Today, I want to talk about the nature of our challenges in science, engineering, and technology policy, the context in which we should address those challenges, and the robust innovation that can derive therefrom. The trajectory of science, engineering, and technology over the last half century has consistently moved toward greater complexity. This escalating complexity is powering us to a greater focus on intellectual integration, that is, understanding the characteristics of the whole demands more than inference from knowledge only of the parts. Inflection points in the trajectories of technological change are subtle signals in the larger context, which are to be read with more care than mere supposition from reading the remnants of tea leaves. An astute understanding of inflection points enables us to judge better where to steer policy for science, engineering, and technology.
Innovation is the task of breaking the rules and being rewarded, over and over again.
In a more formal sense, Peter Drucker tells us that innovation is the process of applying new knowledge to tasks that are new and different, demanding that the nation's new knowledge bank be constantly re-newed. Or a Bill Wulf just said at the lectern, putting an idea to use. With some levity of definition, policy is a facile term, especially in Washington where anything becomes a policy if it gets even peripheral mention on the evening news. These somewhat irreverent definitions help to make the point that the new trends in science, engineering, and technology policy are breaking some old traditions and some stubborn myths. As I expand on these ideas, I hope to paint a picture of a science, engineering, and technology future that is vibrant, multifaceted, and purposeful.