fJ

ED 201 121

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 132 547

Branscomb, Anne W.; And OthersCTAB Recommendations on Learning Environments forInnovation.Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.May 8051p.; A Report cif the Commerce Technical AdvisoryBoard.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402.

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Creative Development: *Creativity; CulturalInfluences; *Educational Etvironment: ElementarySecondary Education: *Gifted: HigSer Education;*Innovation; Inventions: Professional Education:School Business Relationship: Sciences; *Talent:*Talent Identification; Trend Aualysis; VocationalEducation

The report examines cultural and social forces in theUnited States which discourage innovation and creativity. The,history'of American.innovation is reviewed; innovation is defined as thepro4ess by which new knowledge 4S'gentrated and applied in thematerial and intellectual operations of society. Effects on

Linnovation of the changing ,economic environment are oted.:.and trendsin demographics, education, institutiOnPA1 structure, and theinternational environment which work against innovation are analyzed;Schools are criticized for ignoring the neeci's Of gifted and talgatedru____treatingscience as -a fringe benefit that can be deleted d-froO thecurriculum, and developing A two track academic and vodationnisystem, Informal learning environments which' stimulate innovativeskills are said to involve parenting and ersonal:contact, toys as ateaching tool, film and drama, books and m gazines, science museums,televisiOn, andimizes and awards. Six crit'cal issues in publicschool education are raised, including the dentification, andencouragement of the specially gifted and the rejuvenation.of anaging teaching population 'which enjoys tenure but suffers fromprofessional :obsolescence. Also considered is the situation inprofessional education, the corporate' environment,university - industry relations, and military. training. Recomm4ndationsare made regarding informal learning environments, continuing ''''

education, public schools, vocational education,government/induStry/school system .participation, anduniversity/corporate cooperation. (Ct.)

************************************************************************ Reproductions Supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from, the original document.

********"*********************************************************

CTAB RECOMMDATIONS ON

ents for

A Report of the

Commerce Technical Advisory Board

to Jordan J. Baruch

AssistantSecretary for Productivity, Tecino lorInnovation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION II wEisttRr

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMP HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FkOM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIC)IN.

ATM IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OCINIONC

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY NECIRE.

SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE 01

EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY ,\

This report was prepared for CTAB the dim:. .1of Anne W. Branscomb, Chairman, KalL 3owen dates,Inc., and a member of the Commerce Te-Acal Air, -7Board, This report does not necessarily r -.resent atepolicy of the Department of Commerce Oi othagency of governmEnt.

US. Department of Commerce

Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

May 1980

(V 2 01990

3,

Cantera

TNNOVA: PEOPLE

Z. WHAT ai INNOVrATIG:q:

711.2. IS riNi-Nr.)VATIDT-: IMP9RNT?

V. 13Er"1..,-_ 3F DECLINEFRUIT ?OE.: CHALLENG';

Dem(1:77aphi-n 7

-77.2 7

in Is.stitzt 8

7.-rtn in. the Int.r:17-71a.tonL

VI. E.7-71. _ABOUT IN.VJVATION ...

VII. T.71=1".:FTA iNT7'..TOVAr:::?,-.31iVIRONIVEL7TATE

3

4

5

6

ii

11

13

A. Informal Learning Environments13

1. Parenting and Personal Contact13

2. Toys as a Teaching Tool14

3. Film and Drama15

4. Books and Magazines16

5. Science MuseumsLearning By Doing 176. TelevisionThe Pervasive Teacher

187. Prizes and Awards

22

B. rormal Learning Environments23

1. Public Schools23

2. Professional Education 263. The Corporate Environment for Innovation 284. University-Industry Relations 295. Military Training

30

VIII. WHAT SHALL WE DMRecommendations 33

.ericans kn. hinova -lye Pe .jple

:ns pride themselves 07.Lnovative people. Ir

days settlers machto clear the forest

scythes to cut the tall-constructed schr

the tricky coaL:linerifles to Oefen:

E 2:1 the outposts. Late:frontier was con-.

ai 7_7:-.-,:efican ingenuity builtvessels much im-

p: the European frig-a-. ley invented automobilestr. :ome great distances rap-

12.-.-Td became the first to fly in

It --4,,-

seif _=.?! torized anes.The Piero:-: ._-_nerican 7 icloreinclude th r=-1:-.3 of as in-ventors f-z 7.7 ,

as preside__. aF titre-preneurs =andIn- thethe America:high standard i l=vicome inex:ricab:-innovation. -1n.Ld1978 Harris 1-, _1majority ofU. S. leadershi:

vlett

ewers:Id its

e be--with

a 7._annarythat a

]ans expectscience and

technology to hlip. _Dive t.ne prob-lems of infatic -sinemp: Dyment,and . trade deit.-=. Yan_ relovich,Skelly and Whit in thei: "Moni-tor 1979" find 80 percent ofAmericans a modest toStrong faith in ..ience and 76 per-cent expect life -o be simplified bytechnology.

In view of this long-held tradi-tion the U. :. has been particu-larly jolted recent years by thegrowing per - option that our con-tinued lead= ship in innovationmay be thre...tened.

Perhaps c r society in its ma-turity has less tolerant ofthe pioneer which charac-terizes the ILL:lerican dream. How-ever, if we ra...ly wish to "encour-

age. a new surge of techn.innovation by U. S. Indust: inthe generations now grow ipin the country,,, the liool of anresiurces for innovation Tr: in-crease rather than diminis endwe must examine the instit- :nsand ,emiromments in which .uchskill .are encouraged and our-

We kno'w that the inno7-7Aiveurge and entrepreneurial behav-ior' are culturally biased 2 anc theenvironments in which the canbe fully vealized have. histc. Licaldine_-asions; e.g., in the late tine-

1

teentl- 7:ntlry Marconi's Iris.. .01: the young Guglielm

anti in. -;.7-yst al radio from ItalT-- tc'7)ecause she felt }IL-, in-

ventic :.id be readily rec,--:i-Yeand L_ :ling investors tcmote -,-elopment.3

The 2c1 States is prig itya pop of migrants,of wh = their homelanE toescape rtn:-econon±S

great TntUnitesfueledpolicy

1-7aity or 'depre..sedh offered fe,-

mprovement Theexpansion of themay have been

__Deral immigration-ennitted the most

adventurous and minds toescape the instit confinesin their native 1.2.nr.:: .-nich re-stricted them fro77. _..ring theirpotential. Today 3 increas-ing-fear that prey:and forms of behcur in the educati,and informational

atti:udeswhich oc-industrial,

'.7ironmentsof a mature Unite: _:.tes societytend to discourage .:_tier than en-courage innovatici in the 7rov,ing public and pri---7:e 7)ureaucr..1.-cies where zero budgetingrequires constant .,::itification ofcost/benefit ratios; the rewardsystem favors conformity and ef-

-:ncy. Thus. both failure andr:. taking are discouraged. YetfL. ure is not a luxury in the in-ns process, but a necessary

-inonent of a process which fli-t: 7 out the more productive ands-, :essful technological innovaptl s. When one of Thomas Edi-E s discouraged associates sug-

:ed they gi-7e up' because al-t every expiment had failed,--,ptimistic inventor reSporided,

We have learned sev-thousand things that do not

4

Je a: concerned, therefore,t_ :_t we Triy not fully understand

reasons why we have been any Dre innovative society thano-'-ters or how recent historicalf -7;,.is may be increasing the odds

J,iiist a inore innovative future.

IL What Is InnovatioL?

We have chosen an expansiveview of "innovation" because webelieve that the United States ismoving from an economy basedprimarily on manufacturing to aneconomy based upon services, andparticularly information servicesin which artistic and aestheticskills may be as important astechnological ones. Furthermore,artists and musicians also relyupon technological innovations tofurther their productivityas inthe use of acrylics in painting andelectronic devices to amplify, re-cord, and even create musicalsounds. Thus, we adopted the fol-lowing definition

"By innovation we mean theprocess by which new knowledgeis generated and applied in thematerial and intellectual opera-tions of society."

This definition is'broad enoughto include not merely products butalso services and artistic endeav-ors of an innovative nature whichcontribute to the economy. It isalso broad enough to include theknowledge producer or theoreticalwork which is the basis of inven-tion as well as invention, the en-trepreneurial talent which pack-

ages th invention or new idea formarket :h -: supporting perzor_nelwho taL,: new product or :-erg- ----"ice to and the can:77whose .7±- ...ptiveness make apreduc:: :ccessful.

,ire c act exclude pubicintegral part of

the ft-LIT- process. The gen-eral cu.=.-al climate in which theintellectth.,..ily curious and inven-tive a:ad entrepreneurial people

in society can come forward andbe productive is as important asthe assurance that the activeparticipants in the process will ob-tain the necessary skills to carryout their chosen missions. There-fore, sympathetic taxpayers andwilling consumers are equally asimportant as knowledge genera-tors, inventors, entrepreneurs,and marketeers if innovation is tobe successful.

I11. Why Is Innovation Important?

We agree with President Carter:hat improving the environment.for innovation is essential inmaintaining a healthy economy.

"Industrial innovationthe de-velopment and commercializationof new products and processesis an essential element of a strongand growing American economy.It helps ensure economic vitality,improved productivity, interna-tional competitiveness, job crea-tion, and an improved quality oflife for every American. Further,industrial innovation is necessaryif we are to solve some of theNation's most pressing problemsreducing Inflation, providingner- energy supplies and betterconserving existing supplies, en-suring adequate food for theworld's population, protecting theenvironment and our natural re-sources, and improving healthcare." 5

We have agreed upon the majorreasons why the United Statesmust remain an innovative econ-omy.

1) A high level of productivityis a necessary foundation to main-taining the quality of life ex-pected by most Americans. The

4

major strength of the UnitedStates economy in internationalmarkets has been and will con-,tinue to be based upon techno!ogi-cal expertise, products, and proc-esses. Thus, the cre:..:ive genius ofUnited States scientists, engi-neers, and the skills and foresightof technicians, administrators,and investors who translate thisforce into marketable productsmust be identified, encouraged,and nourished.

2) The United States facesmorefromJapan

and stronger competitionother developed nations,and Germany particularly,

but will also continue to facegreater competition in interna-tional markets as developing coun-tries fulfill their aspirations foreconomic growth. Thus, turningaround a negative trade balanceand maintaining a strong positionin international markets may re-quire greater innovativeness thanwe have experienced in the past.

3) As a mature industrial econ-omy, we have placed substantialinhibitions on production such 93control of gasoline exhaust fumes,and recycling of waste products,so that alternative technology forsolving the problems of modernsociety is a necessary attributeof survival.

4) The United States is depen-dent on other countries for nat-ural resources, particularly oil,and must rely upon its innovativetalents to develop alternate meansfor satisfying the needs of itseconomy.

5) The mutual interdependenceof nations in the world's economyand wise management of globalresources will require innovativethinking not only in the use ofhigh technology, but in organiza-tional structures and proceduresfor greater international coop-eration.

IV. The Changing Economic Environment

Although there is much fer-ment in the news about the falter-ing rate a of innovation in theUnited States, we do not have di-rect quantitative evidence thatthe rate of innovation has fallenoff since the sixties. Indeed, samesectors of the economy such assemiconductors are enjoying aburst of innovative activity.'

While average labor productiv-ity has not been increasing as rap-idly as it had been, this fact maybe influenced by a number offactors.

1) In a steady state economywhich has already achieved a highlevel of productivity it may bemore difficult, i.e., req'iire "more"innovation to induce additionalproductivity gains under condi-tions of high than of low produc-tivity. Presumably, the earlytechnological changes could haveskimmed the cream of "easy"labor economies.

2) Increases in productivity inservices and government, if thereare any, are difficult to measure,because it is hard to distinguishxneasures of inputs from meas-ures of ou -puts in such sectors.These sectors constitute a grow-ing proportion of total output

3) Changing social and envir-

onmental priorities pose signifi-cant challenges. It is sometimeshard to increase productivitywhile maintaining environmentalstandards. Older populations re-quire more medical attention thanyounger, and so on. Under theseconditions, it may be deceptive togauge the rate of innovation bythe rate of increase of factoryproductivity. In another perspec-tive, our society is now committedto maintaining the well-being ofa larger number of non-workingcitizens than previously and tomaking educational, medical, andother services universai:y avail-able to all citizens regardless oftheir individual earnings.

These commitments make realdemands on productive resourcesthat are larger than most peopleare ready to acknowledge. Withdeceleration in productivity gainswe are faced wth inflationarypressures in our attempts to sup-ply these amenities. Given thechanged demographic compositionof the population and increasedlevels of government programs,even the old rates of innovationwould probably seem inadequateto meet current social demands.It may well be that public disap-pointment with the inadequacy of

11

innovation should be seen primarily as a matter of increased chal-lenge rather than atrophy of theinnovation process.

