An official website of the United States government
The global challenges now facing all nations transcend national boundaries. Summoning the global talent and resources necessary to addresses these problems will require global science, technology, and innovation (STI) collaboration. Whether climate change, global poverty, or the threats from cyber technologies, effectively dealing with these challenges and opportunities will increasingly require advanced industrialized nations to move beyond their historical techno-nationalist STI policies. Currently, STI policies being proposed in the US and elsewhere assume a " zero-sum " competition where one nation's STI successes are assumed to come at the expense of other nations. They seek ways to outcompete other nations in the production of new STI and restrict foreign access to their STI. History suggests that such policies had, at best, limited success, and the current environment for them seems even less promising. When China was a global STI leader, its tecno-nationalistic policies failed to prevent the spread of its advanced technologies and the rise of other nations. England was unable to use techno-nationalist policies to monopolize the skills and technology it pioneered during the industrial revolution. America pursued its own techno-nationalist polices in the post-World War II years, attempting to maintain the leadership it enjoyed as other countries recovered from World War II devastation. Today new centers of STI development are rapidly emerging and expanding in China, India, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. In response, many US policy makers and business leaders harken back to prior failed strategies and advocate intensifying the techno-nationalistic STI policies. This paper proposes a more techno-globalistic approach through the development of a global STI commons, an approach that holds the promise of benefiting people all over the world, including those in currently dominant nations.
more »
« less
Techno‐nationalism or building a global science and technology commons? (but what about China?)
Abstract As a cold war with China heats up, the U.S. and other members of the G7 need new approaches to their science and technology innovation (STI) policies. Dominance on the innovation frontier is no longer possible through traditional techno‐nationalist policies that view nations as ‘competing’ through exclusive STI development. Instead, we must recognise that talent and intellectual property are globally distributed, and thus build global collaborations that draw on the world's greatest talent while providing benefits equitably in a global STI commons. We need to recognise this new reality, not only for the benefits this would confer on humankind, but also to contend with China's growing STI capabilities and, eventually perhaps, integrating China into a system of global collaboration. Additionally, and importantly, national policies must recognise the geographically untethered operations of multinational enterprises that are the developers and/or repositories of STI but have weak ties to any one nation, thus blunting policies that try to contain STI within a country's borders. In this paper, we suggest approaches to advance these goals for global STI based on theories and cases of collective action.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10476275
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Global Policy
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1758-5880
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 832-846
- Size(s):
- p. 832-846
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This article examines the landscape of Science, Technology, and Innovation policies in Central America, focusing on Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These nations face significant challenges in leveraging STI for sustainable development, including financial constraints and limited resources. Additionally, Central America struggles with systemic issues such as corruption, violence, and high levels of emigration, further complicating efforts to advance STI. A workshop organized by Georgetown University's Science Technology and International Affairs program brought together scholars to discuss STI policies, resulting in key recommendations. The article highlights critical challenges, including over-reliance on state funding, stagnant researcher numbers, and the pressing need for research diversification. It emphasizes the importance of youth engagement, leadership, and resilience in shaping effective STI policies. Recommendations include investing in science education, establishing governmental scientific advisory bodies, promoting research diversity, and addressing climate change through STI strategies. The findings provide valuable insights for scholars, policymakers, and international organizations working with less developed nations globally.more » « less
-
Maslej, Nestor; Fattorini, Loredana; Perrault, Raymond; Gil, Yolanda; Parli, Vanessa; Kariuki, Njenga; Capstick, Emily; Reuel, Anka; Brynjolfsson, Erik; Etchemendy, John (Ed.)AI has entered the public consciousness through generative AI’s impact on work—enhancing efficiency and automating tasks—but it has also driven innovation in education and personalized learning. Still, while AI promises benefits, it also poses risks—from hallucinating false outputs to reinforcing biases and diminishing critical thinking. With the AI education market expected to grow substantially, ethical concerns about the technology’s misuse—AI tools have already falsely accused marginalized students of cheating—are mounting, highlighting the need for responsible creation and deployment. Addressing these challenges requires both technical literacy and critical engagement with AI’s societal impact. Expanding AI expertise must begin in K–12 and higher education in order to ensure that students are prepared to be responsible users and developers. AI education cannot exist in isolation—it must align with broader computer science (CS) education efforts. This chapter examines the global state of AI and CS education, access disparities, and policies shaping AI’s role in learning. This chapter was a collaboration prepared by the Kapor Foundation, CSTA, PIT-UN and the AI Index. The Kapor Foundation works at the intersection of racial equity and technology to build equitable and inclusive computing education pathways, advance tech policies that mitigate harms and promote equitable opportunity, and deploy capital to support responsible, ethical, and equitable tech solutions. The CSTA is a global membership organization that unites, supports, and empowers educators to enhance the quality, accessibility, and inclusivity of computer science education. The Public Interest Technology University Network (PIT-UN) fosters collaboration between universities and colleges to build the PIT field and nurture a new generation of civic-minded technologists.more » « less
-
Abstract Growing global food demands place major strains on water resources, including quality impairments and increased water scarcity. Drawing on the largely separate bodies of literature on externalities and technological innovation, this article develops a dynamic framework to explore the long‐term impacts of alternative policy approaches to the agricultural impacts on water resources. Environmental policies, which focus on correcting environmental externalities, lead to an overall gain because costs to farmers are more than offset by reduced environmental damages. Technology policies, which direct public investments into agricultural eco‐innovations, lead to benefits for farmers as well as the environment. Joint implementation of both types of policies leads to the largest overall gain. In principle, a technology policy alone could have greater environmental benefits than an environmental policy alone. This outcome is most likely in cases where the productivity effect of new technology is large and the cost of research is low. Recommendations for research managersAs an alternative to traditional environmental policy, investments in research can provide win–win solutions that benefit the environment and agricultural producers.Conceivably, eco‐innovations could lead to environmental conditions that are better than those achieved by environmental policy alone.Adding research investments to existing environmental policy would lead to further improvements in environmental quality while also benefitting farmers.Unlike environmental policies that are perceived to impose costs on agriculture, technology policies impart benefits to farmers and are less likely to face political opposition from industry.Technology policies are likely to be the most effective when eco‐innovation leads to technologies that meaningfully reduce environmental impacts and also raise farm productivity.more » « less
-
Abstract Recent major investments in infrastructure in the United States and globally present a crucial opportunity to embed equity within the heart of resilient infrastructure decision-making. Yet there is a notable absence of frameworks within the engineering and scientific fields for integrating equity into planning, design, and maintenance of infrastructure. Additionally, whole-of-government approaches to infrastructure, including the Justice40 Initiative, mimic elements of process management that support exploitative rather than exploratory innovation. These and other policies risk creating innovation traps that limit analytical and engineering advances necessary to prioritize equity in decision-making, identification and disruption of mechanisms that cause or contribute to inequities, and remediation of historic harms. Here, we propose a three-tiered framework toward equitable and resilient infrastructure through restorative justice, incremental policy innovation, and exploratory research innovation. This framework aims to ensure equitable access and benefits of infrastructure, minimize risk disparities, and embrace restorative justice to repair historical and systemic inequities. We outline incremental policy innovation and exploratory research action items to address and mitigate risk disparities, emphasizing the need for community-engaged research and the development of equity metrics. Among other action items, we recommend a certification system—referred to as Social, Environmental, and Economic Development (SEED)—to train infrastructure engineers and planners and ensure attentiveness to gaps that exist within and dynamically interact across each tier of the proposed framework. Through the framework and proposed actions, we advocate for a transformative vision for equitable infrastructure that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and technical dimensions in infrastructure planning, design, and maintenance.more » « less
