Thursday, July 24, 2008

Fórmula para retener científicos (END)

Fórmula para retener científicos

Ley 101 da exención contributiva hasta salarios de $195,000.

La Ley 101, que otorga una exención contributiva a los investigadores adscritos a las universidades del País, puede ser una herramienta efectiva contra la fuga de valiosas mentes científicas, que se trasladan con sus proyectos a centros de investigación con salarios y condiciones más atractivas.

La medida exime a los investigadores de tributar sobre ingresos de hasta $195,000.

Aunque el Departamento de Hacienda aún no tiene listos los criterios de elegibilidad, el objetivo -según el director ejecutivo del Fideicomiso de Ciencia, Tecnología e Investigación, Luis Enrique Rodríguez-, es que la exención aplique a investigadores de alto calibre.

Rodríguez ofreció como ejemplo la categoría “R-01” de los Institutos Nacionales de la Salud (NIH, por sus siglas en inglés), que otorga financiamiento millonario a los proyectos más sobresalientes en Estados Unidos.

En la Isla hay seis investigadores con fondos R-01. Cuatro de ellos están en recintos de la Universidad de Puerto Rico (UPR) -dos en Ciencias Médicas y los otros dos en Río Piedras-; mientras que hay una en la Escuela de Medicina de Ponce y otra en la Universidad Central del Caribe en Bayamón.

El doctor Nelson Varas Díaz es uno de los académicos que cuenta con una beca millonaria para su proyecto, adscrito a la Escuela Graduada de Trabajo Social de la UPR en Río Piedras.

Hace un año, Varas Díaz y un equipo de 10 personas prueban diferentes técnicas para que los profesionales de la salud manejen sus prejuicios cuando tratan ciertos tipos de pacientes.

El profesor opinó que la Ley 101 es un buen primer paso, pero que se debe continuar fomentando la cultura de investigación.

“Esto es un beneficio una vez tienes el ‘grant’ (beca)”, dijo, “pero la universidad debe continuar apoyando a los que están en el proceso de conseguir el ‘grant’”.

Varas Díaz elogió además a la UPR por fomentar que sus investigadores compitan por los fondos de organizaciones tan prestigiosas como la NIH, la Fundación Nacional de Ciencia (NSF, por sus siglas en inglés) y otras.

“Traer un proyecto de estos a la UPR no sólo posiciona al País en un escenario competitivo en el desarrollo de conocimiento, sino que genera empleos y adiestra estudiantes. En mi proyecto hay cinco estudiantes doctorales que generan sus propios proyectos, artículos y presentaciones con fondos de la propuesta”, puntualizó.

El presidente de la UPR, Antonio García Padilla, señaló que la Ley 101 le permite a la institución incentivar a sus propios científicos y profesores y a la próxima generación, además de ser una herramienta para retener investigadores locales y atraer extranjeros.

“Esta es una redirección de los viejos mecanismos de incentivos que había usado Puerto Rico para impulsar la economía industrial, y ahora servirá para incentivar la economía de la innovación y el conocimiento”, dijo García Padilla.

“Los proyectos que reciben esta beca son de máxima calidad... se está hablando de los científicos más destacados del mundo. Para obtener estas becas tienen que tener un peritaje que sirve de imán para otros investigadores que quieren trabajar con ellos para aprender”, dijo el ejecutivo del Fideicomiso de Ciencia, y añadió que estas becas se utilizan para comprar equipos que benefician a la institución educativa en general, no sólo al proyecto específico.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

If You Have a Problem, Ask Everyone (NYT)

If You Have a Problem, Ask Everyone

John Davis, a chemist in Bloomington, Ill., knows about concrete. For example, he knows that if you keep concrete vibrating it won’t set up before you can use it. It will still pour like a liquid.

Now he has applied that knowledge to a seemingly unrelated problem thousands of miles away. He figured out that devices that keep concrete vibrating can be adapted to keep oil in Alaskan storage tanks from freezing. The Oil Spill Recovery Institute of Cordova, Alaska, paid him $20,000 for his idea.

The chemist and the institute came together through InnoCentive, a company that links organizations (seekers) with problems (challenges) to people all over the world (solvers) who win cash prizes for resolving them. The company gets a posting fee and, if the problem is solved, a “finders fee” equal to about 40 percent of the prize.

The process, according to John Seely Brown, a theorist of information technology and former director of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, reflects “a huge shift in popular culture, from consuming to participating” enabled by the interactivity so characteristic of the Internet. It is sometimes called open-source science, taking the name from open-source software in which the source code, or original programming, is made public to encourage others to work on improving it.

The approach is catching on. Today, would-be innovators can sign up online to compete for prizes for feats as diverse as landing on the Moon (space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge) and inventing artificial meat (www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp).

