In nearly every research institution, there are individuals who achieve oversized impacts. In the academic environment, publications and citations were the traditional standard bearers for advancing science, engineering and discovery — unfortunately, tenure and title are still stubbornly tied to these measures in universities. Patents became the next tier for measuring performance many years ago.
The Census Bureau is requesting public input on the Economic Census. Conducted every five years, the survey serves as the most comprehensive source of information about American businesses. According to the Census, the survey establishes data for nearly 1,000 industries and more than 20,000 regions, including company revenues, and is used to support measures of gross domestic product and standard industry classifications (i.e. NAICS).
An important element of a region’s innovation community is its knowledge capital, and one way to try to determine a locality’s knowledge capital is to examine the number of individuals receiving research-based doctorate degrees in the science and engineering (S&E) fields. The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently updated their Survey of Earned Doctorates with data for the 2018-2019 academic year.
An important element of a region’s innovation community is its knowledge capital, and one way to try to determine a locality’s knowledge capital is to examine the number of individuals receiving research-based doctorate degrees in the science and engineering (S&E) fields. The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently updated their Survey of Earned Doctorates with data for the 2018-2019 academic year. For the period ranging from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, the number of total PhDs awarded increased nationally by 1.1 percent over the previous academic year to 55,703. The update also shows that the number of degrees awarded to recipients in S&E fields was 42,980. SSTI’s analysis explores the total number of S&E PhDs awarded per state, as well as the number of S&E PhDs per 100,000 state population.
At a critical junction for the American workforce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation (USCCF) has launched a new initiative to develop new models for investment in the workforce of the future.
At a critical junction for the American workforce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation (USCCF) has launched a new initiative to develop new models for investment in the workforce of the future. Partnering with Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the Talent Finance initiative advances a new public-private approach to talent development that is intended to address the challenges and requirements of the new economy — one that competes on talent. In the wake of the pandemic’s upheaval of the economy, workers are facing greater uncertainty and the prospect of jobs that may not return.
Over 5.2 million homes and businesses are now planned to receive broadband internet access through the Federal Communications Commission’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
COVID-19 could affect 3.1 percent of private sector jobs due to business failure among small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) in 17 different countries (not the U.S.), according to a new working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Findings also revealed that the fiscal cost of an intervention that narrowly targets at-risk firms can be modest (0.54 percent of GDP), while non-targeted subsidies can be substantially more expensive (1.82 percent of GDP) to achieve the same level of effectiveness.
Combining the adages “necessity is the mother of invention” and “two heads are better than one,” the best innovations often arise by broadening the community of minds focused toward addressing a particular problem or need. The Obama Administration took the concept of funding open innovation competitions toward specific issues to heart, encouraging federal agencies to use prizes and challenges as much as practical.
Combining the adages “necessity is the mother of invention” and “two heads are better than one,” the best innovations often arise by broadening the community of minds focused toward addressing a particular problem or need. The Obama Administration took the concept of funding open innovation competitions toward specific issues to heart, encouraging federal agencies to use prizes and challenges as much as practical. Going a step further, Congress enacted legislation in 2011 to make it easier for federal agencies to use the cost-effective tool and the practice was maintained during the four years of the Trump Administration. With early signs suggesting the incoming Biden administration will see a return of many key policymakers and themes from his Democratic predecessor, there may also be a renewed focus on using challenges and problem-solving prize competitions to spur innovation and prosperity coming out of the pandemic. A recent Department of Energy press release adds further weight to this hypothesis and provides a good opportunity for prospective grant seekers to begin to familiarize themselves with the concept in anticipation future federal funding rounds.
The federal Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund released a new report profiling certified CDFIs in FY 2019. Notably, 14 active CDFIs are certified as venture funds, an increase from just four in FY 2017. Between the periods covered by these reports, the CDFI Fund updated their certification process and received encouragement from SSTI and members to be more open to equity financial structures. The results suggest that this change has taken place.
Stemming from a collaboration between the Census Bureau and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF), a new data set aims to untangle the dynamics of research and development (R&D) performed by private companies.
Stemming from a collaboration between the Census Bureau and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF), a new data set aims to untangle the dynamics of research and development (R&D) performed by private companies. Specifically, the new Annual Business Survey incorporates previously experimental data on the R&D performance by microenterprises — businesses which employ between one and nine people. SSTI’s analysis of this new data shows the total R&D performed by microenterprises in each state, and the portion of that R&D which the companies paid for themselves.
For many innovators, entrepreneurs, investors, and corporations, American capitalism has been a boon. But there is another side to the story. A recent report published by McKinsey & Company questions whether the American model of capitalism is on the brink of change.
Disruptive technology, or innovations that radically alter the way consumers, industry, or businesses operate, have long been thought to be the primary way emerging small firms can leapfrog competition and compete against large industry titans. Through innovations such as internal IT systems or logistical improvements, small firms can acquire a decisive competitive advantage over their rivals. Or so the traditional theory holds. In a new paper out of Boston University School of Law, Bessen et al.
Investing in a college education comes with expectations of good returns on the investment. A recent analysis by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) found that first-year earnings for the same degree and major can vary by as much as $80,000 at different colleges. And while graduates from more famous, selective colleges have higher earnings in many instances, such is not always the case.
