c-pet executive summary 2010-11

Executive Summary 2010-2011

A Knowledge Network Asking Tomorrow’s Questions


Much Madness is divinest sense To a discerning eye; Much sense the starkest madness. ‘T is the majority In this, as all, prevails. Assent and you are sane; Demur,- you’re straightway dangerous And handled with a chain Emily Dickinson

Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for

you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?

Walt Whitman

When I dipt into the future far as human eye could see; Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be… …Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Locksley Hall Quoted on the wall of the House of Representatives Space, Science and Technology Committee Room

C-PET is nonpartisan, nonsectarian and independent, registered in the District of Columbia and recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization by the IRS 10 G Street NE, Suite 710 Washington, DC 20002 www.c-pet.org [email protected]

Ideas won’t keep. Something must be done about them. When the idea is new, its custodians have fervor, live for it, and if need be, die for it. Alfred North Whitehead

Cover photo: C-PET Roundtable on What is Innovation? left to right: Nigel Cameron, President and CEO, C-PET; Marty Apple, President, Council of Scientific Society Presidents; Robert Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Nagy Hanna, Adviser, World Bank, Senior Fellow, C-PET


CONTENTS

Welcome to C-PET! 2 Why C-PET? 4 The C-PET Way 5 Year in Review: 2010-11 6 Institutes and Networks 8 Partnerships 10 Events 12 Future Directions 14 Appendix C-PET Team: Leadership, Fellows, Boards 16 C-PET Participants: Corporations, Government, Embassies 20 Afterword: A Recent Commentary: Let’s Engineer the Future, or, Take me to your Leader 21

1


T he United States has long dominated the global technology agenda and served as the spear-head to innovation of all kinds. Yet on almost all indicators, this is no longer the most competitive or innovation-friendly economy. And the single most troubling feature of Washington, DC is the near-absence of serious engagement with long-term technology is-

sues from the very top of the federal policy agenda; an absence shared by most think tanks and other groups seeking to shape that agenda. Nowhere is the short-term nature of political vision and deci-sion-making both inside and outside government more evident than here, and more troubling. Another way to frame the current situation is to contrast the culture of Silicon Valley, where so much innovation takes place and many of the lead technology companies are headquartered, and that of the federal capital. In the Valley, innovation, disruption, and a long-term view are taken for granted. And they go hand-in-hand with both a suspicion of Washington and a general lack of interest in the policy arena that it represents. C-PET is being developed to address this complex situation. Most think tanks take distinct positions on issues of contro-versy, or have a clear ideological/partisan orientation, or some combination of the two. We put as much effort into how we think as what we think. We are building a knowledge network, drawing together thinkers with wide interests and deep expertise from across the silos within which so much thinking still takes place. And while most think tanks focus on answers, we ask questions; indeed, our chief focus is on clarifying what the big questions are – Tomorrow’s Ques-tions. It is as we identify, clarify and prioritize the “big ques-tions” raised in future perspective (our rule-of-thumb is a 10-year time horizon) that we cultivate a context within which solutions can be developed. By determining to be nonpartisan and non-ideological we are not stating that we have no view. We are rather affirming our commitment to the long term, to the framing of questions as the context for answers, and to the participation of thinkers of widely diverse views in the conversation. There are several reasons why we are focused on Tomorrow’s Questions. For one thing, the pace of change, which is quickening, lies beyond the grasp of most decision-makers. Think tanks like other policy groups tend to operate on the assumptions of a static order of things. At C-PET we know we operate in a flux in which the extraordinary changes of the past decade are mere prologue to the shifts that lie ahead of us. Secondly, America’s political traditions – both the two main parties and the various strands within them – bear little correlation with the emerging issues that will shape the politics of tomorrow. As

WELCOME TO C-PET!

2


individuals the many people in C-PET’s network may have strong views on the deficit and foreign policy and welfare and the appropriate level of regulation for markets; but we alike acknowledge that a sea-change is taking place in which the salience of these and other key current issues is subject to a paradigm shift caused by technology impacts, intended or not. Thirdly, the explosion of knowledge is leading us into a situation in which “expertise,” while crucial, will no longer play the part it has in the past in shaping choices. Wisdom to make decisions will come from inter-disciplinary groups in which networked relationships between experts shape a capacity to assess the fountain of facts and determine what matters; in which intuition and the ability to select from overwhelming quantities of data across many fields will determine understanding. So a knowl-edge network spanning disciplines, in which diverse thinkers are teamed together, offers the context for the defining and, ultimately, resolution of the great issues that confront our generation. ———– Two members of our Board of Directors recently stepped down. Our thanks to Una Ryan and Mau-reen (Moe) Girkins for their service. At the same time, we welcome our new Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Bob Cohen; and Senior Fellows Nagy Hanna (adviser, World Bank) and Sarah Miller Caldicott (chair, Edison Awards). - Nigel M. de S. Cameron President and CEO

3


“Americans have always defined themselves in terms of the future. It is therefore astonishing that there is no policy institute on emerging technologies in the nation's capital, one that cuts across philosophical lines. C-PET addresses that absence in our national conversation." JONATHAN MORENO, University of Pennsylvania

"Vast issues of policy across every area will be hit by the transformative effects of emerging technologies, whether robotics/AI, synthetic bio, virtual reality, neuroscience, or the next generation of research in genetics. The Innovation Economy. Security. Environment. Freedom. Dignity. Risk, technology, and human values come to a single point, and must drive a far-sighted policy discussion that we have barely begun.” NIGEL CAMERON, President and CEO, C-PET

“Innovation is fast becoming a guiding force for public policy in one country after another – but not our own.” JOHN KAO, Innovation Nation

C-PET is different from other think tanks because it is: • Looking at the connections between technologies and paying particular atten-

tion to how technologies will grow more intertwined, as well as considering the long-term growth of technologies

• Considering the competitive, employment, skill mix, and other key economic, social and political implications of technologies

• Building a network of different types of technology experts who can link together and "think" together via social media and other Internet-based communications to provide opinions and advice about key tech policy issues.

ROBERT COHEN, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, C-PET

WHY C-PET?

4


At C-PET we think a lot about how we go about what we do. C-PET is developing a distinctive knowledge network. It is characteristic of policy groups that they see their role as articulating “answers” to widely agreed problems, and arguing for them in the public arena. Instead, we stress the manner in which the discussion takes place, and prime focus is on the core issues at stake - identify-ing, clarifying, and prioritizing Tomorrow’s Questions. In a city full of competing answers, we see the prime strategic need as the proper framing of the questions. Some C-PET Distinctives

• Looking at the connections between technologies and paying particular attention to how technologies will grow more intertwined, as well as considering the long-term growth of technologies;

• Considering the competitive, employment, skill mix, and other key economic, social and political implications of technologies;

• Building a network of different types of technology experts who can link together and “think” together via social media and other Internet-based communications to provide opinions and advice about key tech policy issues.

