Timo Hannay on Web 2.0 and science

At a recent conference on Science in the 21st Century, I was lucky to hear Nature.com's publishing director Timo Hannay talk about Web 2.0 and the future of science. He recently gave a talk at the British Library with the provocative title "Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working?" The whole piece is worth reading-- it's a good overview of Web 2.0 tools and their uses in science right now-- but he concludes on a somewhat pessimistic note:

I'm optimistic about the potential of the web to greatly improve the productivity – and joy – of doing science. I also think it can help to break down barriers between disciplines, and between science and the rest of society. That's why I've devoted my recent professional life to the pursuit of turning this into a reality.

But I'm less optimistic about the inevitability of this potential being fully realised, at least in anything less than a generational timescale. For every scientist who sees it as self-evident that they should be using these tools, or promoting open information-sharing, there are dozens who just don't see the point. For every publisher or librarian who 'gets it' there are many who don't – at least not fully and not yet.

Changing behaviours and expectations is difficult at the of best times – it is too easy to overlook the hundreds of companies that fail for every one, like Facebook or Google, that changes the landscape. In a conservative establishment like science, it's harder still. In some ways science – as an continual, collaborative, global endeavour – is the ultimate wiki. But this analogy misleads people into assuming that adoption of new tools and approaches by scientists is a foregone conclusion. It's not.

UPDATED: Letter From Johannesburg: Mapping The Future of Science and Technology Parks

A small team of IFTF researchers are in Johannesburg this week, at the XXVth annual world conference of the International Association of Science Parks, being held for the first time ever in Africa.

We conducted a pre-conference expert workshop with 14 leading science park managers and experts, asking "what are are the big trends that will shape science and technology parks over the next decade?" and "what are some emerging innovation clusters that we'll be talking about in 2018?"

Science In Place is Coming to Scandinavia This Month

The stars have aligned and I'll be visiting three Scandinavian countries over the next six weeks, for two events with the Academy of Finland and Swedish Incubators and Science Parks under our rapidly growing Science In Place program.

Using Patent Activity to Find Emerging R&D Hotspots

London-based consultancy Innovaro, whose monthly Innovation Update newsletter is one of my favorite sources of critical insight, published an article yesterday on "Global Innovation Hot Spots".

The article argues that while there are many qualitative and quantitative indicators that point to various up-and-coming hubs of innovation, patenting activity is a "primary and hence critical source of underlying foresight that can help guide R&D location priorities".

Corporate Incubation: Big Pharma's Bold Move

I've been meaning to write about this for a few months now, but the news this week about GlaxoSmithKline's cutbacks in internal R&D (I'll post something about this later in the week) brought me back to a March 2008 piece in Nature Biotechnology about the establishment of corporate biotech incubators at Biogen and Pfizer. (Nature Biotechnology, "Start-ups weigh benefits of corporate incubators", March 2008)

Does Corporate Venture Investing Work?

One of my clients is a large global company trying to beef up its ability to source core innovations that go beyond new combinations and packaging - basic science and technology that will help it deliver new value over a sustained period.

Opening up their innovation process is clearly an important step, and as we have explored many of the potential vehicles for building a more networked R&D model, the idea of a venture investing fund has moved to the forefront of my thinking. If, as open innovation holds, many of the best ideas are outside the company, I can't think of a more aggressive way to scan, secure and inject them into an existing company.

But as the Wall Street Journal reports on Google's efforts in the area, corporate venture funds have a lot of inherent problems and a mixed record.

Will Open Science Make It Even Harder to Build Science Communities in China?

A pair of reports last week suggest that China's science community, while thriving, still has a long way to go before it becomes the kind of knowledge-circulating system needed to support world-class technical innovation.

Labmeeting.com - Distributed Lab Management

Interesting new startup that is building tools for managing lab documents in a distributed fashion via the web. One of their pitches is "manage your lab", that is - sharing protocols and data.

Preparing India's Workforce for R&D Offshoring

The Kauffman Foundation released a study this week, How The Disciple Became The Guru (summary, full report) that offers an inside look at how Indian firms are preparing their workforce to serve global hub for offshore and outsourced R&D in Bangalore and other cities.

Written from a business perspective, the report is essential reading for anyone interested in economic development. While not every country has the advantages India does, the model that seems to be working there - aggressive recruitment, workforce development, and retention - is certainly portable. You can't make companies do that, but this report offers compelling evidence that massive investment in human capital can be done quickly, and with sustained returns.

How to Attract US R&D Outsourcing

A recent article in Research Policy landed on my desk today, titled "The Maturation of Global Corporate R&D: Evidence From the Activity of U.S. Foreign Subsidiaries", by Deepak Hegde and Diana Hicks.

This review turned a lot of my assumptions about the globalization of R&D, and how poorly the current debate about offshoring of R&D in the US is based on fact.

Open Bioscience: Where Will the Distributed Scientists Go to Work?

IFTF researcher David Pescovitz shared an article from Nature News today that covers the proliferation of crowdsourced biodata sharing. Recent months have seen a flurry of launches of open, loosely structured repositories of complex biochemical pathways like WikiPathways, Protein Data Bank Wiki and WikiGene.

Innovation in Africa: "Inside Nairobi, the Next Palo Alto?"

Interesting article describing the innovation capacity of Africa. Mobile devices may be the vehicle by which the African continent can flex it's innovation muscle. More than home electronics/computers/cars, mobile devices are in the hands of many people in the African continent and they are teaching the Western world how to innovate with these devices.

Article from NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/business/worldbusiness/20ping.html?ex=...

New Program Announcement: Science in Place

The global map of science and technology innovation is changing quickly. But it’s not just macroeconomics and demographics that is driving this tectonic shift in how scientific collaboration is organized globally, regionally, in cities and within buildings. Everywhere we turn, new structures are challenging the way research organizations create and apply new knowledge, and where they do it.

Bioenergy Hubs for the 21st Century: The Latin Axis, From Sao Paulo to Havana

Joe Conason's recent piece in Salon makes a fairly compelling argument that normalizing relations with Cuba has become an immediate strategic priority, not because of Fidel's succession, but because it makes sense to secure a good supply of sugar cane for our ethanol needs before China makes an offer Raul can't refuse.

Chinese universities now top the NSF list of institutions sending students to American graduate schools

For decades, American graduate schools have attracted students from all over the world. Over time, of course, the origins of international graduate students has shifted. For years, the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates has been following where Ph.D. recipients received their undergraduate degrees, and each year it publishes a list showing what universities and colleges graduate the largest number of students going on to get Ph.D.s in the U.S.

The latest survey shows that in 2006, two Chinese universities contributed more Ph.D. students to American graduate programs. This is notable because until now, American universities have dominated (but not monopolized) the top five slots.