This year, researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Washington began recruiting computer gamers to an online competition, named Foldit, aimed at unraveling one of the knottiest problems of biology — how proteins fold (http://fold.it).

And in a report last year, a panel appointed by the National Research Council recommended that the National Science Foundation, the major government financing agency for physical science research, offer prizes of $200,000 to $2 million “in diverse areas” as a first step in a major program “to encourage more complex innovations” addressing economic, social and other challenges. (The report is available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11816).

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has proposed that the government offer $300 million to whoever invents a battery compact enough, powerful enough and cheap enough to replace fossil fuels.

Offering prizes for scientific achievements is hardly new. “It has been around for centuries,” said Karim R. Lakhani, a professor at Harvard Business School who has studied InnoCentive. One early example was the work of John Harrison, the 18th-century clockmaker who, in response to a prize offered by the British Parliament, solved the problem of determining longitude at sea by inventing a clock that would keep good time even in heavy weather.

But, Dr. Lakhani said, “most laboratories, most R & D endeavors still work on the premise ‘we can accumulate and make sense of all the knowledge that is relevant.’ The open-source models and a model like InnoCentive show that other approaches can help.”

Dwayne Spradlin, president and chief executive of InnoCentive, said in an interview that the company had solved 250 challenges, for prizes typically in the $10,000 to $25,000 range. According to the Web site (www.innocentive.com), the achievements include a compound for skin tanning, a method of preventing snack chip breakage and a mini-extruder in brick-making.

“Odds are one or more products in your home has been innovated in our network,” Mr. Spradlin said. “Procter & Gamble has products that were innovated on the InnoCentive network.”

InnoCentive began in 2000 as e.Lilly, an in-house innovation “incubator” at the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, Mr. Spradlin said, with the company posting problems that its employees had been unable to solve. From the beginning the results were good, he said. “Most of our companies tell us they have a one-third or better solve rate on their problems and that is more cost-effective than anything they could have done internally.”

The company says solvers come from 175 countries. More than a third have doctorates, Mr. Spradlin said, and while motivated by money, they also have a desire to solve “problems that matter.”

The company, with offices in Waltham, Mass., has a staff of scientists who work with seekers and solvers, reviewing challenges to make sure they are clear and detailed, and guiding would-be solvers who may have a solution.

That specificity is crucial to InnoCentive’s operation, people who have studied the company say. “If you say, ‘find me a cure for cancer’ it may not work,” Dr. Lakhani said. But if problems can be “decomposed” into what he called modular questions, like “find me a biomarker for this condition, these questions may be more tractable.”

The idea that solutions can come from anywhere, and from people with seemingly unrelated work, is another key. Dr. Lakhani said his study of InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the solver’s expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another purpose.

For example, he said, the brain might be thought of as a biological system, but “certain brain problems may not be solvable by taking a biological approach. You may want to cast it as an electrical engineering approach. An electrical engineer will come in and say, ‘Oh, here’s the answer for you.’ They have not thought of themselves as being neuroscientists but now they can approach the problem from the point of view of electrical engineering.”

The oil-flow problem was solved by an outsider, said Scott Pegau, its research program manager. If it could easily have been solved “by people within the industry, it would have been,” he said. Instead, Mr. Davis approached it with knowledge he picked up at a friend’s concrete business.

One critical element is encouraging organizations to take novel innovation approaches in the first place. That was the task that drew the Rockefeller Foundation to the company, said Maria Blair, an associate vice president there.

Ms. Blair said the foundation was nearing the end of an 18-month pilot program after which the success of the partnership would be assessed. Anecdotal evidence so far suggests the arrangement can be useful, she said, citing as an example a challenge to devise a reliable, durable solar-powered light source that could function as a flashlight and as general room illumination.

“The solver ended up being a scientist from New Zealand,” she said, and his light is now being made in China.

“What we want to do,” she added, “is connect the nonprofits to the platform, to InnoCentive.”

The nonprofits get a break on InnoCentive fees, Mr. Spradlin said, and Ms. Blair said the foundation could subsidize access to innovation platforms. But she said many nonprofit organizations had difficulty dealing with intellectual property rights and related issues.

InnoCentive deals with these issues, in part, by requiring winning solvers to transfer intellectual property rights to the seekers, whose identities are secret, before they can claim an award.

Dr. Lakhani said some companies worried that by posting information about their problems they risk giving valuable information to competitors. Another fear, he said, is that a solver will devise a useful solution, but refuse to turn it over for the prize or even patent it to keep it out of the hands of the organization that originally sought it.

“We have not observed yet any of these kinds of games,” Dr. Lakhani said.

By contrast, the Foldit contest is a volunteer effort. It began as Rosetta@home, a project using down-time of computers throughout the world to do the laborious calculations needed to determine the shapes of proteins, strings of amino acid crucial to the cells of every living thing. The way these molecules work depends on how the strings fold, but calculating the folding is, as the Foldit researchers put it, “one of the pre-eminent challenges of biology.”

