Social Innovation, the Public Good and the Invention-

Innovation

David CastleCanada Research Chair in Science and Society

Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Ottawadcastle@uottawa.ca

2003 Canadian business expenditures on R&D represented only 1.0% of GDP

U.S.’s 1.8% or the OECD average of 1.5%.

2005, the World Economic Forum ranked Canadian businesses 27th in the world in terms of their propensity to compete based on unique products and processes

2006, the Expert Panel on Commercialization (commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology) called for a Commercialization Partnership Board to address the invention-innovation

We All Know What the Problem Is

Post-Secondary Education Funding

CAUT - Almanac of Post-Secondary Education 2007

S&T Framework states Canada is the top-ranked publisher of peer-reviewed scientific papers based on publicly-funded research, but adds / captures little value

The Conference Board of Canada reports that private sector investment in training, learning and development in Canada is stagnant, and is slipping behind many of our international competitors .

The Council of Canadian Academies finds that fields with high growth potential are not associated with correspondingly consistent science and technology infrastructure, particularly in the regulatory domain that would generate confidence in health and safety, intellectual property protection, and environment and business framework regulation.

We All Know What the Problem Is

Vannevar Bush – Linear Model

Federal Investment

Social Benefit

Innovation Gap

S&T Framework

EntrepreneurialKnowledge

People

PPPsFirmsVC

Change Agents

Innovation Gap

PPPsFirmsVC

Change Agents

S&T Framework

EntrepreneurialKnowledge

People

TransferTranslation

Biotechnology IP

Riskmanagement

Knowledgemanagement

Sovereignty

Edu

catio

n/tr

aini

ng/d

egre

e

RevenuesBusiness capabilities, licensing

Media activiy

Revenues, public opinion awarness

Mul

tilate

ral t

rade

IP a

gre

ement

s

IP box

Integrity ofliving things

Distributivejustice

Economicefficiency

Innovation, technology transfer org, early $, basic $

Licensing, formal diff of knowledge, education/training/degree

Exclusionary value, award of patent

Sta

bilit

y of p

olit

ical i

nfra

stru

ctur

e

Scientific infra, innovation

Exclusionary value

Quality of risk analysis, media activity

Stability of political infrastructure

Weal

th

Scope reg diversity

International human rights

Inno

vatio

n

Patent eligible invention

Sal

es,

rev

enues

, wea

lth, f

inv

othe

r, f

inv

TS

Innov

atio

n

Sta

bili

ty o

f po

litic

al in

frast

ruct

ure

Sal

es,

rev

enues

, wea

lth d

istr

ibut

ion,

wea

lth

Non

tarif

f ba

rrie

r to

trade

Stability of political infra

Patent value, exclusionary value, value IPSales, revenue, public op awareness

Innovation, technology transfer org

Value of IP, exclusioanry value

Innovationmanagement

Biotechnology IP

Biotechnology IP

Biotechnology IP - PDV

Biotechnology IP - PDV

Biotechnology IP - PDV

Biotechnology IP - PDV

ProducedPDV

Mortality rate due tochronic infection

Mortality rate due toacute infection

Birth rateInfant population

Infant mortality rate+

Non-infant population

Mortality rate

+

-

B1

++

-B2 R1

+

Infected population

Acute cases

Chronic cases

Recovey rate afteracute infection

Virus carriers

+

+

+

+-

-

-

+

-

+ -

+-B3

B4

B5

B6 B7

B8

Market potential

B19

Adopters

Sales of imitativevaccines

+

+

-

+

-

+

+

-

R2

PDV stock

Production

Desired productionadjustment

+

-B9

Mechanical process

+

mechanical loss

+

-

B11

Concentration wash

Concentration loss

+

-

B13Formulation

Formulation loss

+

-

B15

++

+

-B18

Sales of vaccines

+

Sales of innovativevaccine

+

+

B14

-

B16

+-

-B10

- B12

-

B17

B20PDV cost per dose

Desired costadjustment

+ -B21

Total cost ofvaccination

+

+

+

Total PDV cost

+

R3

+

Biotechnology IP - PDV

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

2010

2013

2016

2019

2022

2025

2028

2031

2034

2037

2040

2043

2046

2049

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f ch

ild

ren

statu quo hyp 1 hyp 2 hyp 3

Central to the debate is the question of whether managed innovation within a federal system of devolved governance create appropriate enabling and sustaining social conditions for science and technology to flourish in Canada, and improve the well-being and wealth of Canadians.

Central Challenge

1. Systematic review of the governance of innovation which provides improved measures of the social-scientific impact of public and private investment in science and technology

2. Study of boundary-crossing science and technology where traditional categories of science and technology no longer apply, thus destabilizing the regulatory environment and public understanding of science and technology

Five Challenges

3. Development of a proactive technology assessment that combines ethical and scientific elements in the evaluation of a technology’s complete life-cycle

4. Extension of Canadian science and technology’s into the international context to address the imbalance in global health equity and food security and reestablish Canada’s preeminence in the development agenda

Five Challenges

5. Evaluation of environmental context of science and technology innovation to understand the impact on the social environment, health systems, and the natural environment

Five Challenges

Convergence in Biotechnology

1. Complexity obstacle

2. Regulatory culture obstacle

3. Reactive mode obstacle

4. Myth of sound science obstacle

5. Domestic focus obstacle

Innovation in Governance

• New methods – for evaluating the social return on science and technology investments, and assessing technological innovation as it arises in its social context

• New metrics – that ground new methods and models empirically in measures that better capture the social impact of innovation

• New models – to analyze and evaluate domestic science and technology governance, and to strengthen Canada’s position through international comparison

Social Innovation – NOW!

Acknowledgements