About technological innovation

Throughout my three decades in academia, I've observed a continuous loop of conversations highlighting the vital role of innovation, reform, and the imperative for pioneering work in research and development (R&D). The principle of "High Risk and High Return" has been a central theme, with a strong push for long-term visions over short-term gains. However, this consistent focus has led to a widespread sense of exhaustion, fueled by the concerning observation that most innovative efforts remain trapped within academic circles, barely touching the wider industrial landscape. Academics making breakthroughs often have limited capacity to steer these innovations towards becoming successful commercial products. Industry-academia collaborations struggle to bear fruit due to a variety of subtle and complex reasons, leading numerous promising innovations to become mere line items on a curriculum vitae, devoid of practical implementation.

Finding effective R&D policies that foster technological and market-driven innovations remains a complex challenge. From my observations, the most carefully formulated policies can often produce unintended, adverse outcomes. Undoubtedly, support for R&D plays a critical role in driving technological advancements.  Yet, there are plenty of examples that illustrate a different reality. Offering a contrasting view, I would like to share an interesting story of innovation of the first whole-body CT scanner, that was developed by Robert S. Ledley in 1973. He was initially set to receive a significant NIH grant around 1970, during Nixon's presidency in the USA. However, Nixon later reduced medical research funds, leading to the complete termination of Ledley's NIH research funding. This forced Ledley to urgently seek alternative means to compensate his team. Upon learning that Dr. Lussenhop, the chief neurosurgeon, showed interest in purchasing a CT scanner developed by Hounsfield, Ledley approached him with a bold proposal: “I can make it, and it'll be half the price.” At the time, Ledley was unaware of the actual price. Ironically, this funding shortfall became the catalyst for Ledley's concentrated efforts to develop the first whole-body CT scanner. This story highlights how desperation can serve as a powerful role for technological innovation.

The failures of companies like Toshiba and Kodak provide important lessons, as the reasons for their decline are nuanced. It seems they did not neglect innovation; they invested in new technologies and led the way in developing initial products that anticipated new business models. Despite the significant increase in R&D investments aimed at fostering future economic growth, the outcomes have been largely disappointing. Many researchers have called for improved research environments to better focus on development, arguing that current supports are insufficient and that more sustained backing is required. However, these cases indicate that better R&D envirornment with huge investment for technological innovation may lead to adversary results.

Many technological innovations have emerged not from inventing the completely novel, but through the ingenious combination of existing technologies, striving for simplification instead of over-engineering.  An overemphasis on novelty and being the first in R&D policies can inadvertently promote over-engineering, which is not beneficial for society. A great example of innovation through simplicity is the development of the AK-47 rifle by Kalashnikov, a landmark in engineering simplicity and effectiveness. This innovation was achieved by mastering existing technologies and aiming for a design as straightforward as a hammer. Kalashnikov's personal combat experience and injuries from the Battle of Bryansk in 1941 deeply informed his approach, highlighting the practical demands of warfare and leading to this groundbreaking invention. This Kalashnikov's philosophy appears to have inspired Elon Musk, leading to his well-known mantra, "the best part is no part."

I'm not sure what the ideal policy is for fostering innovation and invention that leads to market success. In my youth, I held strong convictions and a clear philosophy, but with time and experience, my certainty about what is best has diminished. In this blog, I'm not making definitive statements, because truly, who can claim to know what is best? My experiences have taught me a counterintuitive lesson: the pursuit of perfection often leads to the opposite of the intended outcome. Many important discoveries are made in academia, but only a handful turn out to be genuinely useful, frequently limited by over-engineering or excessively detailed methodologies.  Instead of rapidly chasing after novelty and groundbreaking research, dedicating efforts to refine and transform completed research into final products can offer more significant advantages to society, even in the face of potential failures.