The C-PET Principles Six core principles shape C-PET’s approach:

1. The knowledge network must span disciplines and interconnect traditional silos of expertise; concurrent engineering.

2. All articulate views must be round the table all the time; outlier positions are especially im-portant to counter groupthink and ensure an open-textured context for creativity in the knowledge network in the face of change.

3. A 10-year time horizon is our default context for current decisions. 4. Values shape both policy and markets, so they are key to innovation and the embrace of the

future. 5. We assume a global perspective; the United States should seek to be both lead global com-

petitor, and chief global citizen. 6. We seek a positive sum outcome that respects differences and focuses on clarifying the key

issues; Tomorrow’s Questions

THE C-PET WAY

5


Year in Review: 2010-11 In the past year, C-PET has welcomed the most distinguished voices in technology, innovation and values - from Kevin Kelly to Vint Cerf to Norman Augustine to Jonathan Moreno - to our roundta-bles in Washington and teleconferences with participants around the globe. Mark Heeson, President of the National Venture Capital Association; Marty Apple, President of the Council of Scientific Soci-ety Presidents; Reed Hundt, former FCC Chairman; David Kappos, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As well as representatives from the White House, various federal agencies, scores of major corporations, around three dozen embassies, and the wider policy community. In 2010-11 C-PET built on earlier activities which helped launch our work, including most notably the following:

• The C-PET international roundtable on Emerging Technologies, Risk and Values brought together representatives from OECD, the EC, and other international bodies with policy and corporate leaders, and experts from the risk and values communities.

• The C-PET Forum on Science, Technology, and the Presidential Election at the National Press Club invited representatives of the campaigns to meet specialist panels on nanotech-nology, biotechnology, and space policy.

• The C-PET Symposium on the Future of the Internet hosted by TechAmerica • The C-PET Symposium on the Internet of Things, hosted by McKenna, Long and

Aldridge, which convened key industry and technical leaders with policymakers for far-sighted and private discussion

Roundtables 2010-11 has seen regular C-PET roundtables at our offices in G Street NE and the fur-ther development of Institutes and Networks focused on major emerging technology issues. Topics covered have included a review of the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative, exploration of syn-thetic biology developments and the future of the biotechnology industry, privacy and digital technol-ogy, and specialist discussions of biometrics (a global policy conference) and the impact of the Arab revolutions on WMD control. A major theme has been innovation, with a series of five roundtables co-sponsored by the Intel-led Task Force on American Innovation, of which C-PET is a member, touching aspects including intellectual property, risk, and policy. Private Events C-PET also continues to host private “opinion leader” dinners on timely issues for

YEAR IN REVIEW 2010-11

6


off-the-record exchanges by leaders in the policy, corporate, and other sectors. One such dinner ex-amined the problematics of Washington’s approach to technology and the future in terms of “corporate culture,” and assessed the challenge of cultural change. Another convened corporate and policy leaders to review privacy issues on the boundary between the private sector and public policy. While some of our larger events are off the record (such as the day-long on the Internet of Things and the “high-level” day of the global biometrics conference) – partly to encourage the participation of government leaders – we recognize the special value of smaller group contexts, especially for sensi-tive and emerging questions, and are privileged to be able to convene some of those most engaged in these frontier issues for our generation. Teleconferences In addition to these Washington events, we have initiated a series of teleconfer-ences in which participants from around the nation, and overseas, can join in discussion with leading thinkers. The focus has been innovation. The TQ Brains Trust We have also begun to develop our Tomorrow’s Questions Brains Trust, a multi-disciplinary knowledge network with the task of identifying, clarifying, and prioritizing the stra-tegic issues of our generation. Communications As outputs to these various events we have issued short reports and transcrip-tions, together with our commentary “think pieces” which engage in narrative disruption by pressing the C-PET agenda of future-oriented engagement and innovative approaches to innovation, with a special focus on the Washington policy community. Our monthly email newsletter and recently rede-veloped website bring our topical interests and distinctive approach to a much wider network. Our Team Meanwhile, our team has continued to grow in both size and strength. Recent adds in-clude Bob Cohen, widely known for his work as an economist on the impact of the internet, who has joined as Deputy Director of C-PET and to head up our Institute on the Future of the Internet, So-cial Media, and Exascale/Cloud Computing. We welcome two more Senior Fellows: Nagy Hanna, adviser to the World Bank where he was formerly head of corporate strategy and led ICT business transformation; and Bob McCreight, now directing an institute at George Washington University af-ter a distinguished career at the State Department. Melissa Silvers has been promoted to Chief of Staff, and joined in our offices as Director of Initiatives by Elisabeth Doherty. Senior Adviser Kathy Brown, with a background in banking and multi-sectoral consulting, is focused on strategic partner-ship development. Garland McCoy, co-founder of the Technology Policy Institute who also leads the Technology Education Institute, has joined our team as Policy Adviser; and entrepreneur Umer Chaudhry as Innovation Adviser. Henry Lavine, Senior Counsel at Squire Sanders, is now chairman of our Advisory Board; and Jennie Hunter-Cevera, Executive VP at RTI International, now chairs our Executive Board. This team is strong and continues to grow. Wider partnerships During 2010-11 a series of relationships has been established with wider net-works, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (corporate social responsibility), the Council of Sci-entific Society Presidents (knowledge networking and development), RTI International (joint pro-gramming for the policy community), and the Task Force on American Innovation (co-sponsor of our roundtable series). - The C-PET Team

7


C-PET’s commitment to inter-disciplinary approaches and the framing of questions has led to our developing focused institutes and networks under the umbrella of our common methodological prin-ciples. C-PET Institute on the Future of the Internet, Social Media, and Exascale/Cloud Computing Director: Robert B. Cohen The Institute is being developed to build on earlier activities, which have included: • The C-PET symposium on the Future of the Internet was moderated by Senior Fellow and

leading internet thinker Michael Nelson, and hosted/co-sponsored by trade group TechAmerica.

• Our symposium on the Internet of Things, an invitational event hosted by the law firm McKenna, Long and Aldridge and co-sponsored by both TechAmerica and Georgetown Uni-versity, drew together industry and federal experts with a focus ranging from RFID to smart grid to cyber-security issues, and also reviewed parallel approaches in Europe.

• A recent roundtable that engaged the privacy implications of digital technologies, with partici-pants including ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Future of Privacy Forum.

During the next year we shall focus especially on exascale and cloud computing, and the future of so-cial networking – engaging with scientists at research centers who are exploring the frontiers of these areas, and drawing on resources at innovative corporations and consortiums. These discussions will not only expand the C-PET knowledge network but also result in a series of working papers on the most pertinent technology trends in each focus area, as well as to define key policy issues. We shall cast the net wide, engaging with executives, scholars and leaders both in the United States and around the world. C-PET Institute on Innovation C-PET’s Institute on Innovation has teamed with the Intel-led Task Force on American Innovation

C-PET INSTITUTES

8


to convene a series of roundtables on the policy, intellectual property, and risk aspects of the innova-tion process. • What is Innovation? • Innovation and Risk • Innovation and Intellectual Property • Innovation and Policy

Broadening the scope of the innovation discussion, we have joined with the International Council for Small Business to focus on the role of women entrepreneurs: • Women and Entrepreneurship (co-hosted at George Washington University)

C-PET Institute on Security for the 21st Century This Institute is developing several points of focus, including: • Biosecurity and asymmetric risk: a private lunch meeting and invitational roundtable focused

the impact of the “Arab spring” on bioweapons security (co-sponsored events with the Inter-national Security and Biopolicy Institutee

• Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) risk issues • Biometrics: Policy and Ethical implications The Institute hosted an international conference on emerging issues in biometrics with participants from 20 nations and a high-level day-long confidential meeting involving U.S., European, and Asian participants from governments, academics and the private sector. C-PET’s Institute on Security for the 21st Century is a partner in Project RISE, a global 3-year process on the impacts of biometrics. Our recent 2-day conference on biometrics, security and ethics drew leading experts from nearly 20 nations and included high-level participation from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the European Commission. C-PET Institute on Tomorrow’s Energy (in preparation) C-PET Networks: Seed beds for Institutes • Network on Biotechnology: Events have included expert roundtables focused on synthetic bi-

ology, and the future of the biotechnology industry. • Network on Nanotechnology and Convergence: Events have included a half-day symposium

reviewing the National Nanotechnology Initiative, building on the annual conference series on nanotechnology policy developed by one of our precursor organizations, the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Center on Nanotechnology and Society. The symposium brought together lead federal representatives with industry leaders, and included assessments by environmental and other critics.

• Network on AI & Robotics (in preparation)

9


C-PET has collaborated with partners including: • Consortium for Science and Public Outcomes, Arizona State University • Converging Technologies Bar Association • European Commission • Georgetown University, Communication, Culture and Technology Program • Illinois Institute of Technology • Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future • International Council for Small Business • International Security and Biopolicy Institute • McKenna, Long and Aldridge • Policy Studies Organization • Society for Industrial Microbiology • The Task Force on American Innovation • TechAmerica • TechPolicy Central • University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute • U.S. Chamber of Commerce Business Civic Leadership Center • Wellcome Trust

C-PET has collaborated with and/or been sponsored by a wide variety of partners:

PARTNERSHIPS

10


C-PET’s approach is to develop an expert network that collaborates with broad-based networks to scale our ideas and bring together established knowledge communities. To that end, C-PET has es-tablished strategic partnerships with the following networks:

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. C-PET has developed a partnership with the U.S. Chamber’s division of corporate social responsibility, the Business Center for Civic Leader-ship, to collaborate in a series of events on the CSR impacts of emerging technologies. First in this series, on the implications of developments in biotechnology, took place at the U.S. Chamber offices in January 2011.

• RTI International. RTI International, the Research Triangle Institute based in the North Carolina universities, has invited C-PET to partner in hosting technology policy-focused events in Washington, DC.

• The Task Force on American Innovation. C-PET is currently the only Washington think tank to serve as a member of the Intel-led Task Force on American Innovation. The Task Force has co-sponsored C-PET’s roundtable series on innovation, risk, intellectual property, and policy.

• The Council of Scientific Society Presidents. C-PET is working in partnership with the Council to develop a joint curated knowledge network of 1,000 leading global experts at the interface of technology, policy, and the future.

• The International Council for Small Business. C-PET is developing a partnership with the International Council for Small Business, presently based at George Washington Univer-sity. An initial partnership event with the Council was our roundtable at GW on women and entrepreneurship in technology.

• The International Security and Biopolicy Institute. C-PET’s Institute on Security for the 21st Century hosted a private meeting for leaders in the bioweapons field to assess the impact of the revolutions in North Africa, and subsequently a public roundtable.

• Project RISE. C-PET’s Institute on Security for the 21st Century is the U.S. think tank part-ner in this European Commission-funded global network assessing the security and ethics aspects of developments in biometrics. We hosted a high-level event involving government, civil society and corporate leaders that also served as the prep con for the final conference in the project.

11


C-PET Events in 2010-11 have included:

• Innovation Leader Teleconferences • Roundtable on Privacy and Digital Technologies • Roundtable on Synthetic Biology • Roundtable on the Future of Biotechnology • Symposium on the National Nanotechnology Initiative • Conference on global perspectives on biometrics, security and ethics • Roundtable series on Innovation (co-sponsor: The Task Force on American Innovation)

o What is Innovation? o Innovation and Risk o Innovation and Intellectual Property o Innovation and Policy

Panelists at C-PET events in 2010-11 have included the following thought leaders: Martin A. Apple, President, Council of Scientific Society Presidents Norman Augustine, former Chairman, Lockheed Martin Duane Blackman, White House Office of Science and Technology G. Steven Burrill, Burrill and Company Sarah Miller Caldicott, Chairman, Edison Awards Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security Vinton Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Michelle Chibba, Director of Privacy Policy, Ontario Douglas Comer, Director of Technology Policy, Intel Tom Donlan, Barron’s Business James Greenwood, President, Biotechnology Industry Organization Nagy Hanna, Adviser and former Head of Corporate Strategy, World Bank Mark Heeson, President, National Venture Capital Association Reed Hundt, former Chairman, FCC Peter Hustinx, European Data Privacy Supervisor David Kappos, Undersecretary, Department of Commerce; Director of the U.S. Patent and Trade-mark Office