5

V. Seeds Of Decline Fruit For Challenge

The decline of innovationorat least its failure to growis nota new phenomenon in the historyof science and technology. 0 verthe years many countries havemoved into leadership positionsin a given branch of technology,only to founder and sink into sec-ond place or worse, while othersassumed the lead.

Many reasons can be found forsuch shffts in positionrangingfrom serious political upheavalsto simple stagnation, and fromaggressive competition to placidlack of concern. One of the his-torically recent examples of up-heaval is that of Germany, whichwas once paramount in physicsand mathematics and in thetechnologies that sprang fromstrength in these disciplines.However, with the rise of Nazismand the persecution of academi-cians, the nation's leadership rolein these fields slipped badly. Onthe other hand, the scientists per-secuted by Germany fled to theUnited States, where they helpedmake the United States theworld's leader in atomic physicsand its products.

In contrast to violent upheavalsinnovation can suffer simply be-cause there is no encouragement

6

for it in the social and educationalenvironment. Sometimes religiousinfluences interfere with the ad-vancement of science as demon-strated by the rejection of Coper-nicus and Galileo by Italian cleri-cal scholars. Sometimes the domi-nant philosophical environmentinhibits innovative thinking asConfucianism is thought to haveinhibited the development of Chi-nese science. The Chinese prepared superb technicians whosepursuit of perfection and dedica-tion to detail produced great com-pendiums of organized knowledge.Their engineering feats in build-ing the- Great Wall and a complex

network of canals were also un-matched historically. However, thepenchant of Confucian scholarsfor long fingernails and quiet con-templation separated the thinkersand philosophers from the makersand doers unlike the Americanfrontier society where thinkers,makers, and doers were allwrapped into one. Thus, Chinesescience seemed to lack intuitive,speculative, and deductive insightto push forward the frontiers ofscience.

Sometimes a decline in im-provement in the environment forinnovation is due to social forces.The Japanese in the early part ofthe twentieth century seemed ableonly to copy Western manufactur-ing designA and technology whir'they were able to do exception?;,well with lower costs and sel'a competitive advantage on t'international market. However,the Japanese were astute enoughto transform their imitative tal-ents to innovative skills. Even bythe second World War they werebecoming leaders in the field ofoptics. Certainly their post warpolicies have contrived to promotehigh technology fields where in-novation in the automotive indus-try and consumer electronic3 have

12

rivalled anything the rest of theworld has to offer.

The seeds of decline may berooted in various evolutionarychanges that are appearing on theAmerican scene. We see alarmingtrends in four areas :

(a) the shifting and aging com-position of the population ;

(b) the divergence of intellec-tual and manual skills in ourclassrooms ;

(c) the increasing size and bu-reaucratic structure of our insti-tutions ;

(d) the increasing complexity,diversity, and competitiveness ofthe international marketplace.

A. Trends in Demographics

The reasons for our concernabout a continued flow of inno-vative human resources movinginto the labor force are derivedfrom the following demographictrends:

1) The population is aging as aresult of better health care andnutrition and as the younger gen-erations are giving birth to fewerchildren. Life expectancy has in-creased since 1900 from 48.2years to 69.7 years for whitemales and 51.1 years to 77.3 yearsfor white females. Even moredramatic aze the'increases in lifeexpectancy for blacks, from 32.5years in 1900 for males to 64.1years and from 35 years to 72.6years for females. The average

,household has decreased since1790 from 5.79 persons to 3.14 in1970 (which included extendedfamilies) but the birthrate hasalso been decreasing steadilyfrom 55.2 per thousand in 1820to 18.4 per t' ousand in 1970 andonly 13.8 per thousand for whitefemales in 1976. The "greying ofAmerica" portends ominously, forinnovation is primarily the prov-ince of the young, according toconventional wisdom.

2) Unprecendented numbers ofwomen are entering the laborforceapproximately one millionmore each year. By the first halfof 1979, about 43 million women51 percent of all women over16--were in the work force.Women as a percentage of thecivilian labor force have increasedtheir numbers from 32.3 percentin 1960 to 41.2 percent in 1979.7'Woman are less than 6 percent ofscientists and engineers and atiny fraction of technicians andcraft workers. Despite affirmativeaction, they continue to be pri-marily in traditional female-domi-nated fields.

3) Minority youth are prolifer-ating both by higher birth ratesand immigration, legal and illegal,from south of the border. Projec-tions of current trends from 3.1million in 1960 to 19 million todayindicate Americans of Spanishethnic derivation will be our larg-est minority by the year 2000.Those of 'Hispanic and Afro de-

13

scent represent an abnormallyhigh ratio of the unemployed ;

compared with the overall unem-ployment rate of 6.3 percent inthe first quarter of 1979, blackshave twice as much unemploy-ment at 12.8 percent and Hispan-ics at 8.3 percent. It 'is a commonconcern that such youths areoften discouraged from criticaleducational training which is pre-requisite to careers in science andmathematics ; as well as later em-ployment in high technology com-panies.

B. Trends in Education

Public education in the UnitedStates is a matter of public con-cern in general, but we are par-ticularly concerned 'about trendswhich augur ill for the future ifwe wish to foster the, identifica-tion and development of innova-tive talents:

1) Proposition 13 fever meansfewer financial resources for pub-lic education.

2) The "back to basics" move-ment treats science as a fringebenefit which can be cut from thecurriculum.

3) Competency tests tend todrive all education toward a na-tional median level of acceptabil-ity. Thus, the primary purpose ofpublic school education is directedtoward a remedial goal ratherthan attaining excellence.

4) The separation of vocational

7

education from the college boundor academically oriented curricu-lum leads to a two track systemwhich discourages the manuallytrained from developing their con-ceptual abilities and may alsohandicap the intellectually giftedfrom the kind of "hands on" ex-periences which may include thelikelihood that they will becomeinnovators.

5) In their march toward egali-tarianism, public schools haveneglected the special needs of theacademically gifted and unusuallytalented from whom innovationsare most likely to come. Indeed,some school systems are now rec-ognizing that the problems of the"severely gifted" can be at leastas difficult to handle as those ofthe disadvantaged and physicallyor psychologically handicapped.

C. Trends in InstitutionalStructure

The American dream persistsas one rugged individual conquer-ing the world, and the researchliterature on entrepreneurshipsupports the thesis that the smallcompany is a seed bed for innova-tion. However, the historicaltrend is toward larger and largerentities for better managementand more efficient utilization ofeconomic resources. This trendpersists for business, government,and educational institutions alike.

8

Although small companies pro-duce more patents per capita, 35percent of the R & D in the coun-try resides in only eight largecompanies and 80 percent of it isin the Fortune 500. Thus, the hu-man resources for innovation aremore likely to reside in large com-panies where the marketing skillsand capital to support develop-ment are readily available. Thesuccessful marketing of a newproduct most often occurs in awell established corporation whichis seeking new products and serv-ices, but also has the workingcapital and skills to couple inven-tion with consumer demand. Also,small start-up companies operatemost effectively in a symbiotic re-lation to large companies whichmay give birth to innovationthrough an exodus of talent whichfeels stifled or through active en-couragement and capital invest-ment in the new venture. The par-ent company or another largecompany may later provide devel-opment capital by acquisition ormerger. For instance, Bell Labsspawned. Texas Instruments, IBMspawned Amdahl, Control. Datagave birth to Cray computers, andFairchild fathered the entire Sili-con Valley complex of small spe-cialty electronics companies in theSan Francisco Bay area. Many ofthese companies now supply com-ponents or services to the com-panies that 'gave rise to them andin turn use their products and

services. However, the success ofsuch spinoffs depends on the ex-istence of considerable venturecapital which in turn depends onan atmosphere of optimism to-ward the future. In view of therecent wave of regulatory nega-tives as well as the problems ofinflation, very few spinoffs haveoccurred recently as compared tothe period of 1955-65.

On the other side of the coin,some capital-flush companiesmerge with innovative but capitalpoor small companies, which thenbecome branches or subsidiariesof the large company. GeneralTire absorbed Aerojet General, arocket manufacturer ; Rockwellpicked up a number of smallercompanies once associated withNorth American Aircraft; Gen-eral Motors, General Electric,RCA, Honeywell, have all ex-panded in part through acquisi-tion of small innovative compan-ies. It is important therefore toplace high priority on improvingthe corporate, environment andnurturing its human resources aswell as, in encouraging cooperationwith universities to optimize thechances of eventually fertilizingthe soil for innovation.

Moreciver, we must be con-cerned about management of hu-man resources for innovationwithin the corporate environmentas well as the education of deci-sion makers who influence corpor-ate choices for product develop..

14........

ment. The reality of corporate in-novation is a far cry from theThomas Edison image to whichthe public clings 8 and requiressubstantial teamw ork and com-plex interaction among individu-als with a variety of skills.

The management of a largepublic sector and non-profit insti-tutions is at least as troublesomeas those of larger corporations.Here the profit motive or growth

/rate provides no measure of suc-cess. Yet the decisions concerninggrants from foundations and gov-ernment agencies, as well asdirect procurement and develop-ment of public policy in govern-mental institutions requires asensitivity and understanding ofthe innovative processand last,but by no means least, the man-agement of large universities af-fects the working environmentsof that category of human re-sources from which the greatestexpectations exist for ideas tofuel the innovative process.

D. Trends in the InternationalEnvironment

For years America has been themecca for the technologically as-piring countries of the world. Thebest and brightest of the develop-ing worldIndia, China, and the-South American and African na-tionshave flocked to Americanuniversities and corporations tolearn the latest science and tech-nology which could then be ap-

4

plied back home. Similarly theUnited States has held special at-tractions for the Germans andJapanese, whose own centers oflearning had been depleted duringand after World War II. Thebrain drainthe movement ofleading innovators from abroad tothe United Stateswas a signifi-cant factor in United States tech-nological growth in the fifties andearly sixties.

Today both Japan and Germanyhave strengthened their educa-tional institutions and have devel-

oped techniques which might bestimulating for the United Statesto learn. A substantial increase inpatents granted 'in the UnitedStates to Germans and Japanesein the last ten years indicates thatthese countries must be doingsomething technologically right.

However, the United Statesfinds itself ill positioned to take

1 5

advantage of these developments.For one thing, the number ofU. S. citizens who are literate Inany foreign language is small,This was underscored recentlywhen the White House had toscurry to find a Chinese interpre-ter in., anticipation of the recentvisit of the Vice Premier of thePeoples Republic of China. Aqualified individual was locatedonly at the last moment. ThePresidential Commission on For-eign Languages recently reportedthat the number of United Statescolleges requiring a foreign /Ian-.guage for admission has fallendramatically from only 34 percentin 1966 to a sparse 8 percent to-day, a "scandalous incompetence",

according to the commission, in acountry which purports to leadthe world diplomatically as wellas technologically.

innova-tion

encouragement of mnova-tionfueled by the ideas of Scien-tists and engineers abroad 17011 begreatly helped by changes inAmerican education. We will'need heightened foreign languagetraining, as well as the increasedtranslation and distribution of lit-erature related to innovation fromforeign sources as recommendedby President Carter in his Octo-ber 31, 1979 message to Con-gress. In addition, we should in-crease reciprocal exchanges ofscholars and technicians withcountries from which we have as-much to learn as they from us.

9

^( 4

2"-

**4

**1!%?,

16

-16

VI. Exploding Myths About Innovation

There are three myths aboutthe innovative process which wewould like to dispell:

1) That scientific discovery andinvention are isolated activitieswhich take place in ivory towersand/or garages.

2) That scientists and engi-neers are a strange breed of ani-mals.

3) That education for innova-tion takes place only in publicschools and universities.

The optimum learning environ-ment that can nurture innovationcontinues to be something that iselusive. But one thing is sureisolation seldom produces any-thing new. The myth of the gen-ius locked in a remote ivory towerdeveloping an earth shakingbreakthrough continues to be justthat, a myth. Only the social andintellectual exchanges that occurthrough formal and informal net-works of communication and in-spiration will generate sparksthat fire up the spirit of those in-dividuals who will become the in-novators of tomorrow. To quoteDr. Allen S. Russell, Vice Presi-dent for Science and Technology,Aluminum Company of America:

"While the hero concept is acharming notion, it has little basisin fact. For surely, few of man-kind's great inventions and dis-coveries were the result, of oneperson's perception, talent, or wis-dom. Rather the germ of an ideamust grow and swell in the mindsof many people, until one day thehero adds the spark that makesit a workable entity." °

We reject C. P. Snow's "otherculture" as a model. Scientistsand engineers are human beingsvery much like other human be-ings. They watch football, go tothe movies, 4nd live in large met-ropolitan areas in much the sameway other citizens do. Two of themost successful communities' forinnovative enterprise in recentyears have been Boston's Route#12S, and San Francisco's "Sili-con Valley". Both areas have firstrate universities, a high level ofcultural activity, and ample op-portunities for recreation. Manyscientists/engineers are musi-cians, opera lovers, sailors,.moun-tain climbers, even devotees ofthe Grand Ole Opry. To suggestotherwise, as television often

7

does, will accelerate tle exodus oftalented young people from thefields of science and technology.

