A famous saying goes “When the shoe fits, you don’t notice it is on.” When something is working properly, one simply is not aware of it. Despite the periodic increases in the cost of gas at the pumps, by and large the global energy sector has run so smoothly that, historically, one rarely stopped to think about it. However, over the past several years that has changed. Nowadays, you can’t open a magazine or newspaper, surf the web or turn on the television without seeing or hearing some discussion about the pace at which humans are consuming energy, specifically fossil fuels, or what new technologies are being developed in the renewable energy space.

The US today consumes energy from many sources for a diverse set of purposes. As we have grown into the world’s largest economy, our energy choices have shifted from wood, biomass and small amounts of coal to those energy resources used for higher forms of human socioeconomic organization such as industry, manufacturing, transportation and communication. In fact, according to the Institute of Energy Research, 85% of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuels.

The rise of the digital age at the turn of the 21st century has driven consumer demand for high-speed computers, laser-jet printers, high-definition television sets, mobile devices and PDAs, and other gigabyte-rich devices. Compound this with the influx of larger SUVs on the road in the U.S. and the development of more buildings, plants and factories in both established and, especially, emerging markets. It all points to an increased demand for energy and perpetuates the ongoing discussion about the need to better manage and conserve energy and / or find alternative sources. In the decades ahead, almost all of the expanding demand for energy will be met by fossil fuels, nuclear power, and renewable sources – in that order. New sources of energy are also likely to enter the picture. However, that picture is still very much out of focus as politicians, citizens, universities, companies, NGOs, and various other associations and organizations debate the issues of energy consumption and energy management. Every person and organization has a perspective. There is legislation and stimulus funding in place to help spur the movement. And, there are new ideas and technologies being brought to the forefront regularly. At the end of the day, there is still a lot of uncertainty.

The only certainty is that inquiring minds will continue to probe for new breakthroughs. It is at this level that the iBridge Network hopes to facilitate the conversation and play a part in the global energy debate and solution. We recently launched our Energy Innovation Hub— an aggregated place for innovations and research from sources across the United States in a variety of areas, from the broad – environment and energy – to the more narrow – wind, solar, biofuel, and sustainable. Check it out our energy hub.

Tim O’Reilly asked a question today, “How do we measure innovation?”

I would love to hear your thoughts and feedback on both these of these links!

http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/how-do-we-measure-innovation.html

http://brokensymmetry.typepad.com/broken_symmetry/2010/03/how-do-you-measure-innovation-without-reference-to-patents.html

To clarify, the essay that Bob Litan and Lesa Mitchell co-authored in the Harvard Business Review does not question the validity or the positive effects of the Bayh–Dole Act, which gave universities the ownership of IP generated by federally funded research. Rather, the commercialization model proposed by the Kauffman Foundation specifically addresses the need for MORE CHANNELS to support the commercialization of university innovation. The idea consists of a very simple market-based principle: Faculty should have a choice relative to the commercialization pathway tied to innovations created in their lab.

They do not propose replacing the Bayh-Dole Act. Neither do they suggest the redesign of any royalty splits in faculty-university contracts, nor do they infer that commercialization is the only or main activity of faculty research. The proposal would simply build on the benefits of Bayh-Dole in a time of economic slowdown and unemployment.

To see all the articles please visit http://ibridgenetwork.org/info/news

It is said that 2010 is the year of the entrepreneur. That entrepreneurs will be the ones to save America from this economic crisis. Read this, in Entrepreneur Magazine. 

This in turn means, entrepreneurs need your innovations. They need to be able to have access to the innovations and the new ideas that are taking place in the universities. They need to have access to the best and the brightest, the experts in their field. Innovation will save America, read NY Times Post.

We need all the universities in the US to do their part and make sure all your research is made transparent and accessible!

The USA National Innovation Marketplace is a service of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) a national network with hundreds of specialists who understand the needs of small and medium-size manufacturers. They have worked with thousands of manufacturers delivering $1.44 billion in cost savings annually and $10.5 billion in increased or retained sales in year one.

The Marketplace accelerates innovation by facilitating communication between buyers and sellers of innovation, giving inventors access to investors, distributors, contract manufacturers and R&D experts. Marketplace listings from non-profit organizations will coexist on the iBridge Network, allowing for even more exposure and collaboration opportunities. “There is a natural synergy between the USA National Innovation Marketplace and the iBridge Network,” said Lesa Mitchell, director of the iBridge Network. “We both are working to drive research to the marketplace and we are thrilled to be able to achieve that goal together.”

