Editor's chair: What is to be done? The Innovation “Manifesto”

Richard L. Hudson

 “The reality for most innovators remains that they face an obstacle course of multiple levels of regulations and requirements, each of which raises costs and lowers incentives.”
From  “Creating an Innovative Europe” 2006

Frustration is good. It forces people to find new solutions, new ideas, new ways of getting done whatever it is that the “system” impedes. So by that measure, Europe ought to be the most innovative place on Earth, right?

When it comes to developing the fruits of research into a product or service, the frustration among Europe’s “innovators” is growing. The facts are grim. The tax rate on capital gains – a drag on investment in university spin-outs – hits 43 per cent in Denmark, 30 per cent in Sweden, and 29 per cent in Finland. French politicians count it as a wild success story – and French unions decry it as the end of civilisation – if an infinitesimal relaxation of the country’s fearsome “CDI” employment-for-life rules allows a few thousand youngsters to get hired at start-up companies. For more than 20 years, the EU has been unable to push through a common patenting system. Yet the importance of innovation, R&D and technological jobs creation grows.

So, in the words of Lenin’s revolutionary tract, what is to be done?

There is no lack of suggestions. The European Commission has an answer: Spend more money. Its proposed Framework 7 programme will pump €78 billion over seven years into research (that works out, roughly, to a compound annual growth rate in EU R&D spending of double the likely inflation rates).

An “expert” group, led by former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho, has another answer: yes, spend more money (and they propose lots of suggestions that Alcatel or GSK would love) – but also reform the framework of laws and regulations that impede innovation. From the European Investment Fund: reform the market for early-stage funding. From Unesco: reform education spending.

Indeed, you could build an “innovation-awareness” index based solely on the volume of official and committee reports on the subject. So Science|Business is going to perform a service no one asked us for: we will generate another report. But with an important difference.

How to make a real difference

This month in Paris, at the École des Mines de Paris (a member of our ParisTech network partner), we conduct a roundtable of leaders in European academia and industry to debate all these proposals in the course of one, high-speed afternoon. Based partly on the discussion, and partly on our own research, we will produce a “manifesto” summarising the main policy changes that we, as editors, believe would make a real, coherent difference.

This won’t be a plan for spending money; the EU needs no new ideas for that. It’s a programme for changing the framework of law, regulation and organisational structure – in corporations and in universities – that permits innovation to happen in Europe.

It will be an independent view on the problem. Unlike the prior reports, we have no special interest to serve. As journalists, our jobs are to hear all sides in a debate and synthesise the best points. We will publish the manifesto this spring, along with an account of the Roundtable discussions. We will do our best to bring the result to the attention of policy-makers.

But you can get involved now, while we’re still drafting the Innovation Manifesto. Do you have suggestions for change in IP law, employment regulation, tax policy, academic organization or corporate incentives? Email me, and we will be sure to consider it in the mix. Stay tuned for change.