In Foldit, players will compete online to design proteins, and researchers will test designs to see if they are good candidates for use in drugs. The researchers who worked to design it say results will also be interesting because people’s intuition for protein folding does not seem necessarily to be tied to formal training or laboratory experience.

“Our ultimate goal is to have ordinary people play the game and eventually be candidates for winning the Nobel Prize,” said Zoran Popovic, a computer scientist and engineer at the University of Washington.

Mr. Spradlin’s goal for InnoCentive is at least as ambitious. By 2011, he hopes InnoCentive participants will have answered at least 10,000 challenges.

When companies and organizations have a problem, Mr. Spradlin said, “I want us to be the first place they go.”

Friday, July 18, 2008

Douglas Rushkoff: Innovation from the Inside (KQED)

Forum talks with author Douglas Rushkoff about how and why businesses should return to encouraging internal innovation.

Douglas Rushkoff, author of "Get Back In The Box: Innovation from the Inside Out," and a regular commentator for NPR's All Things Considered, CBS Sunday Morning, Time Magazine and the New York Times.

Patent Gridlock Suppresses Innovation (WSJ)

Patent Gridlock Suppresses Innovation

The Founders might have used quill pens, but they would roll their eyes at how, in this supposedly technology-minded era, we're undermining their intention to encourage innovation. The U.S. is stumbling in the transition from their Industrial Age to our Information Age, despite the charge in the Constitution that Congress "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

For the third year in a row, Congress has just given up on passing a law reforming how patents are awarded and litigated. This despite growing evidence that for most industries, today's patent system causes more harm than good. Litigation costs, driven by uncertainty about who owns what rights, are now so huge that they outweigh the profits earned from patents.

It's true that defining intellectual property is hard at a time when new technologies upset the traditional ways of protecting rights, as debates over digital piracy make clear. But in the case of patents, poorly defined property rights for inventions are leading even the biggest companies to take desperate measures, including banding together to protect themselves against claims of increasingly broad and vague patents.

Companies as diverse as Verizon, Google, Cisco and Hewlett-Packard recently formed the Allied Security Trust to buy patents they may want to use some day and that otherwise could end up in the hands of "patent trolls." These firms buy up old patents not to produce anything, but instead to work the system to extract settlements. A similar group formed against trolls to protect the Linux open-source operating system. A Google executive explained that helping to buy up and license patents is the "legal equivalent of taking a long, deep, relaxing breath." Companies can rest easier, and legitimate inventors get paid for their work.

These corporate trusts seem like odd ways to protect products, but the memory is still fresh of the BlackBerry device almost being forced to shut down. Parent company Research in Motion paid more than $600 million in 2006 to settle a case. But in this and many other cases, companies can't be sure whether or not they are complying with patent law. For example, by one estimate there are more than 4,000 patents that must be reviewed and potentially licensed by firms selling products or services online. The legal abuses arising from uncertainty are legion. More than 100 companies are being sued for alleged patent infringement by using text messaging internationally.

The proposed law in Congress would have reduced potential damages to the value of the technology, not the full value of the completed product. Another uncertainty would have been reduced by moving to the first-inventor-to-file system, instead of our more ambiguous first-to-invent standard. The larger problems would have remained, including the trend of awarding vague patents, coupled with a still-primitive system for notifying others of the existence of patents.

Yet the fault line over patent reform signals the deeper problems. Many pharmaceutical companies lobbied against the proposals, fearful of reduced value in their key intellectual property. In contrast, most technology firms supported the reforms, worried more about uncertainty in the law than about the value of their patents.

Both sides may be right. New empirical research by Boston University law professors James Bessen and Michael Meurer, reported in their book, "Patent Failure," found that the value of pharmaceutical patents outweighed the costs of pharmaceutical-patent litigation. But for all other industries combined, they estimate that since the mid-1990s, the cost of U.S. patent litigation to alleged infringers ($12 billion in legal and business costs in 1999) is greater than the global profits that companies earn from patents (less than $4 billion in 1999). Since the 1980s, patent litigation has tripled and the probability that a particular patent is litigated within four years has more than doubled. Small inventors feel the brunt of the uncertainty costs, since bigger companies only pay for rights they think the system will protect.

These are shocking findings, but they point to the solution. New drugs require great specificity to earn a patent, whereas patents are often granted to broad, thus vague, innovations in software, communications and other technologies. Ironically, the aggregate value of these technology patents is then wiped out through litigation costs.

Our patent system for most innovations has become patently absurd. It's a disincentive at a time when we expect software and other technology companies to be the growth engine of the economy. Imagine how much more productive our information-driven economy would be if the patent system lived up to the intention of the Founders, by encouraging progress instead of suppressing it.