“Innovation has long
been Germany's flagship discipline. But a lot is just mediocre these days. The
Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation is now sounding the alarm.
EFI boss Uwe Cantner explains why.
How would you describe the current situation in the
innovation sector in Germany?
We are in the middle
of a major technological turnaround worldwide - in a wide variety of areas.
It's about the digital, but also about biological and life sciences, about new
materials and completely new means of production.
And where is Germany?
There are a few areas where we are still really good: in
production technologies, for example, in biotechnology, and in some cases also
in cyber security. But when it comes to digital technologies, such as
artificial intelligence, we are not at the forefront. It has to be said clearly
that other countries are sometimes much more advanced than we are in the wide
range of future technologies - and that hasn't changed in recent years. On the
contrary.
In what way?
Technological lags cannot be caught up so easily. Many
companies are also more uncertain than ever. No wonder. The global political
situation is critical: first the pandemic, then the military operation in Ukraine; the general
developments in China, our dependencies on the Middle Kingdom and the reactions
of the Americans to the rise of the Chinese. All of this creates uncertainty.
And that in turn makes many companies act cautiously.
How are these uncertainties expressed?
All in all, companies in Germany are said to have around 760
billion euros in their coffers - money that they are probably saving for bad
times. Apparently they don't really know what to do with it.
Do you have any ideas?
I already have. I just mentioned a few fields. Above all,
however, is digitization. This is a cross-sectional area, since it affects
everything and everyone.
And when it comes to digitization, we're average at
best. That's sad but true.
And then there are enough other future fields, such
as bioeconomy, ecological agriculture, mobility transition, the energy
transition.
However, politicians have had their hands full in recent
months to ensure that the lights and heaters in the country do not go out.
Absolutely. That was also a priority, no question. However,
in this day-to-day business, politicians must not lose sight of the tasks to be tackled
in the medium and long term and thus the future.
For example?
For example, the energy price brake. Here, for reasons of
practicability, a price is deliberately reduced. This is comparatively easy to
implement. But one has to ask oneself whether the artificially depressed prices
will also take away incentives to innovate, at least in the medium term. Or
another example: the special budget for the Bundeswehr.
Simply pouring money
into the military system without looking for potential for innovation cannot be
the solution. A few new approaches are also needed here.
That would be?
We need a well-equipped, capable army. No question. A lot
has been missed here over the decades. Keyword procurement. What we also often
ignore in Germany is that research for the military very often also has
positive effects for many civilian areas. There are an incredible number of
synergies here. Without getting lost in detail, however, one can ask oneself
whether the strict separation between military and civilian research still has
to be maintained in every area.
But details are important.
Secure. A lot is happening here too. Since 2019, for
example, we have had a federal agency for disruptive innovation, the SPRIND in
Leipzig. We have a cyber security agency and we are working on a transfer and
innovation agency, the DATI. We have around a thousand first-class research and
scientific institutions in the country, we have top researchers and world-class
achievements in many basic disciplines. What we have less is a clear strategy
for the future.
That means?
This means that politicians have not yet given DATI a real
concept. That also means that politics doesn't really let an agency like SPRIND
off its leash.
We have just built up a bureaucracy that stands in the way of
many things.
But what we need now is: a clear concept including a strategy to
which other strategies are then related, such as a targeted digital strategy, a
powerful start-up strategy, and also a specialist strategy.
Yes, a lot happened
there. Yes, in view of the latest steps taken by the federal government, one
can certainly have hopes for start-ups and the skilled labor strategy in
particular. But overall, the results are rather sobering.
The Federal Ministry of Research just put one future
strategy. What is with this one?
If you take a closer look at the paper on the future
strategy of February 8th, there are six major challenges, from climate
protection to digital and technical sovereignty. But it is still completely
unclear how these central areas are to be approached, and which instruments are
ultimately to be used to tackle these tasks.
In what way?
There are a whopping 119 measures that are intended to
tackle the six central areas, but most of which are not coordinated with one
another, some of which do not go together or do not belong in the programs at
all.
There are no roadmaps, no milestones, no planning details and no
intermediate goals. But they are important. What we need are: clear goals,
clear responsibilities, agile structures and a lot of transparency.
What does the EFI propose?
In each of the six areas of the future strategy, several
action-guiding missions should be agreed and provided with measurable goals.
Roadmaps must be created for this. This structures the measures of the
different departments and coordinates them in terms of content and timing. To
do this, however, the silo mentality must first be overcome and cooperation
between the ministries improved.
And how do you intend to achieve that?
The expert commission recommends setting up a future
committee for innovation and transformation anchored in the Federal
Chancellery. In fact, a top-level strategic unit. In addition,
cross-departmental mission teams should be set up quickly and the departments
involved should be involved via the level of state secretaries. You shouldn't
do it below that, the topic is just too important.
Surely there are a few shining examples?
Yes, there are. Our proposals are based on the reality in
Korea and Japan. There is always a council with the prime minister, i.e. at the
highest level. In Japan, for example, the ministers themselves sit in this
council. They meet every Thursday, and in these rounds they not only talk, but
above all work in a result-oriented manner.
That means: The Future Committee is to be located at the
Chancellery?