Concerning the third myth ofpublic schools and universitieshaving a corner on educationwenote that learning takes place atdiverse times and in odd placeswatching television, reading abook, visiting a museum, walkingthrough the woods, or engagingin lively conversation with one'scolleagues. Indeed, as the educa-tional system comes under moreand more stress and has less rele-vance to today's world, less educa-tion takes place inside formaleducational institutions and moreby individual acquisition. More-over, as the pace of technologicalchange accelerates, more trainingoccurs on the job or in a corporateenvironment where the skills areknown and the new knowledgegenerated.

11

Gv

, A

18

V11. Understanding Innovation Environments

What are the social forces atwork in our society which may in-hibit our ability to innovate?What social levers can we pushor pull which may improve ourchances to innovate? Many ofthese factors have been identifiedand addressed by the Departmentof Commerce. New policies havebeen recommended by the Presi-dent, Congressional and industryleaders. It was not our intentionto duplicate, analyze, or replicatethese efforts. What we have triedto address are the longer termenvironmental factors which af-fect the development of humanresources for technological inno-vation. Those we have identifiedare neither intended to be exhaus-tive nor all inclusive. We are_merely taking another small stepto improve our understanding ofourselves as an innovative peo-ple. We have identified some ofthe learning experiences whichstimulate, nourish, and encourageinnovative skills. We hope thissmall but intensive effort willstimulate others to more thought-ful, careful, and long term consid-eration of these problems.

A. Informal Learning Environ-ments

1. Parenting and PersonalContact

"When I was a boy Dad and Itook long walks in the woods andhe showed me things I wouldnever have noticed by myself. Hetold me about the world and howit looked many years ago. Hewould say: 'See this leaf? It hasa brown line; part of it is thinand part thick. Why?' And whenI tried to answer my father wouldmake me look at the leaf and seewhether I was right and then hewould paint out that the line wasmade by an insect that devotes itsentire life to that project. Andfor what purpose? So thatit canleave eggs which turn into newinsects."

"My father taught me continu-ity and harmony in the world. Hedidn't know anything exactly,whether the insect had eight legsor a hundred legs, but he under-stood everything. And I was inter-ested because there was alwaysthis kick at the enda revelationof how wonderful nature reallyis."

Thus Richard Feynman,_ a No-bel Prizewinning theoretical phys-

icist, reminisces and intimatesthat stimulation and encourage-ment and early background areimportant considerations in devel-oping inne-.-ativethe sciences. To what extent, ofcourse, is not known. In one of thefew studies extant, Ann Roe stud-ied the backgrounds of leadingscientists and mathematicians andfound that in most cases it wasnot the father's influence whichwas most important but that ofa loving, caring mother with artis-tic or musical talents who tookher son to art galleries, concerts,and museums.

We know that learning does notstart when a child enters schoolnor stop when the young adultreceives the imprimatur of anM.R.A., LLB., J.D., or Ph.D. Thus,we are concerned about the par-enting process both prior to andduring the school years. We needto know more about the familyenvironment which sparks crea-tivity and risk taking and themanner in which families or re-lated individuals learn together orsupport each-other through read-ing books and watching television,excursions to historical sites, suchas Kitty Hawk or Cape Canaveral,and museums such as the Smith-

13

sonian or San Francisco's Explor=atorium where both children andadults can experience physicalphenomena and the excitement ofscientific discovery. We also needto focus on community organiza-tions such as Girl Scouts, BoyScouts, and Junior Achievementwhich pair young people with,adults of special talents and skillswhich neither parents nor schoolscan provide. We need to under-'stand the mutual support systemswhich provide an underpinningfor or motivation to innovate. Forexample, although, the phenome-non of a large number of theoreti-cal physicists having come fromHungary and through a specifichigh school in Budapest is wellknown (e.g., Edward Teller, PeterGoldmark), what is not so wellknown is that all did not receivethe same educational training, butall of their families were wellknown to each other so that thekey ingredient may have been cul-turally rather than institutionallybased. The existence of an intel-lectually supportive network ofhuman beings, "the invisible col-lege", seems to foster innovationas does the mentor relationship orapprenticeship. The one surround-ing Albert Einstein was called,"The Olympian Academy", andone organized by BenjaminFranklin was called, "The JuntoSociety".

The role of early childhood con-tactsand supportive networks

14

of parents and relatives andfriendshas not been well ex-plored. Such a study might shedlight on the underpinnings of in-novative success in the individual.

2. Toys as a Teaching Tool

In his autobiography, the mav-erick inventor, Peter Goldmark,recalls that one of the early influ-ences on his career was the toyshe found in a neighborhood store.Such things as a "coherer", apredecessor of the radio, and avariety of lighting gadgets fasci-nated him and led him to developan interest in electronics.

We need to understand betterthe role of toys in _the' learningprocess and whether or not pa-rental or other supervision is anecessary ingredient to successfulabsorption of useful information.Interestingly enough, since mostof the social research on televisionhas, been federally funded, thebulk of the findings are related tothe deleterious effect of sex andviolence in television upon the ac-tions of children.1° Virtually noth-ing has been generated to deter-mine what positive effects mayhave resulted, for example, fromthe vast coverage of the space ex-ploration and moon landing whichappear to have spawned a newgeneration of television programslike "Star Trek", `Battleship ,Ga-lactica", "The Six Million DollarMan", "Bionic Woman", and mul-

<

timillion dollar movie successessuch as "Star Wars" as Well astheir toy counterparts. These rep-resent a substantial portion of the$3.4 billion a year toy market or$95 per year per child which is in-vested in this informal learningenvironment of childhood." Weare reminded in observing theproliferation of science fictionprograms and their toy offspringof Sir Arthur Clarke's comment :

"The purpose of science fictionis to prepare people to accept thefuture without pain and to en-courage flexibility of mind. Poli-ticians should read science fictionnot westerns and detectivestories." '2

If we wish to encourage innova-tion rather than destruction wemay be encouraged by the in-creasing popularity of computergames (10 percent of the toymarket) over toy pistols, tanks,and submarines. Public policycould provide tax incentives forthe development of toys whichspark imagination and encourageinnovatior_ in much the same waywe foster investment in solar en-ergy or exploration of gas and oil.It could also insure that researchon the interrelationship betweenchildhood play and learning skillsis thorough and readily availableto toy manufacturers who deter-mine the nature of this importantlink in the innovative: process.

3. Film and Drama

It has been a while since thepopurlar dramatizations of the daytreated sympathetically the livesof the hero-inventor-entrepre-neur, The age of the generationwhich thrilled to Don Ameche'sAlexander Graham Bell, or thelives of Edison, Louis Pasteur,and Madame Curie, is now over50. No comparable modern ver-sions of the lives of inventorsChester Carlson, Edwin Land, orDavid Packard have appeared.Even the entrepreneurial successof Ray Kroc's MacDonald Ham-burger or Colonel Sander's Ken-tucky Fried Chicken has notattracted film or dramatic at-tention. Instead our film heroeshave focused on pop stars likeElvis Presley and Elton John orsocial deviants like' "Bonnie andClyde". The film has made atragic hero out of anti-technolo-gists as in the case of Jack Lem-mon in "The China Syndrome"who died while trying to convincethe world of the dangers in nu-clear generating plants.

In a recent review of innovationon the motion picture screen from1939 to 1976, George Comstockdiscovered that only 3.6 percentof the 15,000 films depicted inno-vative activities at all." Moreover,the trends were historically pat-terned both by genre and by peri-od. While dramatic presentationswere the more dominant vehicle

during World War II and itsaftermath (1939-52), the por-trayal was les- crequent, but theimpression vF ' more posi-tive. Darin era(1953-1963) 7 ,tnamWar years ( there wasmore freque ,en' 7-ion ofinnovation hi fL_--orablecomrnenfary

Science fic, is and horrorfilms (of which auuut three quar-ters are science fiction) were thepredominant vehicle in the Sput-nik and Vietnam years. However,science fiction and horror films(41 percent of the films) pre-sented a most pessimistic view ofinnovation as did comedy. Aboutone of four of both science fictionand comedy films presented anunsuccessful attempt at innova-tion when the failure rate in thedramatic film was a mere 2 per-cent. Moreover, the science fictionportrayed not a single instance inwhich positive attributes of theinnovator played a role. Ill conse-:quences were credited with halfthe successes and the other halfcredited chance. Contrary toknown fact that innovation israrely the work of a single mind,in 75 percent` of the films the in-novator was a loner with another10 percent attributing the workto a partnership. However, re-flecting the current reality, 92percent of the films portray inno-vation as a province for malesonly, although the trend has been

21

downward from 95 percent in theSputnik period to 87 percent inthe seventies. As far as ethnicityis concerned, innovation on filmis predominantly a North Ameri-can (50 percent) and European(40 percent) phenomenon with noAfrican participation.

The motivation prompting theinnovation was more often malev-olent in science fiction (38.46percent), benevolent in drama(64.29 percent), and monetary incomedy (36.84 percent). The con-sequences are more often negativein science fiction but more oftenpositive in drama (51.72 percent)or comedy (46.15 percent).

As far as offering attractiverole models for young people tofollow, the films as a rule moreoften portray negative conse-quences (usually death) for theinno,tdr and more than twice asoften- negative consequences forother individuals, groups, or soci-ety. When the innovator is notdepicted as decidedly malevolent,he is usually depicted as mad orconsumed by the' excitement ofconception without regard to thesocial effects. Thus, the messageseems to come through stronglyand clearly that innovation is amighty risky business because ifthe peril is not immediately ap-parent, it is bound to hit yousooner or later. "The Nutty Pro-fessor", a 1963 Jerry Lewis film,is probably typical of the comicportrayal of innovationthe dis-

15

a

covery of an elixir which trans-forms the bumbling loner inept inthe social graces and unattractiveto the opposite sex into a suave,debonair, pianist-singer who isadored by the female studentswho formerly scorned inim. Themessage is clearget out of thelab ii you want to be loved. Somuch for the contribution of filmto motivating young people to be-come innovators.

One might take heart in thedeclining theater attendance, adecrease from an average 85-90million persons weekly from 1939-1948, during which period dramapresented innovation favorably, toonly 40-44 million per week for1960-65. However, one must keepin mind that the theater audienceis predominantly young, 15 per-cent are 2-15 years old and 60percent are aged 16-29. Moreover,the theater attendance must heaugmented by the national TVaudience of approximately 28 mil-lion daily in the afternoons andlate evenings when movies domi-nate the TV screen.

What we must ask ourselves iswhether exposure to films influ-ences our opinions c merely re-flects them. Certainl- the subiectmatter of such dramatic produc-tions reflects general social andpolitical trends. It is no small co-incidence that three Lew plays onBroadway treat severely handi-capped, two contenders for theAcademy Award involved return-

16

ing disabled Vietnam veterans,and special:- about retarded,sightless, am: dsycholog,ically dis.tilrbed child l :in are finding their

-ay to the television screer..

The federal government is not!ompletely lost as far as making

direct investment in diversify-ing the m.3rketplace for films sinceapproximately $1.5 billion dollarsin films is funded by the U. S. goy-,ernment directly ; many of thesefind th,..1. way into the school sys-tem. The greatest leverage thatthe federal government may pro-vide to address the long termproblem is through investment inthe education of film makers, in-dependent producers, and writerswho serve both the television andmovie industries since peoplewho write and produce both docu-mentary and fictional drama aremore likely to treat subjectswhich they understand and withwhich they feel comfortable.

However, this is not to advo-cate federal involvement in thecontent of entertainment, butmerely t') underscore the inade-quacies of an educational systemwhich' segregates most studentsfrom exposure to technologicallyoriented subjects. For they can-not portray sympathetically sub-jects about which they have along-standing aversion. Surely thisis an anomaly of an educationalstructure which a society depen-dent for its economic health on

22

technological innovation cannottolerate.

4. Books and Magazines

The influence of books and arti-cles on the lives of inventorsseems well established. Marconiread of Hertz which sparked hisinterest in electronic communica-tion;" Carlson went to the publiclibrary to ...._glean informationabout image processing fromwhich he launched. xerography.15The early antecedent of theAmerican Philosophical Society,the Junto, founded by BenjaminFranklin, promoted the establish-ment of the postal service to fos-ter and encourage the exchangeof written communication be-tween peer groups of thinkers or"invisible col!eges"."

Books and articles proliferate.We spend an average of $35.00per person per year on bookswhich may be found on almostany subject. On a technical level,many computer services Laveemerged that offer bibliographicinformation on almost any sub-ject desired. On the:popular levelmagazines on science are more di-verse and widespread than ever;The largest'and most popular sci-ence magazines are showing anannual growth of 18 percent innewsstand circulation and 14 per-,cent total circulation. No othermagazine category approaClesthis growth. Popular Science, and

Smithsonian each have circula-tions of approximately two mil-lion, roughly double that of thenew Life tine, Look magazines.Scientific American sells moreover- the - counter ,:oPies than Es-quire and has roughly double theoverall circulation of this maga-zine as well as the New Yorker,Harper's, and the Atlantic.