While economic development tends to be nonpartisan at the state level, many states are limited in their ability to fund innovative programs. In order to fund efforts that may serve as part of a national development strategy, Congress should use the bipartisan support of state efforts to establish and expand federal-state development partnerships and a strategy focused on countering China’s rise in advanced industries.
While economic development tends to be nonpartisan at the state level, many states are limited in their ability to fund innovative programs. In order to fund efforts that may serve as part of a national development strategy, Congress should use the bipartisan support of state efforts to establish and expand federal-state development partnerships and a strategy focused on countering China’s rise in advanced industries. That is the sentiment behind a recent roadmap from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) that proposes four things Congress should do to align state efforts to an overall mission of outcompeting China.
In addition to decreasing enrollment numbers at both two- and four-year institutions of higher education, detailed in an earlier SSTI Digest story, higher ed is facing other threats from looming state budget cuts.
In addition to decreasing enrollment numbers at both two- and four-year institutions of higher education, detailed in an earlier SSTI Digest story, higher ed is facing other threats from looming state budget cuts. While enrollment numbers are still in flux, many universities are already making drastic budget reductions, and that pain will ultimately land on students, which could impact educational attainment and student debt for years.
Key findings from two independent research projects reveal the pandemic’s corrosive effect on the nation’s innovation commercialization capacity. The projects separately explored how two related innovation financing components — angel investment and venture capital — were reacting to the coronavirus-caused slowdown. Individually, the results might appear simply as yet more interesting curiosities about the pandemic. Considered together, however, and one begins to see the potential unraveling of the broader U.S. innovation tapestry required to support long-term economic prosperity.
After two years of research on technology and jobs, MIT’s Task Force on the Work of the Future has issued its final report, and the news is hopeful: with better policies in place, more people could enjoy good careers even as new technology transforms workplaces.
Personal income levels throughout the country received a boost in the second quarter of 2020 through assistance programs from the federal government designed to combat the economic difficulties brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contradictory to the prevailing theory that fintech companies — utilizing cutting-edge algorithms and incorporating data beyond the standard credit reports — have better insights into borrower risk profiles than traditional lenders, new research indicates that fintech borrowers are more likely to default on their loans than their counterparts who utilize traditional banks.
Contradictory to the prevailing theory that fintech companies — utilizing cutting-edge algorithms and incorporating data beyond the standard credit reports — have better insights into borrower risk profiles than traditional lenders, new research indicates that fintech borrowers are more likely to default on their loans than their counterparts who utilize traditional banks. In their forthcoming article in The Review of Financial Studies, Marco Di Maggio and Vincent Yao find that fintech companies are actually more reliant on “hard information” than traditional banks and typically acquire market share by first lending to higher-risk borrowers and then to safer borrowers. Although their analysis is based entirely on the personal loans market, the research raises another flag, adding to a growing list of fintech issues ripe for regulation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently published a final rule clarifying acceptable communications during “demo days” and expanding the accessibility of crowdfunding, among other changes. The new rule establishes guidelines to make “demo day” activities exempt from general solicitation requirements.
Criticism of the federal Opportunity Zone program has been directed at individual examples of questionable tracts for inclusion, the process for selecting tracts in each state, and the merits of some of the development projects underway. For example, some question inclusion of lowlands subject to flooding as sea levels rise with climate change and subsidence, while others raise eyebrows at inclusion of greenfield freeway interchanges or tracts already undergoing gentrification in fast growing cities. Complaints have been raised about projects where the end use (e.g.
The Angel Capital Association has recently released its Angel Funders Report 2020, examining the angel investor landscape through a survey of 76 angel groups and investments made during 2019. While the survey results represent only a portion of the larger angel investment community, the ACA report does provide useful insights into the current trends within the angel funder sphere.
The United States is currently ranked tenth in research and development intensity (a measure of R&D investment as a percent of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product) but has continued to lead the pack in total research and development spending, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently published A Snapshot of U.S.
Amid dwindling hope for a second stimulus package from Congress, the Federal Reserve has widened the terms of its Main Street lending program to better target support for small businesses. According to the new guidelines, the minimum loan size for three Main Street vehicles available to for-profit and non-profit borrowers has been reduced from $250,000 to $100,000. Corresponding fees have also been adjusted to encourage loan dispersal.
The Senate released its draft appropriations bills for FY 2021 this week. Priorities for SSTI’s Innovation Advocacy Council did well, with increases for Build to Scale ($38.5 million, + $5.5 million from FY 2020) and FAST ($5 million, + $2 million) and level funding for Regional Innovation Clusters ($5 million).
Science and innovation highlights within the FY 2021 budget proposal include the following:
I suspect the whole country woke up Wednesday morning and looked at the half that voted for the other candidate and said, “What were you thinking?!?” Rather than attempting to address the question of what people were thinking, let me attempt to address where we are and what we need to do.
I suspect the whole country woke up Wednesday morning and looked at the half that voted for the other candidate and said, “What were you thinking?!?” Rather than attempting to address the question of what people were thinking, let me attempt to address where we are and what we need to do.
The 2016 election of Donald Trump, the rise of Trumpism, the pandemic and George Floyd’s killing have laid bare fundamental crises that face America. The challenge that presumptive President-elect Joe Biden has is how to address the stark divisions we have in the country. The election results are just representative of the divisions we’re facing.