« Previous |
1 - 10 of 79
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Biopower: Securing American Leadership in Biotechnology
- Author:
- Vivek Chilukuri and Hannah Kelley
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- The biorevolution is upon us. Converging breakthroughs in biological sequencing, engineering biology, and machine learning are ushering in an almost science fiction–like world in which humans can manipulate and even design the building blocks of life with increasing sophistication—for good or ill. In this world, cutting-edge biotechnologies will create organs, capture carbon emissions, restore polluted environments, tailor medicines to a person’s genes, and replace vulnerable supply chains for food, fuel, fabrics, and firepower with domestic biobased alternatives. According to one estimate, existing biotechnologies could have a direct economic impact of $4 trillion a year for the next 20 years.1 As innovation continues, the ceiling could be far higher. If next-generation biotechnologies hold great promise, they also come with gathering perils from new bioweapons, intrusive biosurveillance, and the race for biotechnology breakthroughs without adequate safeguards for public health, the environment, and democratic values. For policymakers, the question is not whether the biorevolution has transformative power, but which nation will responsibly harness that power to unlock new tools for defense, health, manufacturing, food security, environmental remediation, and the fight against climate change. No country is better positioned to lead the biorevolution than the United States, but it requires that policymakers act now with swift, ambitious, and far-sighted steps to secure America’s place as the global biopower. The United States enters the biorevolution with formidable tailwinds—an unrivaled innovation ecosystem, world-leading research institutes, unmatched private investment, talent, and a global network of democratic partners and allies. Recent federal investments and an emerging policy framework have fortified U.S. leadership. But in this fast-moving field, settling for gradual progress will guarantee falling behind as competitors like China race to eclipse the United States with ambitions to scale up their biotechnology research, innovation, talent, and infrastructure. To secure America’s place as the global biopower, the Trump administration and Congress should accelerate U.S. tailwinds through greater investment in biotechnology research and infrastructure, especially in sectors beyond health and medicine; expand the pipeline of biotalent; and lead globally to drive biotechnology norms, standards-setting, and responsible adoption. At the same time, policymakers must navigate headwinds that could imperil further progress—specifically, an underdeveloped national biomanufacturing infrastructure; insufficient public and private investment that flows overwhelmingly to biotechnology research and development (R&D) in the health and medical sectors; a lack of uniform federal standards, definitions, and codes; a morass of conflicting policies and regulations; inaccessible and insecure biodata; and low public awareness and trust in emerging and ethically fraught biotechnology applications. This report outlines several recommendations to shore up America’s position as the preeminent biopower, including an investment of $20 billion in new federal funding. Policymakers should view this level of investment as the floor of what it will require to secure U.S. biotechnology leadership. Cutting-edge biotechnologies will create organs, capture carbon emissions, restore polluted environments, tailor medicines to a person’s genes, and replace vulnerable supply chains for food, fuel, fabrics, and firepower with domestic biobased alternatives. Regardless of what U.S. policymakers do, countries around the world are moving swiftly to embrace the biorevolution. The United Kingdom (UK) is driving innovation by concentrating and sharing its biodata through the UK Biobank, which houses the fully sequenced genetic codes of 500,000 people.2 France has invested roughly $9.5 billion through Innovation Santé 2030 to drive biomedical research.3 Japan has committed $3 billion to promote its biotechnology ecosystem.4 South Korea is carving out a niche in digital biotechnology and aims to transition 30 percent of its manufacturing industry to biomanufacturing within a decade.5 If any nation can surpass the United States as the global biopower, it will be China. In its most recent five-year plans, Beijing made explicit its ambition to become a biotechnology “superpower.” It is well on its way. China’s biotechnology leadership has surged on the back of significant public investment, long-term policy prioritization, a massive domestic market, decades of largely unrestricted capital flows, and the amassing of biodata through licit and illicit means.6 China’s concerted biotechnology push has already paid dividends: its scholars rank second in the world for authoring biomedical papers, and the country leads high-impact research in biofuels and biomanufacturing. China’s high-impact research in synthetic biology is more than triple that of the United States, posing a high risk of monopolization.7 Today, China is a global biomanufacturing powerhouse that exports roughly 40 percent of the world’s active pharmaceutical ingredients.8 Now, China aspires to move up the biotechnology value chain with a renewed push to support start-ups, integrate its vast biodata with cutting-edge machine learning tools, and dominate emerging markets for biotechnology with “national champions” such as BGI Group and WuXi Biologics, as it did with Huawei and 5G. China’s ambition to close the gap with the United States should inspire action from policymakers to secure and extend America’s lead. To that end, this report outlines a series of immediate and longer-term recommendations in six key areas for leaders in policymaking and industry.