Exactly. High-ranking representatives of the core ministries
have to meet there.
What do you mean by core ministries?
These are the ministries that deal primarily with science,
research and innovation.
But don't many ministries have that these days?
That's right, because research and innovation are
increasingly becoming cross-cutting issues. Nevertheless, there are ministries
that are not so much in focus, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the
Ministry for Economic Cooperation. Depending on the topic and area of
responsibility, those who have less to do with research and innovation can
choose to attend meetings of the committee.
The committee is accountable to
Parliament - not every time, but roughly every quarter. Reports have to be
delivered and results have to be presented based on the agreed goals and
roadmaps.
And at the working level?
We have to put more horsepower on the road. The system must
therefore be reformed down to the level of the project sponsor and the
procurement regulations. Ultimately, we need structures that make things
possible and from which marketable top results can be produced. This requires
more freedom at the project level, more flexibility at the working level and
certainly less bureaucracy. Researchers should do research and not have to fill
out applications.
Today, however, that seems to be the case in many places.
Yes, that also has consequences. Why is Biontech going to
England with its cutting-edge research? Why is Bayer focusing its
pharmaceutical research on America? You just get things sorted faster there.
And if you're not sure, then you just build a real laboratory.
What is a real laboratory?
A real laboratory makes it possible to try out certain new
technological or regulatory solutions in real operation under exceptional
circumstances. If that has led to positive results, then you can also use it to
broaden your horizons.
Do you have an example?
There is this small community in Lower Bavaria that has
purchased an autonomous bus. Community simply lets it drive around,
observing all safety rules. Community tries out how such a vehicle works, what needs
to be considered and, above all, how it is accepted or not accepted by the
population. How do you think the entire vehicle industry looks at such an
attempt? With eagle eyes.
So that means bringing cutting-edge research into everyday
testing.
In a way: yes. Why not. But that also means making research
more attractive for small and medium-sized companies. Because that's not just
for these companies almost existential.
After all, medium-sized companies are
the backbone of the German economy, the country's job engine. It shouldn't even
start stuttering.
So what needs to be done to oil this engine better?
We need radical innovations. To do this, you have to rely on
medium-sized entrepreneurial companies and start-ups. Large companies,
especially those from industry, often have a completely different calculation
from a business point of view.
Why?
They have a stock of capital that often does not belong to
the latest technologies, and they do not want to write it off in one fell swoop
through the introduction of radical innovations. That's why it's a little
harder to deal with disruptive innovations from the outset. That is perfectly
understandable. Small companies are more agile, flexible and manoeuvrable.
But the big players invest billions in their research every
year.
That's a good thing - and shows success. The German car
manufacturers, for example, are now also internationally competitive in the
electrical sector. But in view of their profits, they probably don't really
need support, even if they are very happy to take it with them. Things are
different for start-ups and SMEs. They still have to be given a helping hand.
The federal government is also trying to do that with the
start-up strategy of July 2022.
The importance of the founders for the economy and society
cannot be overestimated. But some of the friendly regulations already announced
in advance by politicians are only included in the strategy as test orders.
That's just not enough for the start-up scene. We need more young companies.
They must also be able to grow faster than before. Appropriate financial
instruments are required for this. And unbureaucratic access to data – be it
research data or data from the public sector. Furthermore, spin-offs from
scientific institutions must be given the opportunity to use patents without
lengthy negotiations.
What do you mean by that?
Patents are based on scientific results and are on the
threshold of economic application. Sometimes the transition works out quite
well, we have great examples here: The TUM in Munich or the HPI in Potsdam have
definitely professionalized it. But we need more of that - much more.
And how do we get them?
I once asked a colleague in America that. And do you know
what he said? 'Do it professionally.' We need professionals who sit with us at
exactly these interfaces between business and science, who leverage the
transfer, who help the scientists and say to them: I'll sell your idea on the
market for you; you can continue researching.
A market for patents?
Yes. Did you know that such a market has existed in Silicon
Valley for years?
No
The brokered patent market is in fact an active patent
market. It has existed since 2014 and includes around a quarter of a million
patents. Their offer price is estimated at more than 35 billion dollars. All in
all, around 130 patent brokers are active there. They analyze the market and
the needs of a customer company. You buy and sell, set terms, conditions and
price ranges. In this way, the documented results from research and science can
be converted into marketable products within months. This is one of the reasons
why the Americans are so fast in technology.
Are German companies also active there?
The activities of German companies on the so-called
technology markets, where knowledge is traded in the form of intellectual
property rights, often lag far behind the activities of companies from other
countries. In America, the number of transfers of patents registered with the
US Patent Office rose from 1,000 transactions in 1980 to around 55,000 in 2019.
In Europe, around 3,500 patents are currently transferred each year, and in
Germany almost 600.
Is that a disadvantage?
If one assumes that the patent assignment will result in the
rapid exploitation of scientific results, then yes. And it's
not just small companies that such a market opens up completely new
opportunities through access to external knowledge. German and European
universities are also opening up new avenues here. Because they often sit on a
real wealth of knowledge. It has to be raised – and what would be better suited
than the principle of supply and demand.”
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą