bridges vol. 13, April 2007 / Feature Article by Juliet M. Beverly There was a time, not too long ago, that the only way to job hunt took a lot of footwork and a few newspapers. Today, all it takes is a dial tone and a computer. Visiting Web sites like www.monster.com gives information to thousands of jobs in hundreds of fields. You can apply for jobs online rather than on-site and in person, and you can post your resume and have employers find you. Like the "virtual" job market, many other common processes of everyday life have been moved to the World Wide Web and are - sometimes exclusively - available online. But if you don't have a computer with access to the Internet, these processes aren't common - they're barriers.
comScore Networks, reported that worldwide Internet use has gone up 10 percent in the last year to 747 million users ages 15 and over. Conceivably, everyday 747 million people sign on to check their e-mail, the nearest location for a flu shot, telephone numbers or Web addresses for their nearest schools or institutions of higher learning, and the latest news. However, this 747 million people is barely 10 percent of the world's population.
Headquarters: Washington, D.C
Founded: 2000
Revenue and Support (2005): $6,221,938 USD
End of the Year Net Assets (2005): $12,200,535 USD
Donors and supports include Cisco Systems, Google, Microsoft, AT&T
This is what is widely described as the "digital divide" - the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not. Although there is no set definition for the term "digital divide, there is a commonality that states that the divide is based on those who can reap the benefits from using technology versus those who will not. One Economy Corporation focuses on the benefits of computer technology and information. Instead of basing their work solely on putting computer technology into the hands of those who don't have it, they focus on how people can get the most from that technology to propel themselves economically, making computer innovations the medium to alleviate poverty.
Eric Kandel is known as one of the most influential neuroscientists of our time. Born in 1929 in Vienna as the son of a Jewish toy shop owner, he emigrated to the United States at the age of nine to escape the Nazis. He received his undergraduate degree at Harvard in history before becoming interested in psychoanalysis and neuroscience. Since 1974 he has been a professor at the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior at Columbia University in New York. In 2000, Eric Kandel was a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the cellular basis of learning and memory.
The following is an interview with him conducted by the Austrian Press and Information Service at the Embassy of Austria in Washington, DC, for Austrian Information, volume 59, November/December 2006.
In 2006 you published a book called In Search of Memory - The Emergence
of a New Science of Mind that chronicles your life and research. You
have dedicated your entire scientific career to the exploration of the
human mind. Where does this interest come from?
I came to the United States after having escaped from Nazi Austria, and
I spent my early years in high school and at Harvard trying to
understand what happened in Vienna. How could people who love Haydn,
Mozart, and Beethoven at one moment be so terribly anti-Semitic and
destructive the next? I thought I was going to do graduate work on
modern European history, but I got interested in psychoanalysis during
my years at Harvard. I met a woman, Anna Kris, whose parents, Ernst and
Marianna Kris, were gifted young people of the Freud circle. And so I,
too, became interested in psychoanalysis. I thought I would have a
better understanding of human motivation by studying psychoanalysis.
I decided on short-term notice to go to medical school, where I was
determined to become a psychiatrist and do psychoanalysis. I spent my
summers working in psychiatric hospitals, learning about mental
illness. But at the end of my medical school career, I thought that
maybe even a psychoanalyst should know something about the brain. So I
took an elective course with Harry Grundfest at Columbia University on
neurobiology. I fell in love with neurobiology, and I have studied that
ever since. My passion has now been the biology of the brain and
particularly memory and how memories are formed and maintained. So I
have devoted my career, fifty years of science, to studying the
biological basis of memory storage.
You once said that we are all "made of memories." What happens in our brain so that we are able to remember something?
Hardly a day goes by without the appearance of one or more news items on the imperative of fostering innovation in an increasingly globalized economy. Picked at random, an article in The New York Times of March 17, 2007, ("These Boots Were Made for 22 M.P.H.") describes the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in Russia, and the lack of a "vibrant mechanism to bring together venture capitalists, inventors and entrepreneurs to develop viable commercial products." That process is what is meant by innovation, and the question is how to structure research and development policy to best support it.
