An official website of the United States government
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
Science and technology in a global commons: the end of techno-nationalism?
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
- PAR ID:
- 10521117
- Publisher / Repository:
- Salem Press/EBSCO
- Date Published:
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- techno-nationalism techno-globalism intellectual property rights common pool resources science innovation science and technology policy Globalization International or Global Development Technology
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Institution:
- Rutgers University/ EBSCO
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Technology has advanced through global exchanges, with different nations technologically ascendant at different periods. Nations’ perceptions of and policies about achieving and maintaining technological leadership have been based on zero-sum assumptions that ultimately have proved futile and may lead to their decline in the face of emergent technology powers. In the first fifteen or so centuries BCE, China led the world in the development and use of the world’s most consequential technologies, including printing, gunpowder, the compass, and the production of superior iron and steel. These technologies spread as far as Western Europe, especially as the network of trade routes known as “the Silk Roads” were brought under the control of the Mongol empire in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Mongols radically reduced travel and trade barriers over the four thousand miles from the Sea of Japan to the Mediterranean, spanning widely diverse countries and cultures. In effect, they developed the first global technology trade system. The roads were blocked by the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth century, and China’s technological dynamism stagnated. From the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries, the West became the primary center for the development and use of military and industrial technologies that enabled a substantial Western domination of the world. The Western domination may now be coming to an end as China and other Asia countries have achieved new levels of technological strength and, as emerging economies, are increasingly challenging the Western domination of the rules of intellectual property rights and technology trade. This article describes the China- and Western-centric eras of technology diffusion, noting prevailing zero-sum assumptions about sharing technology and the perceived need for nations to maintain technological “superiority” over other nations. The article concludes with suggestions for the development of a global commons of technology development and sharing.more » « less
-
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
-
Given the ubiquity of artificial intelligence (AI) in modern societies, it is clear that individuals, corporations, and countries will be grappling with the legal and ethical issues of its use. As global problems require global solutions, we propose the establishment of an international AI regulatory agency that — drawing on interdisciplinary expertise — could create a unified framework for the regulation of AI technologies and inform the development of AI policies around the world. We urge that such an organization be developed with all deliberate haste, as issues such as cryptocurrencies, personalized political ad hacking, autonomous vehicles and autonomous weaponized agents, are already a reality, affecting international trade, politics, and war.more » « less
-
World War II was one of the most acute emergencies in U.S. history, and the first where mobilizing science and technology was a major part of the government response. The U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) led a far-ranging research effort to develop technologies and medical treatments that not only helped win the war, but also transformed civilian life. Scholars and policymakers have appealed to the wartime approach as a template for other problems, typically focusing on the Manhattan Project, but overlooking the broader OSRD effort of which atomic fission and dozens of other programs were a part. In this paper we bring OSRD into focus, describe how it worked, and explore what insights its experience offers today. We argue that several aspects of OSRD continue to be relevant, especially in crises, while also cautioning on the limits to generalizing from World War II to other settings.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Posted Content:
- The DOI is not currently available.