EVENTS

12


Kevin Kelly, Co-founder, Wired Robert Mocny, Director, US-VISIT, Department of Homeland Security Emilio Mordini, Centre for Science, Society and Citizenship, Rome John Palafoutas, Executive Director, Task Force on American Innovation Shelly Porges, Department of State Mihail Roco, Adviser for Nanotechnology, NSTC; National Science Foundation Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council Gary Shapiro, President, CEA Julia Spicer, President, Mid-America Venture Association Naomi Stanford, General Services Administration Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Co-ordinating Office Rene von Schomberg, European Commission, DG Research For example: from the C-PET bulletin on the National Nanotechnology Initiative symposium: As the NNI gears up for its next 3-year plan, we invited round C-PET’s table a range of voices, in discipline and perspective. One participant commented (complimented, even) that she had never taken part in such a diverse panel. Diversity is so vital to achieving a positive sum outcome, so we try and bring to bear all articulate perspectives. It’s not just about fairness; it’s about being smart. What passes for dialogue too easily tends toward sophisticated groupthink. Discussion was lively. John Veysey, representing Congressman Lipinski who chairs the research sub-committee of the House Committee on Science and Technology, rooted our discussion in his boss’s blue-collar district, the need for jobs, and the cost of the “disruption” that is tied to hopes for nano. Clayton Teague, who directs the office that co-ordinates the NNI (the NNCO), outlined its complex character as a partnership of more than two dozen federal agencies which relinquish a slice of their autonomy to co-operate. The agencies’ distinctive agendas themselves reflect patterns of Congres-sional oversight and appropriations. Developing alignment and exploiting the creativity that these dif-ferential approaches release lie at the heart of the federal project. Nora Savage, nano lead at EPA and co-chair of the group tasked with writing the new strategic plan, admitted that the very small slice of funding going to her agency had just got smaller. Erin Ross of NANRES, which follows security and energy applications, called for balance in our approach to the several contested issues. Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State, who has written on technology governance, noted that perhaps 1% of the budget had gone to ethical, legal and social issues, and warned against the idea that technology’s disruptive impacts are always beneficial. For the NanoBusiness Alliance, Philip Lippel called for more focus on commercialization. David Forrest of the Foresight Institute asked why the holy grail of “molecular manufacturing” was not being pursued, since it would solve almost every problem. Jennifer Sass (NRDC) discussed the current effort to reform TOSCA. Shaun Clancy of Evonik Degussa told how the NNI helps a company like his, and not that industry had been poor at communication with the public. Margaret Glass, NISEnet, addressed that question, noted the high level of confidence people have in museums, and outlined the “nano days” initiative that was set to help improve understanding of EHS and ELSI issues. Since public understanding of nano has pretty much flatlined, this could hardly be more important. So what’s my take, 10 years into the NNI? Clayton Teague’s engagement throughout the roundtable was a model of listening and being prepared to answer. It became clear, to those who did not already know, that the NNI is a complex collaboration of agencies and budgets quite unlike the nano thrust of any other nation, and uniquely suited (in ways good and also bad) to the way Washington does things when more than one agency is involved. In this case, there are more than two dozen. It is at least in the hands of a consummate as well as highly expert diplomat. . . .

13


C-PET’s long-term goal is to focus the policy community of the United States and its global partners on the radical implications for every field of strategy and policy of developments in emerging tech-nologies. The success of the United States, the stability of the global order, and the triumph of human rights and human dignity in the 21st century will crucially depend on an alignment of U.S., global, and individual interests, and the correlation of investment value and human values. C-PET seeks to foster such an alignment through the wider development of our expert knowledge network, focused Insti-tutes in special areas of interests, Networks across the key emerging technology fields, and partner-ships with broadly-based leadership networks spanning this nation and the global community. These are projects at various stages of conceptualization and development. A. National Knowledge Trust: Expert knowledge network to Address Tomorrow’s Questions,

developed jointly with the Council of Scientific Society Presidents Mission: To identify, catalyze and curate a network of 1,000 global experts, representing an unprece-dented range of intellectual resources across all disciplines, to address the great emerging issues facing the human future – Tomorrow’s Questions. Building on C-PET’s Tomorrow’s Questions Brains Trust of Senior Fellows and other experts, the Na-tional Knowledge Trust (NKT) is a real-time knowledge consortium for global innovation leadership. The Trust has begun to assemble 1,000 thought leaders on the frontiers of new knowledge, who can be called on by opinion leaders, media and governments. The NKT promotes future-focused innova-tion leadership by merging knowledge, efforts and resources across sectors and disciplines. Members are united in their belief that collaboration and creativity are central to the next wave of innovation, and to the anticipatory governance that it will demand. Our goal is to cultivate a cooperative network of global thinkers committed to defining Tomorrow’s Questions in the context of emerging tech-nologies for future growth markets and sustainable development through whole system design and collaborative engagement. Need: The speed and complexity of emerging information and technology systems requires con-stantly fresh approaches to innovation policy that are long-term and comprehensive in scope. Effec-tive engagement between NKT thought leaders and high-level decision makers will promote cultural change essential to future innovation through:

• Efficiencies in the way knowledge is originated, accessed, distributed and authenticated

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

14


• An environment where innovation can happen because ideas collide • An infrastructure for sharing best practices, inspiring cross-sectoral innovation • Adherence to positive sum outcome principles • Improved access to knowledge and individuals

Means: Tomorrow’s Questions (TQs) : Ongoing interactive sessions where National Knowledge Trust fellows collaborate through core “Idea Flower Groups” to:

• Identity, clarify and prioritize the key Tomorrow’s Questions • Collaborate and share perspectives with a high-level leadership network • Broaden the shared knowledge base • Establish the key conversational framework for the future • Increase depth of understanding across sectors • Track/measure responses, trends and key baseline categories: • Identify consensus trends (on TQs and priorities) • Identify fault-lines, areas of underlying disagreement • Determine how to re-frame issues to seek positive sum outcomes

B. Leadership Development Nexus:

Cross-sectoral internships enabling leadership for the future

This effort is being designed to increase cross-fertilisation between the science, technology, pol-icy, and business communities, by offering internship placements and appropriate mentoring/educational opportunities to young professionals developing careers across the fields of science and technology, policy, and business.

C. Institute on Tomorrow’s Energy

The Institute will convene broad-based discussion within the policy, technology and business communities and focus the best strategic thinking on the key assumptions of energy policy for the 21st century.