Moreover, during the past yeartwo more popular science maga-zines have hit the market:

1) Omni, which combines sci-ence fiction with scientific fact,and

2) Science 80, a popular vehicleby the American Association for-the Advancement of Science in-tended to reach :he general publicrather than th scientific publicwhich is served Dy Science maga-zine.

Three other publishers have an-nounced plans for science maga-zines : Time, Inc., Hearst, andVNU, a Dutch concern.

Most of the major newspapershave science writers on theirstaffs and THE NEW YORKTIMES has started publishing aspecial science section severaltimes a week.

There does not seem to be anyreason for concern about thepaucity of written material or itsaccessibility at the present time.Paperbacks are generally avail-able at modest cost, and we areunaware of any severe deficienciesin library resources within easy

reach of most citizens.However, there may be a need

to address the question of thefuture of the postal service andits impacl on equitable access tobooks and periodicals which haveenjoyed a subsidy for distribu-tion. We may also find that trans-fer of distribution to electronicservices or on line computerizeddata banks may restrict the avail-ability of material to a smalleruser group. It may also affectprofessional organizations thatprovide editing and publishingservices for their members.

5.. Science MuseumsLearn-ing By Doing or Participa-tory Exploration

For years museums have beenregarded as dusty places wherepeople stared briefly and dully atmummies and old coins. This isno longer true. Museums todayhave taken on a new vitality.They provide a sense of belongingto the excitement of our times.The Explorat -Hum in ^San Fran-cisco offers the opportunity tolearn by participation in activitiesthat bear on modern technology.At the National Air and Space Mu-seum in Washington, visitors canwalk through a space shuttle, andcan come close enough to rocketrythrough dynamic exhibits andmovies to make them feel a partof the adventure. The Museum ofScience and Industry in Chicago

provides interactive computerizeddialogs on economics, energy;communications, food, even afairy castle to emphasize the roleof fantasy to inspireIn view of this it is no surprisethat science centers attract 40million visitors a year, 38 percentof all museum attendance.

A number of museums are ex-ploring innovative outreach pro-grams, presenting astronomy lec-tures in the national parks, tak-ing hands on exhibits into shop-ping malls, conducting eveningscience policy debates and so on.Hundreds of trailside naturecenters have been establishedthroughout the country and manymusuems engage in activities in

' cooperation with the formalschool system.

But the immense potential ofsuch programs is, in,fact, greatlylimited because there is very lit-tle systematic support for thescience museum community.There are national endowmentscha:.ged with the health of thearts an humanities as part of ourcultural heritage. But there is no i\endowment for C. P. Snow's"other culture". Funding for sci-ence museums is inconsistent,sporadic, and largely of local ori-gin, supplemented by occasionalgrants for research, experimentaleducation and public understand-ing of science as well as occasionalsupport for an "artistic" or "hu-manities" related event. Science

17

centers are not even considered"educational" institutions byeither the federal grant agenciesor the corporate or founthitionworld. In a technological culture,where science and technology arethe "humanities" of our time, thisis incongruous.

6. TelevisionThe PervasiveTeacher

Most of us know by now thatpeople of all ages spend moretime in front of television thanthey do anywhere else except inbed. Many people combine thetwo. What is the effect of all thisviewing on the atmosphere forinnovation?

Although television may not bethe place where substantiveknowledge for the innovator isacquired, it is the most en-vironment where an early interestin children may be sparked andwhere the public will acquire thebulk of its understanding abouttechnological innovation, if onlybecause that is where both chil-dren and adults spend the mosttime. It is also the place whereinnovators may learn about thepublic attitudes and tastes towhich they must relate if theyare to be successful, Televisionviewing is a passive pastime.Even if the only piece of usefulinformation is the overwhelmingamount of time spent sittingrather than doing, that has impli-cations for innovative activities.

18

We know from research find-ings that TV watchers do not usu-ally discriminate about what towatchthe decision is to turn theset on or off.?' Thus, some of usmay discount the potential for op-timization of innovation throughthe use of the TV screen. How-ever, even if we assume that tele-vision is primarily an entertain-ment medium and not expected tobear the burden of explainingwhat E =MC2` means to the lay-man,18 nonetheless, we must beconcerned about the cultural teeswe absorb from this very power-ful medium which eats up somuch of our time, and fromwhich the majority of us receiveour only source of daily news."

In this pervasive informationenvironment, we know that manyperceptions of reality are skewedto the TV version on the 17"screen. Thus, the absence of pro-grams about science and technol-ogy may be as significant as theavailable images.

The Annenberg School of Com-munications at the University ofPennsylvania which has a database of 1,400 programs since1967, found more than half in-volved a science related themeand about 5 percent have scienceor technology as a major theme.Of the 15,006 character protray-als, however, only 1 percent wereportrayed in science related ac-tivities and 100 as scientists.However, the studies reflect the

24

net effect of the exposure to tele-vision on the public's confidencein the scientific community. /Whileonly college educated whites havea confidence level of over 50 per-cent even with light viewing, theconfidence level falls perceptiblywith heavy television viewing forall categories except non-whites.They start from such a very lowpercentage (19 percent) express-ing confidence that the 15 percentwhose attitudes are changed onlybrings those expressing confi-dence up to one third of the blackrespondents. Even more disturb-ing is that the level of confidencedrops the greatest (14 percent)among the college educated whoare heavy viewers.

If television gives us our cul-tural cues, most Americans de-rive from television their atti-tude's about doctors, lawyers, po-litical leaders, policemen,20 scien-tists, engineers, and businessmen.

Ben Stein in a recent book, TheView from Sunset Boulevard, hasrevealed how small in number arethe television writers and produc-ers who dominate the content ofthe TV screen.

"As I was writing this book, itbecame clear that Kracaaer'sthesisthat popular culture rep-resents and reflects nationaldreams and nightmaresis un-true in the case of prime-timetelevision. Television in this caserepresents nothing more than the

views of a few hundred people inthe western section of LosAngeles." 21

Ironically; although these fewrepresent the realization of theAmerican dream of a truly mobilesociety in which the ethnic mi-grant may rise from the ghetto,through education, risk taking,personal effort, and imaginationto becom.e, a millionaire andmany of them do, their view ofthe fruits of entrepreneurialspirit is quite negative.

According to Stein, the Holly-wood view is that the entire worldis run at worst by a conspiracyof bankers, financiers, and theMafia-, or at best by "a consortiumof former Nazis and executivesof multinational corporations". 22

Not only is the Horatio AlgerSyndrome, which dominated nine-teenth century literature, dead,the social indicators are inverted.One producer described business-men as "cannibals" (seeking noth-ing but profit) who distrust bril-liant people. The ladder to successon TV is marked by greed andcheating. People on television arenever motivated by social ethic,but only by personal gain.23

"It is also a world that largelyinverts traditional standardsof what is good and worthwhile.Education on television isabsolutely valueless. Generally, ahighly educated man is a fool

or a knave. Deep thought is thevillain's tool.... and only villainshave a library." 24

If television programs, like film,are giving the impression that in-ventors are as nutty as fruit-cakes, scientists are bent on de-stroying the world, and business-men are avaricious monsterswithout heartsthen childrenare more likely to choose to be aglamorous "Policewofnan" or aurivate eye like Rockford. If our"best and brightest" shun sci-ence, engineering, and businessfor law school, then we are morelikely to end up with more intri-cate, imaginative, and effectiveregulation« than innovative newproductsas recent histo..y mayprove more accurately than somemight have wished. Indeed, if theonly negative result on television

1"

ris the survival of the math andscience avoidance syndrome, astransmitted by the actors, writers,and producers who package ourtelevision fare, that may prove asubstantial inhibition to publicsupport of the innovative process.

However, if television has greatpotential to transit cognitive in-forniation (Bogatz and Ball, 1971,Alper and Leidy, 1970, Ward,1972) and/or is the most powerfuleducational tool of our time(Newsweek, Febru'ary, 1977) assome proponents believe, then wemust be concerned about the fac-tual content of televised informa-tion, as well as cultural cues, andthe underutilization of this med-ium for educational purposes. Cer-tainly, P3 Daniel Boorstin has ob-served, television is one of themost democratizing forces of ourtime since it is inherently avail-

.

Scientists On Network Dramatic Television

The Average Viewer ofNetwork Dramatic. Television All Speaking Total WomenWill See: Characters Scientists Scientists

Total Major Total Major Total Major

Weekend Daytime (per week) 136 41 3 1

Prime Time (per week) 300 69 1.5 .5TOTALS 436 110 4.5 1.5

Weekend Daytime (per year) 156 52 10 1Prime Time (per year) 78 26 19 8

TOTALS 234 78 29

Of these major -_,haracters,the following c1/0 are:

Daytime Prime Timeok

Scientistsok

All Charactersok

Scientistsok

-Ali Characters

Clearly "Good" 36 60 54 59Clearly "Bad"\ 48 16 15 12Clearly "Succeed" 29 44 54 36Cjearly, "Fail" 43 21 16 16Commit Violence 52 50 62 42Suffer Violence 57 69 46 "46

20

Contribution of Television Viewing to Expressing "High" Confidence in the Scientific Community

National Opinion Research Corporation General Social Survey, 1975 (N.558)

Percent Expressing "High" Confidence

CD*

Light Viewersof TV

Heavy Viewersof TV

All respondents 49 40 _9**College educated 58 44 14**Whites 51 41 10**Non Whites 19 34 +15***Males 48 44 4Females 49 37 12**News readersdaily 50 43 7Sometime news readers 40 33 13**

*"Cultivation Differential"(CD) is % difference between light and heavy viewers**Difference is statistically significant

***This CD was not statistically significant and did not hold up in subsequent surveysThese are preliminary results of a pilot study for the National Science Foundation's Public Under-standing of Science Program. k comes from a large project called Cultural Indicators which has beenstudying dramatic' network television and viewers' conceptions of social reality. For more information,write George Gerbner, The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel-phia, Pennsylvania 19104.

able to all 25 yvith TV in 99 percentof American homes, 50 percentwith two or more sets. Moreover,the number of channels availablefor viewing has proliferated phe-,nomenally over the last few years :96 percent of United States homesreceive four or more stations, 65percent receive seven or more TVsignals, and 27 percent receiveten or more." So the three com-mercial networks can no longermonopolize television service to

the American people. indeed, over30 percent of the nation's familieshave access to cable systems with12 or more channels of serviceand 18 percent are already sub-scribing to cable service with over2 million subscribing to addi-tional programming." Alreadyeighteen different programmingservices are being transmitted tosuch subscribers via satellite andthe Public Broadcasting Servicehas the capability to transmit

three, soon four, different pro-grams simultaneously. Thus, iftelevision is a major educationalenvironment, as many believe,then the opportunities for diverseprogramming to specialized audi-ences are becoming more andmore available. The challenge isto find the will and the way tofund programs which will capturethe imagination of the audiencefor truly the TV set in the livingroom or bar, shopping center or,

21

schoolroom, provides access to allto a wider variety of informationthan currently available. Whetherfor entertainment, information,or instruction, TV will play a rolein the innovative process whetherplanned or unorchestrated.

Thus, we believe a high prioritymust be to mobilize both publicand private resources so we mayoptimize the use of this informaleducational environment to im-prove lifelong learning and stim-ulate innovation.

The federal government canplay, an important role in thisendeavor. The federal involve-ment today is not negligible.HEW has been a major investorin ''!Sesame Street" ($46.2 r ni-non) , the most successful educa-tional television venture to date.Other programs have been sub-sidized to bring minorities intothe educational process. CTW, theproducer of "Sesame Street", hasrecently launched a new televisionseries, "3-2-1 Contact", to stimu-late an interest in science amongjunior high school students. It isjointly funded by NSF andHEW/OE and United Technol-ogies Corp., but this is only asmall beginning to tackle a verylarge problem.

Previously the only regularprogram on science was "Nova",produced weekly by WGBH-Bos-ton for PBS. The audience is esti-mated at 5 million. Another pro-gram developed by the BBC,

22

sponsored for public television byAT&T, is "Connections", whichis a free wheeling examination ofthe evolution of familiar tech-nological discoveries. In view ofgrowing public interest in science,however, some attempts should bemade to draw commercial televi-sion into this area.

7. Prizes and AwardsTheJoy of Achievement

In his autobiography, TheWind and Beyond, Theodore vonKarman, the great Hungarian-born aerodynamicist, relates howa national mathematics prize, inHungary known as the EotvosPrize, led to the eventual develop-ment of the world's leadingthinkers in mathematical sci-ences. "I tried out for the prizeand to my delight I managed towin," von Karman reports. "NowI note that more than half of allthe famous expatriate Hungarianscientists and almost all the wellknown ones in the United Statessuch as Edward Teller, LeoSzilard, and the late John vonNeumann have won the. prize. Be-tween von Neumann and me thereis a twenty year difference in ageso one sees the continuity startedby this competition. . . ."

