1953

and about

four times

since 1970

Did we Get Better Products and Services? Robert Gordon demonstrates in “The Rise and Fall of

American Growth” there was more

growth between 1870 and 1940

than between 1940 and 2010

He demonstrates this by analyzing many studies of

inflation adjusted productivity growth by sector

changes in product and service features

changes in longevity and other health data

His analysis suggests technology change has been slower since the post WWII increases in government R&D spending

Robert Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Princeton University Press, 2016

For a summary and analysis of his book, see: http://www.slideshare.net/Funk98/has-technology-change-slowed

According to Gordon

An American of 1870 would not recognize life in 1940

Indoor plumbing

Canned and jarred food, refrigerators

Cable cars, subways, autos, trucks, and aircraft

Electricity, home appliances, and lighting

Newspapers, telephones, records and radio

Urban department stores, skyscrapers

But an American of 1940 would recognize life today

Small changes in the above items

Only a few big changes: large screen color televisions, computers, mobile phones, Internet

Robert Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Princeton University Press, 2016

For a summary and analysis of his book, see: http://www.slideshare.net/Funk98/has-technology-change-slowed

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21694990-old-fashioned-ways-reporting-new-discoveries-are-

holding-back-medical-research

What we got was More Journal Articles

How Useful are These Papers?Many argue that few papers are read or cited

One estimate for percentage of papers not cited

82 per cent in humanities

32 per cent in social sciences

27 per cent in natural sciences

Even if a paper is cited, this does not mean it

has actually been read

According to one estimate, only 20 per cent of

papers cited have actually been read

Prof No One is Reading You, Straits Times Op-Ed, Asit K. Biswas And Julian Kirchherr

One Can Only Laugh

Title of Article: Academics Actually Write Papers Arguing Over How Many People Read (And Cite) Their Papers

Article’s Conclusion: “Hopefully, someone will figure out how to answer this question definitively, so academics can start arguing about something else.”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-academic-studies-are-never-read-more-three-people-180950222/#ofli1LZIOZm6MdlO.99

What About Companies? Are they reading science and engineering papers?

Do they use their ideas to create new products, services, or businesses?

Consider Wall Street Journal’s billion-dollar startup club (as of September 2015)

Recent startups (still private)

valuations over $1 Billion

still private (no IPO yet)

have raised money in past four years

at least one venture capital firm as investor

Category TotalNumber ofstartups

Percentage of Startups with Patents Citing Science and Engineering Papers (SEPs)

Citing ≥ 1SEP

Citing ≥ 10different SEPs

Citing ≥ 50different SEPs

Software 41 27% 2.5% 0%

E-Commerce 28 0% 0% 0%

ConsumerInternet

37 2.7% 0% 0%

Financial 15 0% 0% 0%

Hardware 10 50% 0% 0%

BioTech, Bio-Electronics

8 88% 75% 75%

Energy 2 50% 50% 0%

Space 1 0% 0% 0%

Retail 1 0% 0% 0%

Total 143 18% 5.6% 4.2%

Members of WSJ’s Billion-Dollar Startup Club

Also Don’t Read Science and Engineering Papers

Few Startups have Patents that Cite Science and Engineering Papers

Only 4.2% of all startups have patents that cite 50 or more different papers

Only 5.6% of all startups have patents that cite 10 or more different papers

Even for U.S. startups, the percentages are low

Only 5.4% of U.S. startups have patents that cite 50 or more different papers

Only 7.6% of U.S. startups have patents that cite 10 or more different papers

Startups for a Few Categories Have Patents that Cite Science and Engineering Papers

75% of BioTech/Bio-Electronic startups had patents that cited more than 50 scientific papers

One of two (50%) of energy startups had patents that cited more than 10 scientific papers

All of these startups are U.S. startups

In comparison

Only 7.3% of the software startups

None of the e-commerce, consumer Internet, or hardware startups

had patents citing 10 or more scientific papers

Pure Science vs. Engineering and Computer Science

The BioTech/Bio-Electronics and energy startups had patents that cited papers in pure scientific journals

Physics

Chemistry

Biology

Only one startup outside of these categories cited papers in pure science journals

Palantir, a software startup

It cited more than 10 scientific papers including Nucleic Acids Research and Bioinformatics

Bottom Line for Startups

Few cite science and engineering papers in their patents

Instead, patent applications and other analyses reveal

startups are reading practitioner articles, blogs, and websites and not academic articles

they are monitoring impact of improvements in Internet speed, smart phones, and electronic components on new types of products, services, and content

Thus, little need to read academic papers if you want to create new products and services or start new businesses

What About All Those Technologies Coming out of University Labs?