15


C-PET Team: Leadership, Fellows, Boards

President and CEO Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D., M.B.A., President and CEO. Before founding C-PET, Nigel Cameron served as a Research Professor and Associate Dean at the Illinois Institute of Technology, where he also directed an institute on biotechnology policy and established the first U.S. center on nanotechnology and society. He has written widely on the policy and ethics implications of emerging technologies, appearing on network television including ABC Nightline and been published in such places as the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, the London Guardian – as well as law reviews, Nature Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology Law and Business. In 1983 he founded the journal Ethics and Medicine, and his books include The New Medicine: Life and Death after Hippocrates and Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century. He has been a featured speaker at the Aspen Ideas Festi-val, the World Healthcare Innovation and Technology Congress, Amplifyfest (Australia), and an executive-in-residence at UBS Wolfsberg (Switzerland), and a participant in the U.S./European Commission dialogue on Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology. He has also represented the United States on delega-tions to the United Nations, and is Chair of the Social and Human Sciences Committee of the United States National Commission for UNESCO. A naturalized U.S. citizen, he has degrees from Cambridge and Edinburgh universities and the Edinburgh Business School. Recent/upcoming activities include:

• Chair of governance track, Beijing conference on nanobiotechnology

• Session chair in Brussels high-level EU workshop on biometrics • Executive in residence, UBS Wolfsberg, Switzerland • Keynote on RFID impacts, STARS young leaders’ conference, Stein-am-Rhein, Switzerland • Keynote on radical life extension, Amplify, (AMP), Sydney, Australia • Plenary, technology impacts and branded content, Content Summit, London, UK • Plenary, Planet under Pressure (2012), London, UK • Writing projects include: essay for encyclopedia of on emerging technology ethics; risk, values and

decision-making on emerging technologies; continuing monthly column for U.S. Chamber of Com-merce on technology and corporate social responsibility; editing special journal issue on biometrics and policy; preparing book on technology and the human future

Robert B. Cohen, Ph.D., Deputy Director; Director, C-PET Institute on the Future of the Internet, Social Me-dia, and Exascale/Cloud Computing. Bob Cohen works on how cloud services adoption is changing enterprises and telecommunications. He has been a fellow at the Economic Strategy Institute and developed the high tech strategy for New York State under Governor Mario Cuomo. He has helped a number of government groups develop policies for the Internet, including the European Commission’s Directorate General XIII during the time it was creating a broad European approach to the Internet based on wider use of the now-global IP stan-dard. He also advised the NSA’s technology group on foreign government initiatives to promote the growth of the Internet. Dr. Cohen has also done consulting on telecommunications networks and Internet services for various equipment and services firms, such as IBM, AT&T, and Lucent. He participated in a number of studies at the consulting group, RHK. More recently, Dr. Cohen’s work on grid and cloud services includes chairing StreetGrid08, Wall Street’s conference on financial services and grids, and serving as Area Director for Enter-prise Requirements and a Steering Committee member of the Open Grid Forum. Dr. Cohen has pioneered studies using economic input-output analysis to quantify how enterprise adoption of technologies such as grid computing affects state economies. He was economic advisor to President George H. W. Bush’s National Advi-sory Commission on Semiconductors. Dr. Cohen has taught at NYU’s Stern School of Business, the City Uni-versity of New York, Cooper Union, and Columbia University. He holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from the New School for Social Research and a B.A. from Swarthmore College. Recent/upcoming activities include:

· “iTunes corporations’ — cloud computing changes how firms collaborate and is creating new business

APPENDIX

16


models,” Insight-Spectra, March 2011 (www.insight-spectra.com) · Changing the Face of the Internet: Virtual Worlds and the Information Economy: Impacts on Euro-

pean Policy, Jobs and Industrial Competitiveness (Berlin: Business Village, 2009), a book version of a previous paper, “Virtual Worlds and the Transformation of Business (Athena Alliance, 2008), athenaalliance.org/.../VirtualWorldsandtheTransformationofBusiness.pdf “Why enterprises are adopting private clouds and are not making ‘The Big Switch’,” Insight-Spectra, March 2011 (www.insight-spectra.com)

· An analysis of how global financial institutions are using cloud computing (proprietary)

· Requirements for the Virtual Private Cloud (editor, TMForum/Enterprise Cloud Leadership Council White Paper, forthcoming)

· Requirements for Database as a Service (editor, TMForum/Enterprise Cloud Leadership Council White Paper, forthcoming)

Melissa Silvers, Chief of Staff. Melissa has extensive experience in Washington, having worked both in the think tank community and on Capitol Hill Elisabeth Doherty, Director of Initiatives. Elisabeth has worked on Capitol Hill and also has international ex-perience Lydia Jordan, Research Associate and Newsletter Editor Matt James, Research Associate Henrietta Brookes, Research Assistant Alice Cameron, Research Assistant and Staff Writer Emily Stubbs, Research Assistant Katherine W. Brown, Senior Adviser, Partnerships and Organizational Strategies. Strategic Consultant and Executive Adviser, 2002-2011 Business Development Sector Director, MBNA, Chicago, 1990-2000. Her focus is on strategic planning, process development and implementation, strategic partnership development, data and network analysis, and organizational development. Garland McCoy, Policy Adviser. Formerly Senior VP with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, Garland was founder and Chief Development Officer of the Technology Policy Institute. He also serves as President of the Technology Education Institute. Umer Chaudhry, Innovation Adviser. Umer is an entrepreneur with extensive experience in software develop-ment and innovative applications. Henry W. Lavine, Chairman, Advisory Board. Senior Counsel at Squire Sanders, Henry W. Lavine is a general business lawyer with a historic focus in startup and venture capital transactions. In recent years he has become very active in sourcing and executing transactions to assist US-based and other defense companies in satisfying their offset obligations in the many non-US countries that have such programs in connection with their large equipment purchases. He has also advised countries in establishing such programs. He is also the chair of Saw-yer & Co., LLC and a member of the Bretton Woods Committee. Jennie Hunter-Cevera, Chairman, Executive Board. Jennie Hunter-Cevera is Executive Vice-President of Discovery and Analytical Sciences, and Corporate Development, at RTI International, and former President of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. She has also been head of the Center for Environmental Biotechnology at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She also was senior editor for the Journal of Indus-trial Microbiology and Biotechnology for 10 years. Elected to the American Academy of Microbiology in 1995, she is

17


APPENDIX the 2004 recipient of the American Society for Microbiology Porter Award for achievement in biodiversity re-search and was elected an American Association for the Advancement of Science fellow in 2007. John Palafoutas, Treasurer. Executive Director of the Task Force on American Innovation, John Palafoutas is former President of the National Inventors Hall of Fame, and previously served as Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy and Congressional Affairs at TechAmerica (formerly American Electronics Association), the largest advocacy organization for the technology industry in the U.S. Before joining TechAmerica, Palafoutas established AMP Incorporated’s Washington office and served as Director of Federal Relations. He spent twelve years on Capitol Hill as senior staff to several Members of Congress. Fellows: Laura Dress, Herbert Enmarch-Williams, Sean Hays, Chuck Manto, Tim Stephens Senior Fellows:

• Martin A. Apple, President, Council of Scientific Society Presidents • Daniel Caprio, Managing Director, McKenna, Long and Aldridge, Washington, DC; former Chief