Prizes and awards help to nur-ture early the rare talents thatmay go on to become the great in-novators of their time. Participa-tion in science fairs, the winning

28

of fellowships and scholarships,and other forms of recognitionhave historically stimulated youngpeople to proceed with their ca-reers in science and technology.Such awards are of course helpfulto young people whose familiesdo not have the funds to supportpromising talent.

Howe\ er, one must recognizethat not all awards are equallymeritorious. Some of them re-ward patterns of behavior thatare not necessarily reflective ofthe innovative spirit. They mayreward the ability to acquire bookinformation without sparking aninquisitive or creative mind whichthe Eotvos Prize was designed todetect. Under such circumstancesthe prize might hamper ratherthan encourage the innovativespirit.

New tests should be devisedthat help point out these distinc-tions among prize winners. TheOffice of Education has madesome moves in this direction butneeds further reinforcement. In-sights into both the creati,Te andentreprenuerial talents encourageinnovation within the corporateenvironment as well as in theschools.

Widely publicized awards mayalso convey a sense of the impor-tance of innovation to the public.Since most successful innovatorsare rewarded by the free enter-prise system through the accumu-lation of financial wealth, it might

be useful to establish a prizewhich is awarded to a person orinstitution named by the inno-vator as most influential in earlychildhood development and moti-vation. The chain of innovationcan thus be given a personalizedidentity and recognition.

13. Formal Learning Environ.7ments1. Public Schools

Marshall McLuhan once re-marked that kids don't like publicschool because it interferes withtheir education. This is not justan irreverent cynicism. Moststudies of innovative individuals,particularly in the sciences, donot regard the formal part oftheir schooling as the primarysource of their inspiration. Theymay have first been motivated bya teacher, but they usually attri-bute early inquisitiveness to apersonal contact often outside theformal curricuum. Thus, GlennSeaborg, the eminent nuclear sci-entist, has nothing but praise fora high school teacher who en-couraged him to study the physicsthat led him eventually to theNobel Prize. Very often the suc-cess of a given school is due to theinfluence of a single teacher. Thiswas true in the education ofFermi and was also true of theteachers of the Minta, the modelgymnasium in Budapest whichinfluenced the lives of such sci-

entists as Szilard (atom bomb),von Neumann (computer), Teller(H-bomb), and 'von Harman (su-personic aerodynamics). TheseHungarian scientists later pro-vided the theoretical foundationsof the technological age in Amer-ica.

Of course the effect of teachingor the lack of it does depend onthe student.; As Peter Ustinovsaid : "About science Einstein andI had only this in common. Weboth hated the way it was taughtto us in school. He transcendedthat. I drowned in it." 28

On the other hand, an inquir-ing mind may overcome disadvan-tages of early environment. It issaid that the black scientistGeorge Washingt Carverwhowas denied acce , to the whiteschool of his communitywouldsurreptiously plant himself out-side a school window and listento the lectures of \ the whiteteacher, leaving the scene beforehe was caught. This formed thebasis of his education, most of itself-managed, that led him even-tually to produce his remarkablecontributions to science.

Because the education systemis the basic source of ind vidualswho will provide increasednological capacity for the na on,the nature of the educatio en-terprise, including the use of thebest technological practice? appli-cations of the latest understand-ings, and attitudes toward inno-

29

vation may well be of great sig-nificance. For this reason, it istimely and appropriate to reviewbasic federal education policy todetermine whether some shift ineducational policy is needed togive greater emphasis to qualita-tive and talent development as-pects.

Such a review need not andshould not result in a simple re-version to principles and proce-dures for talent development of25 years ago. Such a review wouldneed to take into account theproblems of increasing the par-ticipation of under-representedgroups, such as minorities andwomen, in the nation's scientificand technical enterprise. There isevidence that traditional methodsof educational selection are in-herently discriminating againstthree groups. Thus, what is re-quired is a new conception of therole of education in stimulatinginnovation and talent develop-ment while facilitating partici-pation of previously excludedgroups.

We are very concerned aboutthe current state of public schooleducation which has been de-scribed in a recent popular news=paper as a mess.29 However, ourconcerns are very different fromthose of the journalist who de-scribed the "mess" as a failure toteach "basic skills". What wefear is that the basic educationalphilosophy is far too biased in the

23

direction of remedial learning andfails to identify, much less fosterthe development of special talentsor unique skills. The UnitedStates educational system is bet-ter at preserving convention thansparking invention, developinglogical rather than conceptualthinking, promoting risk aversionrather than acceptance of change,specialization rather than multi-ple skills, conformity rather thandistinctive talenth, independentrather than joint responsibility.The Follow Through studiesshowed the basic education goodfor developing excellence andrigid discipline, but not so goodfor encouraging high attendance,independence, responsibility, orcreativity.

A recent study of the TaskForce on the Education of theGifted and Talented to the Com-missioner of Education reportsthat the schools are woefully de-ficient in their ability to identifygifted children. A gifted child hasonly one chance in twenty to beidentified by the school system;for the gifted disadvantaged childthe chances are' a factor of tenworse--less than one chance in200. The only category of fivetypes used in whiCh an acceptablelevel of performance is identifiedor recognized is "general intellec-tual ability". Thus, those withspecial academic or creativeskills, or leadership, or manualskills have little chance of being

24

recognized by the school system.Even if the unusually talented arelucky enough to be identified, theamount of money available toenrich their acadetnic programscan only be described as shocking.Although gifted and talented stu-dents comprise 3-5 percent of theschool age population, only .003percent of the federal funds foreducation are allocated for theirbenefit. Even more distressing isthe fact that only fifty teachersare being graduated per yearwith special qualifications toteach gifted children when anestimated 22,560 teachers areneeded. Yet only. 34 institutionsof higher learning offer degreeprograms in teaching the giftedchild. The funding priority at thestate level is no better than atthe national levelless than $60million total annually with 83 per-cent of that spent in only eightstates.

The situation is so bad that onefather has filed a suit for $1 mil-lion in damages against an Illi-nois school district citing as evi-dence of discrimination the factthat Illinois spends only $40 pergifted child while lavishing $740on each handicapped child.3° Thistoken assistance is based on theassumption that the smart chil-dren can teach themselves. Thismay be true for the generally aca-demically gifted whose needsseem reasonably well understoodbut overlooks the fact that the

. .

truly innovative minds are non-conformist. , These questioningand unconventional ways of doingthings may upset the normalteaching routines and create be-havior problems. This may lead toan early squelching of the veryinnovative urges which we seek toencourage. How to save such chil-dren from the boredom of rigidityis a serious question.

Unfortunately, the most oftengiven answer to a parent whorecognizes the special talents is toremove the child from the publicschool to a private school environ-ment. This merely perpetuatesthe situation which currentlyexists with respect to the disa&vantaged but gifted childrennever reaching their potential.Researchers who have looked atthe differences between the leftand right brained characteristicsnote that the logical and analyti-cal left brain traits are easilyidentifiable, whereas the differ-ence between the more visual,holistic, and creative right braintraits make it difficult to distin-guish between true genius andmere eccentricity.

Moreover, we are concernedthat the present trends of back tobasics and dispense with the frillsmore and more' eliminate the"hands on" experience which maybe necessary to develop rightbrained skills which we believeare essential to innovative tech-nologists and managers as well

as creative artists.The current status of science

curriculum in the public schoolsis deplorable with much- taughtby book learning and recitationrather than learning by the joy of,physical discovery. Most sciencein the early grades is taught byteachers who ,:re themselves un-interested in and unfamiliar withthe subject matter and who havelittle or no interaction with sci-entists or engineers in technologi-cally innovative companies. TheNational Science Foundation iscurrently reviewing its programsto develop science. curriculum,since the level of funding hasdropped :Since 1971.

Another of our concerns withthe state of public school educe-

tion in the United States lies withthe tenure system a systemwhich not only protects teachers'jobs in the event of professional,personal, or political differenceswith school administrations, butalso from critical, professionalevaluation which could result indismissals or demands that skillsbe upgraded and/or teachingmethods modified.

The result is an educationalsystem in which dismissals for in-competence -are practically un-heard of and upgrading of teach-ing skills through additional edu-cation or professional organiza-tions is purely voluntary or forpersonal advancement. It shutsout for the most part the best andb,ightest college and university

31

graduates from teaching our chil-dren when declining school enroll-ments result in fewer job open-ings in school systems where themajority of teaching positions areheld by tenured teachers. Theyounger and newer teachers areexcised by the "last in, first out"rule when layoffs occur unlessolder teachers can be enticed toretire.

When the extrinsic reward isjob security and preservation ofthe tenure system is emphasizedover the intrinsic goal, profes-sional excellence, the result is agenerally static teaching popula-tion committed to the status quo,steadily growing older, whoseskills are becoming obsolete and"burnt out" by teaching the samesubjects year after year.

Thus, we are concerned aboutsix critical issues in public schooleducation:

1. The identification and en-couragement of the spe-cially gifted.

2. The decline in support forcurriculum developmentin the sciences.

3. The divergence of aca-demically and manuallyskilled students ratherthan fostering equal op-portunities to develoPboth.

4. The loss of funds for thephysical tools of learning.

5. The Tejuvenation of an

25

aging teaching populationwhich enjoys tenure whilealso suffering from pro-fessional obsolescence.

6. The utilization of outsideresources to supplementthe in-school program.

2. Professional Education forInnovation

Great emphasis has been placedon developing curricula for theprofessional scientist and engi-neer, and United States scientifictraining is second to none. But inrecent years it is increasingly ap-parent that entry into these fieldsis limfted by social and institu-tional barriers. And there is in-creasing concern that our systemtends to "throw away" maturetalent rather than provide supple-mentary opportunities and talent.The reasons for this are complexeconomic and exploitativeand the industrial environment isoften intellectually stultifying. Sothat we tend to hire younger andcheaper talent, rather than ac-cept substantial costs of main-taining the vitality of our moreexperienced technical talent.

Such indiscriminate , culling oftalent by limited entry and has-tening obsolescence is both crueland wasteful, a loss of human re-sources which may be expedientfor individual firms but inestim-ably costly to society. Educationprograms like the MESA program

26

of the Lawrence Hall of Scienceand the continuing education ac-tivities of Bell Laboratories havedemonstrated that such waste isnot necessary. We need fargreater support for efforts tobroaden the pool of potential tal-ent, and we need incentives thatwill encourage industry to main-tain and improve, rather thandiscard its maturing talent.

At the same time we must ad-dress the lack of curricula andtechnological literacy that is char-acteristic of the non-scientist.'Despite the technological natureof our society, there is little con-cern that our managers and deci-sion makers (and reporters andcitizens) generally have only atoken familiarity with the princi-ples of science and technologyaround which our economics andlife styles revolve. We need tochange the image and training ofthe "educated" persons to includea reasonable familiarity with thetechnological culture of our times.

Such an education must differfrom the training of professionaltechnologists an overview ofbasic principles, literacy and his-torical perspective, rather thanthe skills orientation of the pro-fessional. We urge that universi-ties explore the need for suchliteracy and begin to develop andintegrate science curricula in-tended specifically for the mana-ger, decision maker and non-scientists in general. Is it not ap-

32

propriate that degrees in BusinessAdministration, Political Scienceand Journalism should also implya familiarity with the scientificand technical underpinnings ofsociety?

The universities, and particu-larly the engineering schools, canhave a major role to play in fos-tering technological innovationbecause this -prncess depends toan ever increasing degree on sci-entific and technological knowl-edge. Engineering schools willrespond to the needs to preparepeople who can contribute moreeffectively to the process of tech-nological innovation, if this goalis perceived to be important andif the schools are convinced thatthere will be a demand for thestudents that they train.

At present, the engineeringschools are emphasizing far moreanalysis and design than the dis-covery of new laws of nature orthe process of invention and en-trepreneurship. To be sure, a ca-pacity for analysis and designprovides an important element inthe whole process of technologicalinnovation, but is not sufficient toa fostering of innovation.

What is required is not a dras-tic change of the goals of theengineering schools, but somechange in emphasis, so as to makethe schools contribute, throughtheir curricula, their research andtheir public service, to an accel-eration of the rate of discovery

and; above all, of invention andentrepreneurship. This should oc-cur without impairing the tradi-tional role of the engineeringschool to prepare technically com-petent cadres for analysis, designand research.

Since the overwhelming major-ity of the students in the engi-neering schools will still need tobe prepared for these traditionalroles, dual curricular tracksshould be contemplated: A tradi-tional set of tracks, and a set ori-ented more to technological inno-vationtracks for particularlyinventive people or people whosecareer goal is entrepreneurship.

The distinction between thesesets of tracks will be more a mat-ter of orientation and emphasisthan of vastly different subjectmatter. Students in the tracksaimed at encouraging the develop-ment of technological innovationwill generally need most of thecourses of traditional engineeringcurricula. In turn, engineeringstudents in the traditional tracksneed to be exposed and educatedmore deeply to issues pertinent toinnovation, so as to be able tobetter recognize them to be sup-portive in their professional ca-reersin industry, government,or the private profession--of theprocess of innovation.

