Average broadband speeds in 15 countries are faster than in the US.
In Japan, citizens check in to airlines,
pay transit fares, and bank through their cell phones. Average broadband speeds
in 15 countries are faster than in the United States. And in Finland, virtually
all primary care physicians use electronic health records. Germany leads the
United States in innovation and development of solar cells, Denmark leads in
wind power, Japan leads in robotics, and the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries
at the heart of GM's vaunted all-electric Volt were designed and manufactured
in South Korea.
Not long ago, America's global
leadership in technology innovation was taken as a given. Research from U.S.
corporate, academic, and government laboratories reeled off a string of
transformative innovations, in everything from transistors, mobile phones, and
personal computers to lasers, graphical user interfaces, search engines, the
Internet, and genetic sequencing. But other countries have since closed the
innovation gap, and in many cases far outpaced the United States. What happened
to America's advantage?
"... Some of the problems at the intersection of science and policy are systemic; they will not magically vanish ..."
The use of science in the formulation of regulatory policy has been a political flashpoint in the U.S. in recent years. While the issue came to a head and garnered more public attention during the administration of President George W. Bush, some of the problems at the intersection of science and policy are systemic; they will not magically vanish with a change of administrations or a shift in the composition of the Congress.
A recent report from the Bipartisan Policy Center is designed to help resolve those systemic problems. (The full text of the report, which includes an Executive Summary, can be found at www.bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/science-policy .) The report's fundamental point is that too often policy makers conflate science questions and policy questions when debating regulatory matters, and this can confuse the discussion, obscure the real issues and prompt spurious charges about science. In effect, the report says, problems occur not only when science is "politicized," but also when politics are "scientized," that is when debates that are actually about economics or ethics or policy choices are framed as questions about the validity of findings in the natural or physical sciences.
The report recommends specific steps the Obama Administration should take to help avoid this confusion of science and politics, and to make the development of regulatory policy more transparent by, for example, clarifying rules concerning conflicts of interest.
Becoming "the most dynamic and competitive, knowledge-based economy" is a goal shared by both the Lisbon Agenda of the EU and the American Competitiveness Initiative of the US - two global powers in terms of R&D expenditures.
This common goal offers great potential for improving bilateral relations and building greater S&T capacity in the world. Establishing strong partnerships in S&T will enable a joining of forces; not only to address global grand challenges such as the environment, energy, and health, but also to advance the knowledge base by benefiting from each others' experiences and know-how.
Scientific cooperation between the United States and Europe has been underpinned by longstanding historical ties and extensive relationships between European and American scientists and research organizations. However, to continue advancing science and to better address the global challenges we all face, greater cooperation and coordination will be required. In order to facilitate such intensified cooperation, the European Union and the United States already signed an S&T cooperation agreement that took force in 1998. Six years later, in 2004, the agreement was renewed for an additional five years (clickherefor Manfred Horvat's 2009 bridges article on the EU-US S&T Agreement).
In the past, funding for cooperative research between the US and Europe was determined primarily by where each participating research institution was based. Now, the United States and the European Commission (EC) are opening funding opportunities to scientists and research organizations based on foreign soil, in order to further enhance cooperation.
For example, through its Framework Program the EC has provided limited funding on a case-by-case basis for cooperative projects with industrialized countries such as the United States. In 2008 Dr. Elias Zerhouni , then director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), signed an agreement with EC Commissioner for Research, Dr. Janez Potocnik , reaffirming that biomedical research funding from NIH and the Framework Program is open to scientists based in the European Union or in the United States.
Without question, the EU-US Science and Technology Agreement has proven to be a significant tool for further developing the dialogue on S&T cooperation. Moreover, the EC Framework Program - as a key instrument in the implementation of the S&T Agreements - provides the necessary platform to foster cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
The current EC's 7th Framework Program (FP7) fosters international cooperation through supporting joint research projects involving research teams from Europe working with international partners. Over the years, the Framework Programs have invested substantial amounts to strengthen Europes international cooperation. Furthermore, FP7 develops and strengthens dialogues and information exchange activities with Third Countries and regions including the US, and offers the chance to create greater awareness on both sides of the numerous opportunities for S&T cooperation.
The objective of these activities is to enable the EU, Third Countries, and other regions to discuss current and future research priorities and to facilitate debate between the various stakeholders, thus resulting in developing joint solutions for challenges that are relevant to all of us. The outcome of these dialogues will provide intelligence for developing research policies, provide input to the specific FP7 programs, and inspire research topics for international cooperation. One tool used to achieve this goal is the so-called BILAT projects, 13 of which currently exist with countries like Russia, China, India, and Brazil, etc. (click here for a full list of all BILAT projects).
Environmental protection is a
growing market globally and increasingly contributes to creating new jobs. This
has been recognized by the United States of America, as the new administration
under President Obama has put climate change next to health reform at the top
of their agenda. Besides creating green jobs and improving energy efficiency in
buildings and transport, the wish has been expressed to become energy independent
by promoting clean energy sources.
Americans are becoming more
environmentally conscious, regulations are becoming stricter and focused on
preserving the environment, energy prices are increasing, and population growth
is demanding innovative solutions based on environmental and energy
technologies.
Every year, a large number of US students travel to Austria and other European countries to experience international cultural exchange. However, many of them bring their own faculty and never actually get to interact with local students. This means that both sides miss out on opportunities to learn from each other, reduce prejudice, and have a truly cross-cultural experience.
When Professor Timothy Conley from Bradley University had a Fulbright grant to the University of Vienna in the mid-90s, the first contacts were made between these two universities. In the ensuing years, closer collaboration was established between faculty of the English departments of Vienna and Bradley Universities. Eventually, this cooperation resulted in a series of academic excursions in the United States and in a unique program of study in Vienna.
2003 Route 66 and the Desert Southwest classes and road trips. Click image to visit the course trip site.
To begin with, faculty and students from Vienna and Bradley joined in the US for two-month-long trips along the Mississippi River (2001) and Route 66 (2003). In 2001, Professor Conley and the late Professor Kurt Mayer and twenty students from Bradley and Vienna devoted three weeks to an intensive study of the cultures of the Mississippi River. In 2003, with Professor Conley's assistance, Professor Astrid Fellner brought fifteen students from the University of Vienna to Bradley to begin her 4,000-mile course following the trail of US highway 66 through Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