We have thought it many times…two heads are better than one. There are many examples of this on the internet, just look at all the open source software. This is exactly the point of the iBridge Network, to find collaborators in a space to advance innovation, not spend time recreating the wheel. Think of the possibilities that could be unleashed if we stopped hoarding our pre-competitive innovations and shared them with others. Doing this could elevate the competitiveness of the researchers, the organizations and our nation, thus producing more results. I read an interesting fact in an article entitled “The New Socialism” by Kevin Kelly - 60,000 man-years of work were dedicated to last year’s release of Fedora Linux 9. There is proof that without sharing you are spinning your wheels.

There is a great article in the June edition of the Technology Review. Can Technology Save the Economy?, suggests we need to take a deeper look into the stimulus package and how it relates to technology and job creation, in fact this is just part one of two.
The author, David Rotman, does a great job of highlighting both sides of the stimulus package. Will it really create more jobs and more innovation in renewable energy? Is this really the most productive way to spend the money? How long will it take for these technologies to come to life? What if it fails?
There is no arguing the economy needs a boost. Is the way to achieve this is through innovation? “The stimulus bill makes evident to the public what every economist knows: long-term economic growth depends on innovation and technological progress. But including so much technology spending in the legislation also brings dangers.”

We will look forward to part two, in the mean time let me know what you think.

Congratulations to our friends over at Science Commons who have been written up in Popular Science magazine this week! I love hearing John Wilbanks talk about why it should be easier to share and find scientific information even if you aren’t immersed in that particular field. If you have never heard or read anything from him, I would suggest for you to read the article.

As you may know, the iBridge Network is working with Science Commons on their Material Transfer Agreement project which provides a wide array of standardized licenses including the Uniform Biological Materials Transfer Agreement (UBMTA) and the Simple Letter Agreement (SLA) in addition to several standard ones developed by Science Commons. Standardized licensing of research materials happens today, though it may not be as common as one would think. We are expecting with the additional of several other standardized licenses, and the ease of specifying them (through Science Commons tools), and ease of attaching these licenses to research descriptions in the iBridge Network will help fuel use of standardized agreements for more situations.

We are expecting to have standardized licensing up on our site by the end of the summer and already have a couple of our university members who are planning to participate as early adopters! We’ll keep you posted!

I was just reading the president’s letter from the May 2007 edition of the HHMI Bulletin published by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. In it, Thomas Cech summarizes the conclusions of a National Research Council committee in which he chaired in 2003. The committee was charged with taking a fresh look at the responsibilities of scientists to share the data and materials referenced in original research articles. They developed a concept that they called UPSIDE which stands for the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute has long required their investigators to share their published research materials to the extent possible. In fact, their policy on sharing these materials is transparent and broad. Their policy states that they will share materials within 60 days from request, which includes the negotiation of a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA). It contains specific terms for materials, data & databases, and software. It also clearly states the responsibilities of those requesting these materials, all of which seem reasonable to me.

While I haven’t read many statements by research institutes on their policy for sharing materials, given the way that I often hear MTAs discussed I suspect that not many research institutes require their investigators to share. Yes, it can be a burden to prepare, list and license materials, though with new tools like the iBridge Network, the Science Commons MTA standardization and others this burden is becoming lighter every day.

Nobelist Max Perutz has noted that, “True science thrives best in glass houses, where everyone can look in.” True science also benefits when research articles and materials are freely available after publication. Given the huge benefit to science and future discoveries, I hope that the recent successes by iBridge members in sharing materials in a low-transaction cost manner are just the tip of the iceberg in helping to fuel future innovation and discovery.

I welcome your comments on the subject of openness:
info@iBridgeNetwork.org

There’s little doubt the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week on the issue of patent rights was momentous. If you missed the story (it didn’t seem to get a whole lot of front-page coverage), the Supremes handed down a decision that may make it harder to get a patent as well as defend one.

The crux of the issue is whether an idea submitted for patenting passes the “obviousness” test. The court, more or less, ruled on the side of mandating that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office be more willing to deny patent protection to something that’s less a true innovation and more an ordinary, incremental advance.

For a completely substantive review of this issue, here’s a link to The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, which offers a detailed post on this topic. Look for links to the actual opinion, major news stories, and to various expert legal reviews of the decision.