It will be necessary to recognizethat the orientation towards dis-covery and inventiveness are closeto each other, while the orienta-

tion towards entrepreneurship isquite distinct, rare being the, in-ventor who is also a good entre-preneur. Entrepreneurship re-quires people who have thecapacity to rapidly assimilate, aregifted in human interactions, andhave a well developed businesssense, while the discoverer and in-ventor are more interested in pit-ting their wits against .nature,and may be very poor entre-preneurs.

An essential need of an educa-tion for technological innovationis to provide hands-on experience.For those students with a greaterbent for discovery and innovation,this means access to non-regi-mented laboratory facilities inwhich they can spend as muchtime., as they want and pursuetheir creative ideas wherever theymay take them. For students witha bent toward entrepreneurship,hands-on experience means an op-portunity, as part of their educa-tion, to go through the experienceof assembling capital, ideas, peo-ple, and make a commercial go of .their enterprise.

The engineering schools repre-sent an indispensable element inthe development of an aggressiveposture toward technological in-novation in the country. They canhave a major impact in accelerat-ing the process, but this can beachieved only if the involvementof the engineering schools be-comes systematic and involves all

33

of them, rather than a few se-lected institutions.

Unfortunately, in a period ofessentially stagnant demography,engineering schools are not likelyto greatly expand their faculties,which are today highly tenuredand middle-aged, Thus, theschools cannot be expected tomake substantial commitments tothe development of technologicalinnovation, as outlined, withoutmajor assistance from the federalgovernment, and without a com-mitment from employers to ab-sorb the students who graduatefrom new curricula.

A case can be made that edu-cation for the management .of in-novation is different from educa-tion for carrying on the normalwork of the society; Most of so-ciety's work is performed througheffective and efficient carrying onof normal activities. Innovationby its definition is new and mayrequire different kinds of think-ing.

Law schools train patent law-yers, yet patent law is not consid-ered part of the main stream oflegal education. The legal aspectsof small business practice are nota major part of the law schoolcurriculum. However, as lawschools move into interdiscipli-nary programs, some attention tothe interface between law andtechnology seems imperative.

A special case can be made forgovernment support of research

27

in business and law schools on in-r.livation. Only a few thoughtfulscholars have worked in this field,yet it is one that is important tothe nation. Most of the work willbe basic, but there are many moreimmediately valuable studies andanalyses that can be carried out.

3. The Corporate Environ-ment for Innovation

Bureaucracy is effective in cop-ing with routine, recurring choresand with problems which come uprepeatedly and that can be solvedin the same way. Thus, businessorganizations may be conditionedin such a way as to call for a highdegree of conformity and disci-plined adaptors, not innovators.In such organizations, successfulsolutions tend to be repeated. In-novations are not welcome.

To many corporations, innova-tion is disruptive and createsrisks which often prove difficultto manage. For this reason, manyfirms have mechanisms and con-,trols to keep their momenttini go-

. ing and to keep innovation out ofthe "gears". Often such controlsare instituted ostensibly to en-hance the climate for innovation,but in reality their effect is to di-minish the probability of inno-vation.

Adding to the problem is thefact that many chief executive of-ficers of firms rise to commandprimarily because they are pro-ficient in some functional area

28

like finance, marketing, or law,not because they are creative orunderstand how to create a cli-mate favoring innovation. Thatthey have "succeeded" as execu-,Live; may indicate that they haveshown themselves to be effectivedecision makers. Making deci-sions is a judgmental process, nota creative process. To avoid mak-ing decisions that could later bejudged as mistakes may require,in addition to large amounts ofluck, an enormous amount of in-formation to "reduce the risks offailure in decision making".

At one end of the spectrum ofdecision making, everything isknown. In this comfortable 'regionfor managers, decisions are soeasy to make that they makethemselves. At the opposite endof the decision making spectrumeverything is new. It is a regionwhere comparatively little infor-mation is available to reduce therisk of decision making. It is nota region where many managersand decision makers are comfort-able. Yet, it is where innovationtakes place.

Many business executives andparticularly chief executive offi-cers are under pressure from di-rectors and stockholders to show"growth". In the early 1960's, itbecame fashionable in financialcircles to evaluate company per-formance by the rate of growthas measured by annual percent-age increases in net profits after

34

taxes. The market value of afirm's stock reflected its currentand projected growth perform-ance. Thus, the "price-earningsratio" of a stock (the multiple bywhich the market value of a shareexceeds current earnings pershare) was and is a powerful re-minder of the need to grow. Also,in the mid 1960's, acquisition be-came a fashionable way to grow.There were and are tax and otherincentives which favor acquisi-tion and merger as a strategy forgrowth over investment in effortswhich could lead to innovation.

By the mid 1960's, also, thebusiness literature began to takenote of the risks of innovation. TheBoston Consulting Group releaseda position paper entitled, "Re-search: An Investment or Just aGamble?", stating, "Research forcompletely new products or ven-tures is a form of speculation thatcan hardly be called an invest-ment". Such pronouncementshave had a predictable impacton harried corporate decisionmakers: less investment ih inno-vation; more effort toward ac-quisitions and mergers.

Another constraining factor isan artificially compressed timeframe existing in the corpOrateworld which must be a specialcase of Einsteinian relativity.Eager MBA's want to demon-strate to their employers thatthey can get things done in ahurry and that they know how to

carry results down to the "bottomline". Innovation tends to be along, uncertain process as corn-pared to making minor modifica-tions or to mergers and acquisi-tions. '(Never mind that seri-ous students 31 have questionedwhether acquisition strategies forgrowth are in the best long terminterests of the stockholders.) Asa consequence, these junior-levelexecutives tend to shun innova-tion as a valid strategy for theirown personal growth.

Few recommendations of theDomestic Policy Review on Inno-vation addressed the question ofhow to make innovation more at-tractive as a route to growth thanacquisition and merger. Only bymaking innovation a sound busi-ness investment rather than agamble, can a climate be createdwhere "market pull" will create ademand for students who can con-tribute effectively to the innova-tion process.

4. University-IndustryRelations

The relationship between uni-versities and industry in competi-tive societies often reflects a di-rect and pragmatic governmentinvolvement. The independence ofthese institutions is an importantaspect of our society and must bepreserved, but we see an impor-tant need for a close symbioticrelationship. Industry contributessubstantial funding to univer-

t:0

29

sities and ultimately provideS theemployment for graduates. Thus,university recruitment policieshave a substantial impact on thecurriculum choices of students.The entire recruiting functionand potential coordination withthe later recruiting activities ofindustry have been ignored interms of focusing future re-sources.

Increased involvement of uni-versity faculty and staff as con-sultants and advisors to industrycan be a major source of innova-tive stimulus and improved uni-versity perspective. The phenom-enon of innovative enterprisewhich characterizes the areasaround the California Institute ofTechnology, MIT, and Stanford,needs to be better understood andfostered.

The phenomenon may be equal-ly dependent on the presence ofgood managerial consulting poolsand sympathetic investment capi-tal with an interest in the poten-tial of technological development.Clearly there are pools of comple-mentary talentsscholars,' inves-tors and industrial innovators=who provide mutual stimulationand support that is valuable toboth university and industry. Weneed far better insight into theskills and environment that con-stitute a critical mass.

Closer cooperation between uni-versities and industry might helpto address the problems of obso-

30

lescence and declining efficiency insenior members of the R&D workforce. A number of universitieshave explored this area, but it isnot clear that conventional classesare appropriate for this popula-tion and the wide variation inbackground and goals of seniorresearch personnel. It is also notclear that all creative talent canrespond to such opportunities andit may well be that some talents,like athletes, have a limited periodof strength. While there are manyexamples of enduring talent com-bined with maturing judgment,there is also the question ofwhether it is a general patternand it may be that we need to ex-plore new patterns of mid-careerchange and early retirement.

The most impressive examplesof sustained creativity, such asthe Bell Laboratories, reflect acombination of rigorous initial se-lection to collect the most promis-ing talent ; together with _continu-ing heavy investment in trainingto maintain state-of-the-art skillsand knowledge. Although the re-sults are impressive, the costs in-clude study and classes duringworking hours as a normal job ac-tivity and it is not clear that aless elite staff would respond aswell to such a costly investment.Furthermore, a less prestigiousorganization might well find itselftraining talent for competitors.

There is a strong need for re-search to examine the character-

36

istics and patterns of industrialR&D talents. We need to knowmore about the patterns of de-clining creativity and technologi-cal skills. We need to explore thepotential effects of training, ca-reer change and early retirement.And we need to explore bettermeans to identify and cultivatetalent.

5. Military Training

The Department of Defense isone of the United States' largesteducational activities, employingone out of every six people in edu-cational activities, and spending$6 billion per year on trainingprograms. These training pro-grams and the military academieshave had an important role inproviding entry and training tomen and women of all economiclevels, geographic areas, and eth-nic origins. Many of our most in-novative minds have benefittedfrom this education and careerpotential. And many researchlaboratories and electronics firmsare staffed by electronics expertstrained in the military service.

On the other hand, a high pre-mium exists in the military (andindeed in any large organization)against risk taking and indepen-dent action. In the military one fol-low orders as part of a team. Thebenefits and demands of disciplineusually outweigh the potential ofinnovation. A major challenge to

the military establishment is howto balance requirements againstthe needs for imagination andchange in response to new tech-nology. And how to develop train-ing programs which cultivate in-novation and independent judg-ment without loss of disciplineand control.

This ambivalence differs fromindustry only in degree, and itmay be that the only solution liesin identifying talents and estab-lishing different "tracks". In-creased attention to this problemwithin the military establishmentcould serve ad a model as well as ;.

a training ground.It is also within the military

context that much of our understanding concerning the method-ology of instruction has come.Thus, we must wonder if theArmy cannot teach without

"hands-on" experience or "per-formance - based instruction" 32whether we can expect our engi-neering schools and universitiesto spawn inventors through pas-sive instruction which matches alecturer's wits with a student'sconcentration span, retentiveness,and regurgitative writing skills.Many of our ivory towered insti-tutions of learning, we under-stand, no longer have laboratoryexperimentation and/or the equip-ment provided is obsolete or indisrepair. We need to know,therefore, whether "hands-on"experience is the very essence ofthe skills we need to nurture ifwe want to encourage innovationand, if so, is it feasible for in-stitutions of learning at all levelsto acquire and provide access tosuch equipment whose cost hasmultiplied. Are there other ways

in which access to such eauipmentand/or "hands-on" experience canbe provided by institutions whichhave a continuing and ongoing useof the instrumentation or equip:ment ? The National ScienceFoundation is currently organiz-ing an effort to explore the pres-ent availability, use, need, andaccess to equipment for engineer-ing education. We believe it is im-portant also to understand tlitrole of such equipment as teach-ing tools and/or toys at earlieragesfor the toys of the childbecome the tools of the adult orvice versa, and one of the moresuccessful courses offered at Cor-nell University is a course in thephysics of toys which attracts asizeable enrollment from non-science concentrators.

31

'3

%,44-

.ff.=t

38

tt

VIII. What Shall We Do? 13ecommendations

Because much of the Venableevidence suggests that the infor-mal environment is influential-shaping_the- opini6iis of personsof all ages about science andtechnology, our recommendationsfor developing human resourcesfor innovation are not limited tothe formal educational system.We also address the major infor-mal environments, notably sci-ence centers and television. Andwe see the need for interactionbetween educational institutionsat all levels and the world of tech-nological entrepreneurship. Wetreat formal and informal learn-ing environments as mutually de-pendent partners in education forinnovation.

The recommendations follow.

Informal Environments forLearning

One of the greatest deficiencies(as well as one of the strengths)of the American political systemis the inability of the federal gov-ernment to influence the contentof the mass media. In a societydedicated to diversity and plural-ism this is a philosophical princi-

ple which will not and should notchange.

Yet we know from the meagerresearch which is available to usthat we are a nation addicted totelevision and movies, that 99 per-cent of our homes have televisionsets. We spend more than 25 per-cent of our time (almost as muchtime as sleeping) watching thecathode ray tube and with pro-found effects on our society whichare only barely becoming appar-ent to us. As far as innovation isconcerned, we have discoveredthat only a smattering of moviesfrom 1935-1976 even addressedthe question (3.6 percent and lessthan 5 percent of television pro-grams treat scientific subjects).The television screen by and largehas inverted the Horatio Algerspirit which motivated late nine-teenth and early twentieth cen-tury immigrants to pursue freeeducation and by dint of their ownhard work, entrepreneurial drive,imagination, to climb the social,economic, and cultural ladder tosuccess in a highly mobile society.Today's television writers whohave achieved their own positionsof influence through this verysystem, present a view of theworld which denigrates the very

39

attributes by which they suc-ceeded,_ Big business- is not only-----bad, it is in collusion with biggovernment and the Mafia. Theonly way to survive is to beat thesystem by dint on one's own cun-ning and self-interest. Educationis unimportant, only villains havelibraries.