Privacy Officer and Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce • Robert Cohen, Deputy Director, C-PET • Nagy Hanna, Author and Speaker; Adviser and former Head of Corporate Strategy, World Bank • John Keown, Rose F. Kennedy Chair, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University • Robert McCreight, George Washington University • Sarah Miller Caldicott, PowerPatterns; Chairman, Edison Awards • Carl Mitcham, Professor of Liberal Arts and International Studies, Colorado School of Mines; Edi-

tor, Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics • Jonathan Moreno, Professor of Medical Ethics and of History and Sociology of Science, University

of Pennsylvania; Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; editor, Science Progress • Michael R. Nelson, Visiting Professor of Internet Studies, Center for Culture and Technology,

Georgetown University; Leading Edge Forum • Charles Rubin, Associate Professor of Political Science, Duquesne University; contributing edi-

tor, The New Atlantis • Daniel Sarewitz, Professor of Science and Society; Director, Consortium for Science, Policy and

Outcomes, Arizona State University • Gregory Stock, CEO, Signum Life Sciences; former director, Program on Medicine, Technology

and Society, UCLA Board of Directors:

• Martin A. Apple, President, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents • G. Steven Burrill, CEO, Burrill and Company, San Francisco • Jennifer Camacho, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig • Nigel M de S. Cameron, President and CEO, C-PET: Chairman • Yali Friedman, Founder, thinkBiotech; Editor, Journal of Commercial Biotechnology • David Goldston, Director of Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council; former

Staff Director, House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology • Jennie Hunter-Cevera, Executive Vice-President, RTI International: Chair, C-PET Executive Board • C. Ben Mitchell, Graves Chair of Moral Philosophy, Union University, Tennessee • Jonathan Moreno, University Professor and Professor of Medical Ethics and of History and Sociol-

ogy of Science, University of Pennsylvania; Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; Senior Fellow, C-PET

18


• Michael Nelson, Visiting Professor of Internet Studies, Georgetown University; Senior Fellow, C-PET

• John Palafoutas, Executive Director, Task Force on American Innovation; Treasurer, C-PET • Deborah N. Theobald,,Chairman and CEO, VECNA Technologies

Board of Reference: Joan Abrahamson, President, Jonas Salk Foundation; George H. Atkinson, Director, Institute on Science for Global Policy, University of Arizona; former Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State; Daniel Callahan, Co-founder, The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York; Patricia Smith Churchland, Presidential Chair in Philoso-phy, University of California, San Diego; Rita Colwell, Chairman, Canon US Life Sciences, Inc.; former Director, National Science Foundation; Henry Lavine, Squire Sanders, Washington, DC, Chairman; Advisory Board; Carl Mitcham, Professor of Liberal Arts and International Studies, Colorado School of Mines; editor, Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics; Stephen Post, Director, Center for Medical Humanities; Stony Brook Univer-sity; editor, Encyclopedia of Bioethics Advisory Board: Adrienne Asch, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University; Steve Bell, President, KeySo Global, LLC; Silona Bonewald, League of Technical Voters; Marsha Darling, Adelphi University; Dianna Derhak, DNA In-ternational Consultancy; Natalie Fonseca, TechPolicy Central, San Jose, California; Sigrid Fry-Revere, Center for Ethical Solutions, Washington, DC; Patti Glaza, Clean Technology and Sustainable Industries Organization; Debra Greenfield, University of California at Los Angeles, Center for Society and Genetics; David Guston, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University; Fabrice Jotterand, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Andrew Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment, Washington, DC; Jennifer Miller, BioEthics International and World Council for Ethical Standards, New York City; Sonia Miller, Converging Technologies Bar Association; Jules Polonetsky, Future of Privacy Forum; Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin; Cynthia P. Schneider, Georgetown University; former U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands; Michael Vassar, Singularity Institute; Caroline Wagner, Penn State University; Michael Werner, Holland and Knight, Wash-ington, DC; formerly Chief of Policy, BIO Global Advisory Network: Zelina Ben-Gershon, Senior Scientific Director, Ministry of Health, Israel; Philippe Busquin, Member of the Euro-pean Parliament, former European Commissioner with responsibility for research; Jerome Glenn, Director, The Millennium Project, Washington, DC; Bert Gordijn, Chair of Ethics & Director of the Ethics Institute, Dublin City University, Ireland; Mohamed Hassan, Executive Director, Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS), Trieste, Italy; Baroness (Susan) Greenfield, Fullerian Professor of Physiology, Oxford, former Director, Royal Institution, London, UK; Masahiro Morioka, Professor of Philosophy, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan; Anwar Nasim, Science Adviser, Standing Committee on Scientific and Technical Co-operation, Organiza-tion of the Islamic Conference; Alfred Nordman, Professor am Institut für Philosophie, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany; Steven Rayner, Professor of Science and Civilization, Oxford, UK; Margaret Somerville, Sam-uel Gale Professor of Law; Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada; Judy Wakhungu Ex-ecutive Director, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya

19


Participants in C-PET Corporations and other organizations represented at recent C-PET events have included: AAAS, Acxiom, Afilias, Afisand Biometrics, American Mathematical Society, American Palm Oil Council, American Physical Society, Apptis, Association of American Universities, AT&T, Barron’s Weekly, Biotechnol-ogy Industry Organization, Capital Alpha Partners, LLC, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technol-ogy, Click Bond, Inc, CompassRose International, Computing Technology Industry Association, Convergence Law Institute, Core Security Technologies, Council of Scientific Society Presidents, CSC, Data Security Council of India, DCI Group, Deutsche Telekom, E&E Publishing, Enviah, EPIC, European Commission Information Society and Media Directorate-General, Europea Data Protection Supervisor, European-American Business Council, Evonik Degussa, Facebook, Federal City Capital Partners LLC, Fujitsu, Foresight Institute, Friends of the Earth, Frost & Sullivan, George Washington University, Georgetown University, Global Information Infra-structure Commission, Google, GS1 Global Public Policy, HID Global, Hogan Lovells, Hoyos Group, IBM, ICT Strategies, Innovation Advocates, Institute for Advanced Sciences Convergence, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Institute for Biotechnology Futures, Intel, International Center for Technology Assessment, Inter-net Society, Johns Hopkins University, Johnson & Johnson, JVI, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Lewis-Burke As-sociates, Lockheed Martin Corporation, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Microsoft, Mindspring, MITRE Cor-poration, MLA, Monument Capital Group, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, National Sheriffs Association, Natural Resources Defence Council, Neustar, New America Foundation, North-rop Grumman, ODIN Technologies, Oracle, Panasonic Corp. of North America, Pixelligent Technologies, Pla-narity, Podesta Group, Potomac Institute, Project on Forward Engagement, QinetiQ North America, QUAL-COMM, Raytheon, RFID Revolution, RFF, RTI International, SAIC, SAP, SAS Institute Inc., SchoolTalk Inc, Science & Technology Policy Institute, Semiconductor Industry Association, Space Solar Power Information Service, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, SRI International, Summit Strategies Int’l, Sun Microsystems, Task Force on American Innovation, TechAmerica, TechNet, Technology Policy Institute, ThreatStorm International, Inc., Thummit Inc., TransUnion, Unisys, United Nations Association, VeriSign, Inc., Verizon Wireless, Vermeer Corporation, WCC Smart Search, Woodrow Wilson Center, World Economic Forum, World Resources Insti-tute, XIO Strategies, Yahoo Federal agencies: Army Environmental Policy Institute, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of En-ergy, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Food and Drugs Administration, NASA, NIST, NOAA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Air Force, US Navy, CNO Staff, United States Trade Representative, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Embassies and diplomatic missions: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Central African Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, European Union, Finland, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Pakistan, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, United Kingdom, Vietnam

APPENDIX

20


AFTERWORD

A Recent Commentary Let’s Engineer the Future, or, Take me to your Leader: A New Year’s Manifesto for Washington (and the rest of Homo sapiens) from C-PET Nigel M. de S. Cameron Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies Washington, DC

It’s cold in DC. A bad winter. The shadow of an assassin. Resurgent partisanship. Fresh angst about China, as its leader comes calling. And threats to spending, not least in science and technology research. What do to? Well, for a nation founded on ideas, whose history has in-cluded many of the best thinkers to be birthed on planet earth, we seem remarkably devoid of them. I can’t count the number of meetings I have had with policy leaders in which they actually tell me they are cynical. That nothing is really

going to change. That, in a phrase more than one has used, I “need not to be naïve.” That because there is no new money (and may be less old money) there’s nothing new we can do. And on it goes. At C-PET we believe in ideas, and the extraordinary power of a dynamic, growing, knowledge net-work. Transforming, disruptive power. Power not just to provide solutions, but to find out what lies back of presenting problems. Not just to engage in controversy but to reconfigure it. Not just to help prepare for what comes next, but decisively to engage its direction. Frame the questions, we say at C-PET, and you will shape the future. This is not to be naïve. But it is to recognize that the cynicism that so readily pervades our political culture has itself become the #1 barrier to the strategic action by which alone America’s future will be determined - and America’s capacity for global greatness and global good sustained. Note to our many friends around the world, and in the diplomatic and IGO and NGO communities in DC who are partners in our knowledge network: I think we agree that there are few on the planet who will benefit if a cynical, short-

21


AFTERWORD term, disconnect from the future shapes Washington DC in the second decade of century 21. I think we are agreed that a failing America will be a flailing America, defensive and protectionist and suspicious – just about the worst news for the global community. I think we are agreed that Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage – if every nation does what it’s best at, all nations benefit – enables America as chief global competitor as well as chief global citizen; there need be no zero sum in this game. I have written in recent weeks of what the data explosion and new warp-speed of change mean for “expertise” (a word that sounds increasingly dated in the knowledge world) and leadership (that base-line in change). That both have become a lot more interesting; complex; and of course threatening to those who man (and they usual do indeed man) the silos of tradition where power is locked down, and knowledge locked in. As we know, harbingers of such paradigmatic change are not unique to our time, even if the pace of change is. John Ruskin, the great Victorian social and literary critic (think H. L. Mencken), wrote in the mid-19th century, when the revolution in science and religion was transforming his world, that he could hear the chink of the geologists’ hammers at every cadence of the Bible verses. For us, aptly enough, it is visual not auditory: each time we think technology, century 21, asymmetry, we don’t hear chinks, we see near-subliminal visions of that inexorably rising graph of Moore’s Law, penetrating with unimpeded exponential impact through a generation past, and setting its curvilinear path to a future beyond our imaginings. We face change quite literally beyond belief. And the question is not whether we wish it. As Wired founder and tech age guru Kevin Kelly - who joined C-PET for an In-novation Leaders’ Telecon last week – argues in his remarkable new book What Technology Wants, it is hardly up to us as a species to say No. But that does not preclude the need for actionable foresight, for leadership grounded in the future, for decisions. Far, far from it. So, what to do, and specifically what to do in Washington, DC? Three principles, four strategies, and a challenge. First, three principles.

1. Embrace Convergence. The old distinctions between this science and that (biology, chem-istry, physics . . .) are dying. A recent report from MIT, launched at the AAAS earlier this month, set out this argument elegantly. And it was being heard: respondents included the FDA Commissioner, an NIH director, and Tom Kalil, associate director for policy at OSTP, the White House tech policy think tank. Yet (as I pointed out to some of the above) the same point was being made a decade ago in the NSF’s Converging Technologies project by Mike Roco and Bill Bainbridge and many others. Even then, it was hardly new. It is, how-ever, profound. Disruptive. Hard for the science and funding establishments to grasp and acknowledge (at the launch, AAAS leader Alan Leshner said it would “make life hell” for them). And it goes further. The old distinctions between science, engineering, and technol-ogy are also weakening. The distinctions between the institutions that fund public S and T make less sense every day. Action is needed at the top level of these institutions; apt struc-tural realignment that is not merely epiphenomenal.

2. Smash the silos. Convergence reaches further, far beyond S and T, into a wider growing commonality that has always demanded attention and almost always been ignored. We have innovation, risk, policy, regulation, social policy, ethics, investment - each one of which is intimately connected with each of the others as the synapses join the neurons in the brain. The knowledge of none of them can properly be stated and engaged without knowledge in all the others. I wrote recently in more detail about the relations of innovation and ethics (the third point of my “Three rules for 2011”). Think mash-up, boys and girls. It’s the only way;

22


and the combo of warp speed and the data petaclasm means unless we find way to make this work we should be scared, very scared. Concurrent engineering is needed across the whole front. Now.

3. Engage all articulate voices. In reaching beyond partisanship, we need to transcend the potent tendency to disregard opinions we see as extreme or simply unreasonable. At one re-cent event, a corporate science leader stated he wanted all voices round the table - except those who were biased. I made the obvious point in return, that bias is inevitable, and the appearance of bias on the part of those with whom we disagree universal. Yet the point is fundamental: If we seek to capture the very best ideas, and to fight groupthink with every sinew (a clear task of the innovative thinker; and a no-brainer, surely, in the wake of the dot-com bust and the Wall St collapse), we must welcome all articulate voices, and learn from them, and let them shape our common conversation. So often it is from the extremes that the best questions come, even if those on the extremes do not have the answers. So often those with the answers are not asking the right questions. Think Copernicus. Think Einstein. Goodness, think Wall Street. To capture value, we need every articulate voice round the ta-ble. Right through the conversation.

Next: four strategic actions. Need a bridge to the future? Here’s how to start. 1. We must disprivilege disagreement. We need mechanisms intellectual and practical that em-power and reward political and executive initiatives in areas that are not driven by partisan and ideo-logical divergence – because they simply are not within the purview of our current binary politics. Sadly, with few exceptions, it is only when an issue proves controversial enough, and someone on one side of it has political power, that there is action. I am given to offering suggestions that are in-deed naïve, but are offered as thought-experiments, not talkers for lobbyists. What about a joint com-mittee of congress whose brief is to take up issues that are important but uncontroversial? With very senior membership? And crowd-sourced, web-based grassroots to drive its future-focused agenda? 2. We must work steadily to reweight the points of conviction within our political traditions, and enable new issues to rise up. What does it mean to be a “conservative” or “liberal” when the is-sue is privacy (which may be one of the cornerstones of 21st century society); or the brain-machine interface (now available in a $100 iPhone app; destined utterly to reshape the human experience); or humanoid robotics (which could destroy 50% of the jobs in the labor force). Let’s hear it from Moveon.org and the Tea Party and the Center for American Progress and Heritage and Brookings and all the rest. 3. We need to span the coasts. Last summer I proposed (somewhat but not entirely satirically) an act of congress that would require all elected federal officials to attend a series of technology confer-ences every year, of the kind that are typically hosted on the west coast. Not “attend” as in make-a-speech-at-and-leave, but attend as in attend – attentively, beginning to end, and into the cocktail hours and the dinners and the late-night drinks where the mash-up takes off. Believe me, if every Hill denizen sat through two weeks’ worth a year, it would be the learning experience that transformed America. (Idea: what about making a start with a bipartisan Pledge for America’s Future?) Not of course that all the high-tech and the innovative thinking are on the left coast. Yet by the same token, the Valley guys need to get a lot more serious about Washington. I asked the leader of one of our largest corporations why it is that, while he has a 15-year plan for China, when he gets to DC he be-lieves his lobbyists that 12 months is long-term.

4. Washington, meet Washington. I count at least five Washingtons; DC as MPD. So: We have the mainstream policy community – federal government plus think tanks. Then we have the other policy

23


AFTERWORD community, which has remarkably little connection: Defense and intel. Then we have universities; which despite all those centers and programs have – yes – remarkably little traction in either of the former. Then we have the heavyweight business community, the Economic Club of Washington, the Dulles Corridor, the defense contractors who uniquely and bizarrely advertise their jet planes on bus shelters and radio shows. Then, #5, we have the District, qua Council. The local politicos; bad, indif-ferent, and good; yet what entirely unique potential to build the most innovative community in Amer-ica, to the utter benefit of all five of these Washingtons. My point? Every improved connection across these communities that co-exist within one District and two States (most in just a handful of zipcodes) adds value. Incremental value. Value rising without apparent limit. And at no necessary dol-lar cost at all. Network effects, par excellence. Now the challenge. No question, 2011 is a pivotal year. We’re recovering, slowly, from the shock of the 2008 financial trauma. We’re gearing up for battle royal in 2012 and 2016, but we really aren’t sure how to as the drivers of our politics are increasingly found in the exopolitics of the profoundly disen-chanted. We’re coming to some sort of terms with the new post-Cold War world order, so different from the mono-polar world some had expected, with BRIC(S), Group-of ad hoc global leadership jams, a Russia decisively post that wonderful if dipso Yeltsin, Gates in extraordinarily generous retire-ment while MS looks increasingly old-economy, still 20-something Zuckerberg man of the year though (surely!) with FB a concept and company ageing prematurely fast, and Julian Assange holding to ransom not so much the secrecy of U.S. global communications as the possibility of institutional privacy in a world now pivoting on asymmetry – and thereby slashing at the notion that the big guys wield the big power. The challenge is to determine to live and act as if there were a future. As if it were capable, in some substantive measure, of being anticipated. As if our own futures mattered to us. As if electoral cycles are, as it were, made for man; not man for electoral cycles. As if the smart and committed women and men who represent this very great nation on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Penn. NW and in the myriad agencies - and the Court - were tapping tomorrow as if their lives depended on it; which they do. So that their choices for today will stand the test of time. Not much, perhaps, to hope for. Non-naïve, surely. Non-cynical, assuredly. American through and through. Can’t imagine the Founders saying no.

24


“Washington is a city jam-packed with answers. Everyone has them. And these are smart people. Despite the impres-sion so often conveyed in the press, the DC crowd are mostly very good guys. Committed to the United States and its future. Smart, many of them extraordinarily smart. Hard-working almost beyond imagination. Focused, whether in government or the think-tank community (600 of them!) or elsewhere, on solving the problems of the day. But what about the questions? Those who focus on the answers will always be the subjects of the question-setters. And those who shape the questions frame the entire conversation. Moreover, what about tomorrow? It is fine and dandy to have an answer to today’s problems. It’s tomorrow’s that need to be addressed. And who says what those problems will be? Privacy in a world where corporations and governments can know all our secrets? Employment in a world of humanoid robotics, where many jobs are taken by smart machines that look like us? Synthetic biology may find cures for cancer; it could also devise new creatures. Virtual reality offers corpo-rations training experiences; it also gives individuals an opportunity to live a wholly imaginary life. What will it mean when the brain-machine interface, already functional in video games and treatments for the brain-damaged, is mastered at a high level, so our thoughts and selves can be projected into online, imaginary indentities? And when we can live for hundreds of years, which in the long term is not unlikely – what will that mean for the human community, and the markets, and the workforce, and healthcare? But this is just the beginning. C-PET’s focus from the start has been on defining the strategic, long-term issues; asking the questions. We don’t take a view – left or right, pro or anti the capacity of technology to solve our problems or create new ones. But we agree that the impacts of emerging technologies will be pervasive; that while everything is not about technology, technology is about every-thing; that the human values for which this nation stands – freedom, dignity, the centrality of the human issues – lie at the core of our questions about the technological-infused future. So C-PET’s knowledge network is set to ask tomorrow’s questions. Hard questions. Non- obvious questions. Ques-tions we need the best minds to work at. And then begin to discover the answers.” - Nigel Cameron, President and CEO, C-PET

25

c-pet executive summary 2010-11

Documents

cpet way

cpet participants

cpet roundtable

appendix cpet team

cpet marty apple

knowledge network

longterm technology

tomorrows questions