All countries, and their groupings, now see themselves as players or
potential players in a global network and are addressing the urgent
question of how to optimize their respective roles. The established
economies, notably the US, are motivated by the need to maintain
leadership positions that appear to be eroding in the face of increased
competition. This trend, if not halted and even reversed, would have
grave consequences for creating jobs and maintaining a high standard of
living; decreased innovative capability would impact energy options and
national security. Less established economies are motivated by
opportunities not available to them before. They now have options
resulting from the leveling brought about by globalization (Clyde V.
Prestowitz, Three Billion New Capitalists,The Great Shift of Wealth and
Power to the East, New York: Basic Books, 2005; Thomas L. Friedman, The
World Is Flat, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006), if only they
can position themselves to take advantage of them. While the US is
clearly in the first camp, European countries and Europe as a whole
appear to represent a mixture of the two sets of motivations. This
blending is due to differing historic antecedents (for Europe,
fragmentation and the first steps toward consolidation) and the
increased heterogeneity in an expanded European Union.
These differences, among others, are reflected in two recent reports
discussed in this issue of bridges, and both deal with the need for
science and technology policy to respond to a rapidly changing global
environment. Both are reports to their countries' respective
legislatures: Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future is the response of the US National Academies to a specific request from the US Congress; Österreichischer Forschungs- und Technologiebericht 2006
was commissioned as a report of the Austrian Federal Government to
Parliament on the state of research and technology in the country; it
was prepared by a consulting group whose members include
government-funded laboratories. It is difficult to assess the level of
independence with which advice is given in each case. In the absence of
large private universities that exist in the US, European higher
education has been more closely linked to government, as has European
research through joint public-private organizational models not found
in the US. However, because of the massive growth in government support
for research and development in the US beginning with World War II, the
practical distinctions are less clear. An example of the way this topic
is discussed in Europe is the volume Großforschung und Autonomie:Die Geschichte der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, Neuherberger Vortäge 1 (2006).
Over its 36-year history, EPA has adapted to changing environmental issues and is slowly moving to make sustainability a key element of environmental policy (Click here for Hecht's article Sustainabiity at EPA: A New Research Focus and Initiatives for Better Enviromental Decisions). Using the words of EPA administrators past and present, this article identifies major themes that contribute to sustainable development and reflect what the current EPA Administrator Steve Johnson sees as EPA's history "from pollution control to pollution prevention to sustainability." The article concludes by identifying four general areas that can further enhance EPA's role in managing the environment in a more sustainable way.
Table 1. US EPA Administrators
1970-1973
William D. (Bill) Ruckelshaus
1973-1977
Russell E. (Russ) Train
1977-1981
Douglas M. (Doug) Costle
1981-1983
Anne M. Gorsuch
1983-1985
William D. (Bill) Ruckelshaus
1985-1989
Lee M. Thomas
1989-1993
William K. (Bill) Reilly
1993-2001
Carol M. Browner
2001-2003
Christine Todd Whitman
2003-2005
Michael O. (Mike) Leavitt
2005-Present
Stephen L. (Steve) Johnson
US EPA: 1970-2006
Collaborating with the Regulated Community.
During the late 1980s, EPA began consulting with industry while
formulating regulations. Bill Reilly observed that "regulatory
negotiations are extremely productive at getting a result that works
for everybody" and emphasized the need to listen to industry, whose
leaders "often have a better, more intimate grasp of how to achieve
[environmental goals]." In the 1990s, EPA also began working with the
regulated community to find voluntary ways to go beyond mandated
standards. EPA began encouraging more public and private organizations
to adopt environmental management systems (EMS), which can advance
sustainability by creating a structured and systematic approach for
improving overall environmental performance and stewardship. The Agency
also initiated efforts to build partnerships with the regulated
community; by 2006 it had over 80 voluntary partnership programs.
The EU's antitrust case against Microsoft and its implications for Silicon Valley companies is only one of the diverse legal issues being tackled by the Transatlantic Technology Law Forum (TTLF). Looking from both US and EU perspectives, the TTLF is also
Stanford Law School
examining the patenting of software, data protection and the Internet, labeling of genetically modified organisms, securitization of intellectual property (IP) in the nanosciences, space law and other technology law issues.
It currently focuses on five legal priority areas: intellectual property law, information technology (IT) law, biotechnology law, nanotechnology law, and space law, with a sixth field, competition law, to be added shortly.
"Neutrality" - who could be against it? The very word evokes images of pacifism rather than belligerence, impartiality rather than advocacy. Often, "neutrality" is the rational middle ground between warring factions.