Let’s look at MIT, the world’s leading engineering university

MIT’s Technology Review produces a list of 10 break-through technologies each year (2001, 2003-2014)

These lists are based on conversations with academic experts at MIT and elsewhere

These lists reflect research, teaching, and publishingactivities of America’s leading engineers and scientists

What are current market sizes of predictions?

Market Sizes for MIT’s Predictions 1 of 40 has greater than $100 Billion in sales: Data mining

(i.e., big data)

3 others have sales greater than $10 Billion: power grid control (i.e., smart grid), biometrics, distributed storage (i.e., cloud storage)

1 has sales between $5 and $10 Billion: micro-photonics (photonic crystals)

28 have sales less than $5 Billion

Data could not be found for 7 technologies probably because the names were too broad to gather data

Should predictions be more specific?

Vague definitions also suggest problem with predictions

Some important technologies were also missed………

MIT’s Technology Review Missed Some Big Markets that Have Emerged in the 21st Century

Technology Global Market, 2015

Smart Phones $400 Billion

Cloud Computing $175 billion

Internet of Things $130 billion

E-commerce for apparel $65 billion

Tablet Computers $60 billion

Social Networking $24 billion

Fintech $20 billion

eBooks $15 billion (only U.S.)

Wearable Computing $14 billion

Technology

Review’s

Predictions

Only one (Big Data)

has sales larger than

$100 billion

No others have

sales larger than

$50 billion

Only three others

have sales larger

than $10 billion

(biometrics, cloud

storage, smart grid)

Technologies Chosen in Place of Missed Markets 2005 Airborne

Networks

Quantum Wires

Silicon Photonics

Metabolomics

Magnetic-Resonance Force Microscopy

Universal Memory

Bacterial Factories

Enviromatics

Cell-Phone Viruses

Biomechatronics

2004 Universal

Translation

Synthetic Biology

Nanowires

T-Rays

Distributed Storage

RNAiInterference

Power Grid Control

Microfluidic Optical Fibers

Bayesian Machine Learning

Personal Genomics

2003

Wireless Sensor Networks

Injectable Tissue Engineering

Nano Solar Cells

Mechatronics

Grid computing

Molecular imaging

Nanoprintlithography

Software assurance

Glycomics

Quantum cryptography

2001

Brain-Machine Interface:

Flexible Transistors

Data Mining

Digital Rights Management

Biometrics

Natural Language Processing

Microphotonics

Untangling Code

Robot Design

Microfluidics

Orange: <$100 Million sales; Blue: too broad and vague to gather data

Green: Over $10 Billion sales

Would You Read About Those Technologies?

Science and Engineering papers aren’t read because they don’t discuss topics or technologies that companies want to read about

Companies (and students) want to read about smart phones, Internet of Things, Cloud Computing, Tablet Computers, Social Networks, eBooks, Fintech, Wearable Computing

Not about quantum wires, nanowires, T-rays, enviromatics, glycomics, quantum cryptography, untangling code

Universities need a better balance between

What’s going on now and

What might happen in 20 years

Too Many Academic Papers Also leads to problems in teaching

When professors focus on esoteric and futuristic technologies in their research, they also do so in teaching

Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, argues in Higher Education in America that emphasis on research causes

increase in narrowly focused courses and decrease in general courses that are much more relevant to students

distracts attention away from skills that students need in their careers and personal lives

This problem can be seen in above data

current research and papers of professors have little relevance for the technologies that are actually being commercialized and thus the types of things that students need to learn

Too Many Academic Papers (2) Also leads to problems in research

research suffers because academic journals emphasize a different set of criteria than do markets

Academics need to think about improvements in cost and performance because this is what markets emphasize How can they make these improvements?

How to speed up process of commercialization

Collaboration between universities and companies should become deeper and broader

In summary, universities need better balance between Teaching

Publications

Collaboration with companies

Time for Change

For more information, see:

Searching for Gold: Using Patterns of Technology Change to Find Valuable Opportunities