Discussions on innovation in the 21st century require some imagination and reconsideration of existing wisdom and preconceptions. The context in which the discussion about innovation takes place is one where facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, the stakes are high and decisions are urgent. We live in times of tumultuous change and science is under more scrutiny than ever before.
Never before has science been at the centre of such a crisis of reproducibility and legitimacy. An important periodical recently ran an article called ‘when science goes wrong’, while a well-known scientist argued that a large portion of research funding worldwide may be wasted due to poor quality science.
"Our expectations about innovation cannot be separated from our expectation and norms for other important project goals, such as fairness, trust, inequality and sustainability"
Environmental and societal controversies where science is called upon to provide an opinion erupt frequently in the media, while the explosion of the blogosphere and the use of social media allows citizens to engage critically with a wide array of ‘wicked’ problems, such as climate change, economic inequality, ageing populations, energy and food security, and water scarcity, among many others.
New styles of scientific production are coming to the fore, such as science 2.0, citizens’ science, do it yourself science, fab labs, the open source movement and much more. These have the potential to affect the fabric of science and the balance of trust and power between science and the public.
Innovation figures feature prominently at the heart of the EU's science strategy. We expect to innovate our way out of the crisis, and we expect innovation to produce new, well paid jobs. However, this narrative may hide a much more complex situation and the need for a deeper understanding of what works.
The process of innovation can often start with a creative spark, understood by a few and then propagated through markets and society. This process is mostly perceived as being linear, while in fact it is circular and complex, and likely to call into question important issues of culture and ethics, and conflicting systems of norms and values as shown by present day controversies.
"Europe may be experiencing a loss of skills between generations, particularly in top performing countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the UK"
Our expectations about innovation cannot be separated from our expectation and norms for other important project goals, such as fairness, trust, inequality and sustainability. Following the lively discussions on inequality spurred by the recent work of economist Thomas Piketty, one can see the complex relationship between innovation and inequality. This question is of paramount importance because if not all innovation results in job creation in the long run, and there is a chorus of scholars issuing warnings to this effect, such as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee from the Massachusetts institute of technology (MIT); then what type of innovation should Europe foster and fund?
Some economists, including Antony Atkinson in the UK, are already discussing 'post-Piketty' policy prescriptions. One of them is that policymakers should favour moving towards technological change and innovation which promotes employment of workers over their substitution with machines.
There is also the added complexity of what qualification and skills are needed in a future increasingly populated by clever machines. This discussion goes far beyond the issue of how many science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates we need.
Research carried out by the European commission shows that the formal levels of education and skills do not necessarily go hand in hand, and that Europe may be experiencing a loss of skills between generations, particularly in top performing countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the UK. This is particularly relevant if we consider that young people are those who will confront a more competitive labour market. Higher skill levels in information and communications technology will concern all occupational sectors, even low skilled occupations.
These are just a few examples of the complexity in the debate about innovation. Other relevant dimensions worth exploring are innovation versus biophysical constraints on economic growth, the interplay between innovation and globalisation, and how innovation is portrayed differently by various schools of economic thought. My directorate, the joint research centre, has undertaken this analysis and we are assisted in this work by scholars from a spectrum of disciplines, from economics to bioeconomics, from history and science to technology studies. For example, a workshop bringing together thinkers in innovation and commission actors involved in research and innovation policy will soon be held in Brussels. This and similar events will help us test new narratives centred on innovation policies.