But "network neutrality" is different. The phrase represents the war itself, a conflict among competing views of the appropriate regulation of the Internet. The war has many competing factions - network operators, applications providers, equipment manufacturers, consumers, and others. "Network neutrality" is not the demilitarized no-man's land between the factions. Rather, the different factions compete to define "network neutrality" in their own terms, and they try to persuade governments to take corresponding regulatory actions.
Thus, paradoxically, we have the War of Network Neutrality, the war to shape the regulation of the Internet. Because the
Internet is a ubiquitous network transcending national boundaries, many
different governmental bodies have the potential to regulate the
Internet. Each of these institutions becomes a potential battleground
in the War of Network Neutrality. It is fought at international
conferences. It is fought in national governments including Austria,
the European Union, and the United States. It is fought in state and
local governments.
It is much too early to tell if the war will ever be won by one group
or another, much less by which group. Indeed, the war may be won by
different groups in different regions. A single country may choose one
form of Internet regulation; a Union of States like the EU or the US
may choose a different form. But it is not too early to describe the
contours of the many battles that have been fought.
The following article describes competing definitions of network
neutrality, whether new laws are necessary to implement network
neutrality principles, how network neutrality operates in an
international legal environment, and the possible future of network
neutrality.
Competing definitions
Potential government regulation depends on how network neutrality is
defined. The term "network neutrality," while internationally known,
has no universal definition, but most definitions of network neutrality
fall into one of three broad categories: non-discrimination with
respect to communications; non-discrimination with respect to
equipment; and preservation of consumer choice. In each of these three
areas, advocates in the War of Network Neutrality urge different
definitions on government officials.
Non-discrimination with respect to communications
Network operators often have various technical capabilities including:
blocking packets, assigning different priorities to packets, and
monitoring packets. Network neutrality advocates often seek to have a
government restrict one or all of these practices. As discussed below,
consumer and governmental interests are not necessarily aligned with
respect to strict prohibitions.
bridges vol. 13, April 2007 / Feature Article by Daniel Denecke
The Office of Science & Technology is publishing with CGS permission the following summary of a September 2006 conference that was co-sponsored by CGS and EUA. This summary of the discussions and findings during the three-day summit in Salzburg was published in the October 2006 CGS Communicator. It was written by Daniel Denecke, of the Council of Graduate Schools and coauthor of the CGS publication Ph.D. Completion and Attrition (2004).
Last September, a three-day conference sponsored by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and the European University Association (EUA), engaged the boards of directors from both organizations - representing 19 countries - in a transatlantic dialogue about the role of doctoral education in two areas: the production of global talent and national research capacity, and strengthening economic competitiveness.
Over 40 graduate education leaders from North America and Europe convened at the Schloss Leopoldskron in Salzburg, Austria, to discuss doctoral education in a global context. Participants discussed the latest findings by some of the world's leading researchers on graduate education, presented in papers commissioned for the conference; exchanged ideas about best practices in the administration of doctoral programs; and engaged each other in an international dialogue about the political, social, and economic forces shaping doctoral education.
The following is a summary of the discussions and findings during the three-day summit in Salzburg by Daniel Denecke, director of "best practices" at the Council of Graduate Schools and coauthor of the CGS publication Ph.D. Completion and Attrition (2004).
"For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation." [Bill Gates, in The Washington Post, February 25, 2007]
Bill Gates' recent insight on innovation is not exactly news to researchers, S&T policy makers, and business people; myriad recommendations have been made in the past by all of them on how best to steer the innovation process. With Globalization and rapidly emerging new markets, the search for the optimal strategic approach to boost innovation by providing the right environment and policy framework has become a top priority for US as well as European policy makers.
This article focuses on one Austrian and one US strategy recommendation, and their comparison. It will offer some insights on the perceptions - at times similar and at times rather diverging - on science, technology, and innovation in the US and in Austria.
Eric Kandel is known as one of the most influential neuroscientists of our time. Born in 1929 in Vienna as the son of a Jewish toy shop owner, he emigrated to the United States at the age of nine to escape the Nazis. He received his undergraduate degree at Harvard in history before becoming interested in psychoanalysis and neuroscience. Since 1974 he has been a professor at the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior at Columbia University in New York. In 2000, Eric Kandel was a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the cellular basis of learning and memory. 