Scientists fare poorly, too. Eventhough most of the public willconcede that our future financialand economic health depends onour scientific and technologicalskills, the notion that those whopursue these carers are either"nutty" or malevolent' is difficultto eradicate. A negative attitudetoward science appears to in-crease with heavy television view-ing except for blacks who startwith such a low esteem for scien-tific and technblogical subjectsthat their attitudes are somewhatimproved b exposure to televi-Sion.

We urg , therefore, that lead-er,s_oftite motion picture and tele-vision industries take cognizanceof the impact of their programson social attitudes and ,particu-larly their impact on the highlysuccessful technologically basedsociety. Its profits support invest-ment in our entertainment indus-

33

try. They are the underpinningsof an economic system which is soefficient that it provides leisuretime to its citizens to enjoy thefruits of the entertainment indus-try. Thus, we have attained ahigh standard of living which sus-tains the consumer purchaseswhich provide financial supportfor broadcast advertising, motionpictures, cable and pay television.

Indeed, if the philosophical goalof a free and independent societyis a marketplace of ideaswe feelthat the marketplace is woefullydeficient in treating subjects,which are crucial in maintainingour leadership technologically inthe international market. It is anappropriate roll of governmentto stimulate production by a mul-tiplicity of private and independ-ent sources and to expedite "deliv-ery" systems which will take ad-vantage, of new technological op-portunities. We urge: that theNational Science Foundationand/or the Department of Com-merce should convene a. broad-casting industry conference ofbroadcasters and corporate spon-sors and foundation officers todiscuss the representation of sci-ence and technology in prime timeand children's television, and todevelop mechanisms for continu-ing' consultation on relevant pro-gramming.

While the federal government'may not regulate the content ofthe prograni, we do urge: 1) that

34

all federal departments and agen-cies interested in the innovativeprocess be encouraged to providefunds to independent productiongroups to treat the serious socialproblems addressed in this report,and 2) that mat program grantsshould include authorization forimpact research to assure thatprogram design is developed in anoptimal manner to assure that itreaches the audiences for whichit is intended. More imaginativeand appealing programs and dra-matic presentations must be pro-duced to compete favorably foraudiences with what Hollywoodcurrently offers United States aswell as world audiences.

Most important, we feel, is thepackaging of programs for theAmerican public. In addition toincreasing the quantity of pro-grams related to the scientific andtechnological skills and talents,we need to accumulate more pro-grams which treat business ac-tivities which translate ideas anddesigns into tangible benefits forour citizens: Thus, we urge: thatCongress authorize the Depart-ment of Commerce, the Depart-ment of Education and the Na-tional Science Foundation to investin the collection and distributionof programs about technologicalinnovation through all availablemedia of expression, including ra-dio, commercial and noncommer-cial television stations, video-tapes, videodiscs, motion picture

films for educational institutions.We also urge that cooperativeventures with government and in-dustry participation be explored.

In addition to the classroomand cathode ray tubes as environ-ments for learning, we are com-pelled to add our insight that in-novators learn not merely byseeing and hearing, by readingand writing, but by feeling anddoing. Practical experience is asmuch a part of the education ofan innovator and/or entrepreneuras "book learning". Thus, use ofthe hands is as important as theuse of the eyes and ears, much inthe same way that farm childrenlearned the skills of an agricul-tural society while working withtheir parents until they were sentoff to the land grant colleges tolearn the latest agricultural the-ories and practices.

Such considerations have twopractical implications for our newDepartment of Education -1) Toreview the equipment available toschool systems and universities,and 2) to develop a means ofsharing equipment among educa-tional institutions and/or withprivate industry. Modern equip-ment in engineering schools hasbeen found to be woefully inade-quate and especially in the areaof microprocessors in which theUnited States is supposed to bethe strongest competitor in inter-national trade:33 Thus, our schoolsystem is far behind industry in

support of our most successfultechnological innovations and thisimbalance should be remedied im-mediately.

Although we are unable to finddata to support our conclusionthat science and technology mu-seums (or centers for participa-tory experimentation) are signifi-cant components in supportingthe infrastructure for innovation,we note that the centers of thecountry which are highly indus-trialized such as Boston, SanFrancisco, and Chicago, do havestrong science museums. We alsonote that many scientists and en-gineers mention an encounterwith such an institution as im-portant in the development oftheir interest in the field. Thus,we feel reasonably comfortablewith the notion that children whodo not have such a community re-source within easy reach of theirresidence, may be technologicallydeprived. This deprivation may beassuaged somewhat by the avail-ability and careful choice of toysby parents or the existence of aschool program. The 'presenttrend in parenting suggests lessrather than more involvement ofparents with the early educationof their children; and school-en-richment programs appear to bemore readily available in the lo-cations that do in fact have suchscience and technology centers. Itis shocking that art, history,and humanities museums receive

roughly 10 times as much federalsupport ($20 million) for educa-tion and exhibits as science mu-seums ($2 million) when 80 per-cent of the public believe our fu-ture depends upon our scientificand technological skills. It is evenmore incomprehensible when 45percent of total museum attend-once and 40 percent of museumcosts are for science museums.

Thus, we urge that the Depart-ment 'of Commerce take the initia-'tive to stimulate local science andtechnology centers similar to TheExploratorium in San Francisco,the -Museum of Science and In-dustry in Chicago, and the ScienceMuseum in Boston, in all- majormetropolitan areas of the country.This should be a cooperative ef-fort between the federal govern-ment and local initiatives withboth parties accepting responsi-bility. To be successful we feelthat local businesses engaged inhigh technology activities shouldalso be partners and tax incen-tives should be provided to en-courage their participation. It ispossible that a traveling scienceand technology exhibit could beorganized to serve communitiestoo small to support a permanentcenter. The support of profes-sional' societies should be encour-aged and the establishment of ascience and technology festivalcomparable to the SmithsonianFolklife festival on the mallshould be explored.

440

Furthermore, we urge corpor-ate and foundation executives re=sponsible for grants to educa-tional institutions to take acareful look at the role of sciencemuseums in our society and to in-crease their support to such in-stitutions. We especially urge thatscience museums be included onlists of institutions which qualifyfor corporate matching funds.

Continuing Education

Because our society like the restof the world is aging, the major-ity of our citizensnow over 30may never see the inside of aschool again. Because technologyitself is causing revolutionarychanges in our society as well asrendering obsolete the specificskills we have learned in ouryouth, more and more burden willbe placed on lifelong learning ifwe are to retain our innovationqualities. Thus, we recommend:the Department of Labor, the De-partment of Education.' the De-partment of Commerce, the SmallBusiness Administration, and theNational Science Foundation de-velop a coordinated plan for fed-eral stimulation of continuing education programs which will:

a. Increase the participation ofmature workers in the innovativeprocess.

b. Improve the understandingof the nature of the innovativeprocess.

35

c. Facilitate the acceptance ofinnovation in products and proc-esses.

Such a plan should provide forthe use of a variety of instruc-tional media that are suitable forindividual use and the plan shouldallow for participation by organi-zations such as,trade associations,industry consortia, and profes-sional groups that are not part ofthe formal educational system.

`Retraining takes time andmany int.1:viduals must foregopresent income unless they findinstitutional or corporate spon-sorship, for retraining. Humanresources as well as tangibleequipment must be recognized asa capital asset which rapidly de-preciates in a technologically vol-atile environment. We recommendthat:

a. Tax credits should be grantedfor corporate investment in hu-man capital.

b. Depreciation should be al-lowed for obsolescence of humanskills.

c. Full deduction should be per-mitted for tuition and living ex-

, penes with a carry -forward offive years for mature individualsseeking to upgrade their skills,

The Public School System."Basics" Includes Science

As the future need for humancapital for ventures in innovationincreases, so too does the need for

36

an attitude of acceptance and en-couragement of technological ad-

- vance by the public at large. Bothof these put a heavy burden onour institutions for primary andsecondary education. It is herethat basic attitudes toward intel-lectual inquiry, risk taking, andcoping with change and uncer-.tainty are developed. Key careerdecisions are strongly biased andoften determined by education, atthese levels. The characteristicsthat encourage inventiveness, in-novation and entrepreneurshipcan be either developed orsquelched.

These matters are not likely tobe dealt with adequately withoutspecial attention. We note the un-certainty and ambiguity of thevalues of teachers and studentsvis a vis growth and technology.At a time that exceptional achieve-ment demands an early introduc-tion to increasingly sophisticatedand quickly changing subject mat-ter, our schools face increasingcosts, public and private resist-ance to meeting these costs, agingtenured faculties, and a demandfor "back to basics". In a declin-ing student population, we mustdo better, in identifying thosewith exceptional creative abili-ties, helping them fulfill that crea-tive potential, and fostering afriendly familiarity with scienceand technology among all stu-dents.

42

The "back to basics" movement .

has been stimulated by the reac-tion to the permissiveness and ex-perimentation in education of thepast few decades, plus the morerecent declineof student scores onstandardized achievement tests(which need not necessarily be re-lated). "Basics" in this context is aeuphemism for emphasizing com-petence in reading, writing, andcomputational mathematics. Webelieve that society does a disserv-ice to its young people if it allowsthem to leave high school withoutadequate skills in these areas.However, we also believe that weare past the time when the "ba-sics" can be construed so nar-rowly. In particular, we believethat science-based technology hasbecome such an important part ofour daily lives, and is involved inso many of our collective socialand political decisions that an un-derstanding of what it is aboutmust be included within the corecurriculum. Science education isin danger of falling into the "nice,but not necessary" category. In-structional materials that teachabout science and technologymust be woven into the fabric ofprimary and secondary education.To do so would not only broadenyoung 'people's career horizons,'but would prepare the vast major-ity who will not choose science orengineering to better cope withlife as citizens in a technologicalsociety.

Thus, we urge that academiccourses in science and mathe-matics be considered "basic"skills pursued by all students.

Exceptionally Gifted andTalented Children

Human achievement in any ofits major dimensionssocial, eco-nomic, political, technological, orscientificdoes not progress at auniform rate. Rather, at particu-lar points in history, individualsOf rare creative qualities whoseaccomplishments have greatly ac-celerated progress have-ppearedon the scene; Einstein, Gutenberg,and Marconi, among others, cometo mind. Nations can ill-afford notto identify the limited amount ofsuch talent they may have nor toencourage its development. Nev-ertheless, a recent report to theUnited States Commissioner ofEducation from a Task Force onthe Gifted and Talented statesthat, "although gifted and tal-ented students comprise 3 per-cent-5 percent of the school agepopulatior(, they receive' only0.003 percent of the federal fundsfor education". This statisticaldisparity reflects special efforts togive many categories of disadvan-taged youngsters an education foruseful roles in society. Such striv-ing to provide equal opportunityis the keystone of our educationalpolicyand it should be so. Butwhen the future demands so

much of us in creative achieve-menttechnological and other-wisewe question the wisdom ofso dramatic an imbalance. Werethe unusually creative child sim-ply to be ignored, that would bebad enough; but worse, the be-havioral manifestations of suchimmense talent are often unrec-ognized as such and brand thechild as a "problem". Such "prob-lems" are rare opportunities.They should be sought out andcultivated. Thus, we urge that im-mediate steps be taken by federal,state, and local officials to giveprograms for the identificationand training of gifted studentstheir immediate attention andpriority.Developing Innovation-RelatedTalents

While achievement of the trulyrare individual is often the basisfor technological innovation, thetotal process of innovation in-volves a team of individuals witha variety of skills, knowledge, andattitudes that are not so rare andthat many believe can be taughtproblem solving, engineering de-sign, organizational and mana-gerial skills, communication, andleadership, for example. The prin-,cipal attitudinal factors seem tobe a willingness to do things innew ways and to take risks. Insum, participation' in innovationand entrepreneurship need not, ofnecessity, be limited to an elite

43

few. We believe it is possible tocreate school environments thatwill reveal and develop such tal-ents. We recommend that federalresources available through theNational Ynstitute for Educationand the National Science Founda-tion address t 3 identification anddevelopment of talents in schoolage children, especially amonggirls, that are relevant to innova7tion and entrepreneurship.

Today the educational- systemdiverts those with primarily man-ual skills from those with primar-ily intellectual skills, a practicewhich we feel may seriously ham-per innovation in both groups ofyoung people. The bit, of insightgleaned from anecdotal data sug-gest that most creative genius andmany with the entrepreneurialdrive and organizational skillhave benefitted from "hands-on"experience sometime in theirlives. Innovators are not only avidreaders; they are avid tinkerersand they learn by both theoreticalanalysis and the experience offailure. Thus, we !lave two recom-mendations for the new Depart-ment of Education: 1) That voca-tional education should be ex-amined for its theoretical andconceptual content, and 2) intel-lectually oriented programt shouldbe examined for their practicalhands on experience. Otherwise,we may be hampering the inte-gration of skills which lead to

37

technological innovation and re-ducing the pool from which inno-vators may be drawn."

Vocational Education

The potential of vocational edu-cation as a spawning ground forfuture inventors, innovators, andentrepreneurs tends to be ignored.The emphasis in federal supportof vocational education is remed-iallimited to training for initialemployment. This sells short themore than 16 million youngstersand adults who are enrolled in vo-cational education nationally.More than 50 percent are femalewhile nearly 25 percent are ethnicminorities. There is no reason forbelieving that the fraction ofthem that are capable of creativ-ity, innovation, and entrepreneur-ship is any smaller than in theacademically oriented studentpopulation. In fact, one can ex-pect a large percentage of highlymotivated young people whoseproclivity to work with theirhands may incline them towardinvention and innovation. Manywill find employment in or becomeproprietors of small businessesand have the opportunity to exer-cise their talents for innovationand entrepreneurship. For ma-ture workers vocational educationoffers the opportunity to developnew skills that will prolong theiremployability in technologicallychanging industry. The interface

38

betwen vocational and academiceducation needs to be highly per-meable. Vocational students needaccess to academic courses thatwill enhance later career mobilitywhile academic students can bene-fit from the hands-on emphasis ofvocational training. The expen-sive physical plant required forvocational programs should bemore widely used outside of nor-mal school hours for continuingadult education in technologicalareas. We recommend that fed-eral policies for vocational educa-tion and employment trainingprograms (e.g., CETA) moder-ate their present emphasis on firstemployment and recognize the po-tential of such programs to pre-pare students for lifetime careersin technology, innovation, and en-trepreneurship.

Government/Industry/SchoolSystem Participation

Students need to develop rolemodels based on contact withthose whose vocation is inventionand entrepreneurship. They needthe opportunity to test their skillson real prOblems in a realistic set-ting. The fact that very fewteachers in primary and second-ary schools have had any trainingor- experience in technologicalmatterseither in their substanceor their managementis a sub-stantial handicap. One must relyon in-service training to prepare

teachers for stimulating chil-dren's interest in and knowledgeof technology. Teachers, too, needrelevant "hands-on" experience inorder to communicate an under-standing of technology and inno-vation in a real life context. Theirstudents should be awakened tothe career opportunities in apply-ing technology to meet the needsof society. We recommend thatfederal support of ,'"in- serviceteacher training provide for ex-panded teacher contacts with sci-ence-based industry and withtechnological ventures in the pub-lic and private sectors.

We believe; however, that edu-cators and government officialscannot, by themselves, convey /tostudents or teachers either the vi-tality or the reality of innovationand entrepreneurship. Wei be-lieve that the industrial sector hastoo large a stake in a technologi-cally competent work force not toseek a role for itself in enhancingprimary and secondary education.We trust that industry represen-tatives, educators, and govern-ment officials will each find theirappropriate roles in this coopera-tive effort to improve the qualityof education.

We also urge the Departmentof Commerce and other agenciesinvolved to sponsor -.a conference.of industry, governmint, and aca-demia meeting with middle andsecondary school educators to develop strategies for more effec-

_4.

s

.,

1

d0

A

- ,

41

% a

,

- .TO

tine collaboration between hightechnology industries and schoolsystems.

The objective of such a confer-erence should be the linking ofeducation and work into pro-grams that will better .prepareyoung people for full participa -.tion in our technological society.Many programscareer days,speAkersare in process, but

-much more could be done to de-velop collaborative models forcurriculum development, teachingand in-service programs. How-ever, such a conference must takeaccount of the appropriate ten-sion between industry goals andeducational goals and considerhow to allocate "education" and"training".

University/CorporateCooperation

Universities and corporate em-ployers are equally important inproviding learning environmentsfor innovation. While the formermay provide the more theoreticalframework and the latter a morepractical experience, we believefor reasons previously discussed,that an optimum atmosphere con-ducive to innovation requires ahealthy cross fertilization of thetwo environments. It is a wellknown fact that start up com-panies thrive in close proximity tostrong universitiesand oftenthe innovators have a foot (if not

40

also a head and a hand) in bothdoors.

Cooperative efforts between thetwo are becoming more and morerecognized as a desirable economyespecially for professional schoolswhich lack resources for equip-ment, as useful guides to careerpaths with productive avenues fordevelopment, and as a source ofinspiration and ideas to stimulatethe innovative process within in-dustry.

While our recommendationsrepresent only a modest begin-ning into this very fruitful areafor future policy development, wehave concentrated on the role ofengineering schools as a goodplace to start. However, we notethat business schools, law schools,as well as the newly proliferatingpublic policy ,schools, are equallydeserving of a careful examina-tion, and we hope others in thefoundation world may find theinterest and financial resources topursue the role of these institu-tions in stimulating and servicinginnovation.

We recommend that:

1) The federal governmentshould strengthen its long termsupport for university /industrycooperative programs which con-tinue to provide training groundsfor innovators.

2) In university/industry co-operative programs, Cie Depart-

46

ments of Education and Com-merce should seek to insure thatthe interaction between univers-ity and industrial participants in-volve university departments,such as the social sciences, in ad- ---

dition to the physical sciences andengineering. Other aspects of in-novation than simply research(e.g., development, manufactur-.ing, marketing, finance, and sales)should be included. Informal net-work relationships among stu-dents, faculty, and industryshould be encouraged.

3) The Department of Com-merce should promote the estab-lishMent of industrial fellowshipsfor United States students to par-ticipate in the innovative processof selected fields of technology inforeign countries.

4) The Department of Com-merce and the National ScienceFoundation should support courses(similar to Dartmouth's "ES-21") which introduce engineeringstudents to the twin concepts ofinnovation and entrepreneurshipand embody elements of networkinteraction among faculties ofseveral college departments, ad-junct-indOstrial faculty and in-dustry representatives.

5) The Department of Com,merce should administer a pro-gram of federally funded fellow-ships for students and teachers assummer internships.

6) In the President's Messageon Industrial Innovation, he pro-

posed several initatives aimed atstimulating industrial innovation.We believe that the implementa-tion of these initiatives presents-the Department of Commerce andthe National Science Foundationwith unique opportunities forleadership on the human resourceiskilsdeldt-with- in this report.For example, the President-pro,posed an initiative to gather un-published technical informationby sending technical and businessteams to other nations. Suchteams represent an especially use-ful opportunity to gather infor-

mation on the management of hu-man resources in other nations. inthe implementation of these ini-

---tiatives,- the Department ofCommerce should use graduatestudents and teachers to the max-imum extent possible in order to

' ensure the transfer of the resultsto the educational system.

Engineering Schools andInnovation

We recommend establishmentof a National Commission (withrepresentatives from the univer-

47

sities, industry, the federal gov-ernment, the National Academyof Engineering and the Engineer-ing Council for Professional De-velopment) to formulate plans toassist engineering schools in con-tributing to national productivityand technological innovation.

41

References

President Carter in his State of\ the Union message, January,\ 1978. , c

2 'Mc Cleland, The Achieving So-\\ ciety, pp. 205-258, (1961).

3 Barnouw, A Tower in Babel,\Oxford University Press, pp.10-12 (1966).

6 THE NEW YORK TIMES,Simday, February 11', 1979.

I.5 President Carter's Message to

COngress on Industrial Inno-vation Initiatives, October31, 979.

6 "Vani hing Innovation", Busi-ness Week, July. 3, 1978.

"The Sad State of Innovation",Time, October 22, 1979.

"Innovation: Has America LostIt's Edge", Newsweek, June4, 19'79

1 Dun's Reiew, "Ti. S. Innova-tion: Its Better Than YouThink", March, 1979.

to "Women in the Labor Force-Some 14 Data Series."USDL/BLS 1979, Report 575.

8 Roberts, John D., "The Indus-try-Acadenijc Interface : AView from the Ivory Tower".

Progress, Museum of Scienceand Industry,, November-De-

cember, 1979, p. 6.10 Comstock, et al., Television and

Human Behavior, (1978).11 Johnson, Jean,. "Toy Wars",

React, pp. 12-13, Action forChildren's Television, 1979.

12 Empire Magazine, p. 8, Novem-ber 26, 1978.

23 Comstock & Tully, "Innovationon the American Motion Pic-ture Screen", S. I. NewhouseSchool of Public Communica-tion, Syracuse University,December, 1979.

14 Barnouw, A Tower in Babel,Oxford University Press,(1966), p. 10.

" Xerox Interim Report, NineMonths Ended September 30,1978, p. 4.

16 Merton and Gaston, gociologyof Science in Europe, 1977.

" Comstock, et al., Television andHuman Behavior, p. 171,(1978).

Gerbner, G. and L. Gross, "Liv-ing with Television : The Vio-lence Profile", (-Jourial ofCommunication, Vol. 26, no.2, pp. 173-99.

28 Nigel Calder, -"Einstein's Uni-verse", BBC 2, PBS, March

48

10

13, 1979. (This captured aremarkable 12 share in NewYork.)

Roper Surveys, 1974.

20 Mankiewicz and Swerdlow, Re-mote Control, 11-12, 244-278(1978).

Benjamin Stein, Viol.; fromSunset',, Boulevard, BasicBooks, 1979, p. 146; p. 114,124.

22 Ibid., p. 15, 24, 26, 131.23 Ibid., p. 20, 8687.24 Ibid., p. 127.26 Boorstin, Republic of Technol-

ogy, p. 7-8 (1978).20 Nielsen Television 1977, as re-

ported in Broadcasting, April18, 1977.

"Broadcasting, p. 38, January 1,1979.

28 Transcript, Post Production, p.7.

20 National Inquirer, p. 46, . Sep-tember 26, 1978.

80 Time, April 23, 1979, p. 85.31 Malcolm Salter, of the Harvard

Graduate School d Business.32 David S. Bushnell; Training as

a Knowledge, Production andUtilization Strategy: Instruc- ,

21

tional Technology in the U.S. 'Army, HUNRRO, 1978,9-78.

33 B. G. Barr and Dale Rummer,"A Survey of the Equipmentof American EngineeringSchools", University of Kan-sas Center for Research, Inc.,December, 1979.

" Dael Wolfle, in National Re-search Council in 1979, citesWeiss: "Nearly half of teach-ers want assistance in imple-menting the discovery or in-quiry approach, and nearlyas many want help in us-'ing manipulative or hands-onmaterials." Iris R. Weiss,

49

Report of the 1977 NationalSurvey of Science, Mathe-matics and Social ScienceEducation. GPO, 1978.

43

Appendix

The following have given gener-ously of their time to the delibera-tions contained in this report:

ANNE W. BRANSCOMBChairmanKalba Bowen Associates, Inc.

ALPHONSE BUCCINODirectorOffice of Program Integration/SENational Science Foundation

GEORGE BUGLIARELLOPresidentNew York Polytechnic Institute

ANNE P. CARTERProfessorBrandeis University

PHILLIP EISENBERGCh airmanExecutive CommitteeHydronautics, Inc.

HERBERT I. FUSFELDDirectorCenter for Science and

Technology

WILLIAM GALEVjce PresidentGillette Company

44

GEORGE GERBNERDeanThe Annenberg School of

CommunicationsUniversity of Pennsylvania

FRANCIS KEPPELSchool of EducationHarvard University

LAWRENCE KUSHNERNational Bureau of Standards

MAURICE MITCHELLConsultant

GERARD PIELPublisherScientific American, Inc.

PERCY A. PIERREAssistant Secretary of the Army

for RDA

DAVID ROBINSONVice PresidentCarnegie Corporation

JUSTINE RODRIGUEZOffice of the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and EvaluationDepartment of Health, Education

and Welfare

50

EDITH RUINAExecutive DirectorMIT Project on Work in

Technology and ScienceMassachusetts Institute of

Technology

HAROLD SHARLINU.S. Regulatory Council

GEORGE W. TRESSELProgram DirectorPublic Undeistanding of Science

ProgramNational Science Foundation

FRANCIS W. WOLEKDeputy Assistant Secretary of

Commerce for Productivity,Technology and Innovation

Editorial Assistance in the Prep-aration of this Report:

LEE EDSONStamford, Connecticut

Photo CreditsCourtesy National Aeronautics and Space Ad-ministration, pages iv (right), 2, 4, 6, 9, 29, 32

Courtesy National Air and Space Museum,pages iv (left) (NASM Archives), 39 (left)(Education Division)

Courtesy National Archives, pages iv (center)(196-GS-369), 1 (left) (306-PS-4S-2587), (right)(306-PS-48-2584)

Courtesy U.S. Department of Agriculture, SoilConservation Service, pages 3, 39 (right)

Courtesy U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, pages 10 (EPA-Documerica, BelindaRain), 12, 25 (EPA-Documerica)

Courtesy 'Lensman, Page 5, Barry M.Blackman

Courtesy Universal Pictures, page 19

Photo Research by Lensman Photos Ltd., LeeOwens _