- Topic:
- Leadership, Innovation, and Biotechnology
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
3. Which companies are ahead in frontier innovation on critical technologies? Comparing China, the European Union and the United States
- Author:
- Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Michal Krystyanczuk, and Robin Schindowski
- Publication Date:
- 05-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Bruegel
- Abstract:
- Competition in critical technologies is attracting increasing attention not only because of the foundational nature of these technologies for other types of innovation, but also because of their role in the United States national security strategy. In this paper, we look into which entities in China, the European Union and the US innovate at the technology frontier in the three most important critical technologies – artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors – based on identification of the most radical novel patents in these technologies and their subsectors. Working with these pathbreaking patents, we look into the origin of the companies that file the largest numbers of them. US innovators dominate the innovation frontier for quantum computing and, to a lesser extent, AI, with Chinese innovators doing better in semiconductors. European innovators lag in all, but perform relatively better in quantum computing, in which they rank similarly to Chinese innovators. Furthermore, the innovation ecosystem is quite different across geographies. In the US, tech companies top the rankings of critical novelties and are highly concentrated: as many as three companies are in the top rankings of all of the three critical technologies. Frontier innovators in the field in which the EU competes most equally – quantum – are mostly research centres and not companies. China lies somewhat in between in all three domains.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, European Union, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, Semiconductors, and Quantum Computing
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America
4. NATO: Waging High-Tech Warfare
- Author:
- Yury Belobrov
- Publication Date:
- 01-2024
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- East View Information Services
- Abstract:
- THE rapid technological progress observed in the last decade throughout the world, especially in China and Russia, threatens the established sources of military and industrial dominance of the collective West on the world stage. NATO views this as an alarming trend, and in an attempt to stop it, bloc members are making a determined effort to preserve their militarytechnological leadership and the international order structured around their policies. To this end, they are initiating a new arms race, partially through the active incorporation into the military sphere of the latest breakthrough technologies (Emerging and Disruptive Technologies – EDT), which, they believe, can reverse the emerging multipolarity of international relations and radically change the nature of future wars. Thus, the Allies are stepping up collective efforts to master innovative technologies and introduce them into the operational activities of NATO and all member nations to ensure their victory in future high-tech wars. They emphasize the urgency of adapting the armed forces of said countries to the realities of global technological advancement. As the communiqué adopted at the Alliance summit in Vilnius in 2023 directly stated: “We are accelerating our own efforts to ensure that the Alliance maintains its technological edge in emerging and disruptive technologies to retain our interoperability and military advantage including through dual-use solutions.”1 The US, as the main sponsor of NATO militarism, demands that its allies and partners closely and expeditiously collaborate on the creation of novel weaponry utilizing these emerging technologies and dramatically increase investment in various EDT projects and adapt their armed forces to them. Under the US’s diktat, Brussels and its American allies are creating new bureaucratic and financial entities. Private businesses and academic and research institutions are also being drawn into this sphere. To speed up this process, at the urging of Washington at the NATO summit in Brussels in 2021, a strategic initiative was launched to create the NATO Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), which will manage and coordinate all this activity within NATO. The main task of this organization is to form an innovative technological network that unites R&D centers, innovative start-ups, defense enterprises, and military agencies in order to simultaneously and rapidly master all types of dual-use EDT technologies and implement them in the civilian and military fields. In addition to these efforts, a decision was also made to form a €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund to finance venture capital companies developing dual EDT in areas of strategic importance to NATO. Essentially, these decisions by the alliance are aimed at mobilizing European resources, primarily to strengthen American military power. Of course, the main efforts to field the latest technologies are being undertaken by the largest member nations.
- Topic:
- NATO, International Cooperation, Weapons, Innovation, Emerging Technology, High-Tech Wars, and Military and Industrial Advantage
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, and United States of America
5. The Diffusion of New Technologies
- Author:
- Aakash Kalyani, Nicholas Bloom, Marcela Carvalho, Tarek A. Hassan, Josh Lerner, and Ahmed Tahoun
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
- Abstract:
- We identify phrases associated with novel technologies using textual analysis of patents, job postings, and earnings calls, enabling us to identify four stylized facts on the diffusion of jobs relating to new technologies. First, the development of economically impactful new technologies is geographically highly concentrated, more so even than overall patenting: 56% of the most economically impactful technologies come from just two U.S. locations, Silicon Valley and the Northeast Corridor. Second, as the technologies mature and the number of related jobs grows, hiring spreads geographically. But this process is very slow, taking around 50 years to disperse fully. Third, while initial hiring in new technologies is highly skill-biased, over time the mean skill level in new positions declines, drawing in an increasing number of lower-skilled workers. Finally, the geographic spread of hiring is slowest for higher-skilled positions, with the locations where new technologies were pioneered remaining the focus for the technology’s high-skill jobs for decades.
- Topic:
- Development, Economics, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Labor Market
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
6. Implications of the Inflation Reduction Act for the Biotechnology Industry
- Author:
- Cody Hyman, Henry Dao, Gregory Vaughan, and Fred D. Ledley
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
- Abstract:
- The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains landmark provisions authorizing the government to negotiate the price of selected drugs covered by Medicare Part D. The biopharmaceutical industry has criticized these provisions as a threat to innovation arguing that reducing future revenues could disincentivize equity investment in biotechnology. This research examines the sensitivity of private and public equity investment in the biotechnology industry to drug price indices and market conditions from 2000-2022. The analysis shows that equity financing and valuation in the biotechnology industry were strongly associated with equity market conditions but not indices of either producer or consumer drug prices. These results do not support claims of an association between changing drug prices and the availability of equity capital to emerging biotechnology companies, which currently sponsor the majority of all clinical trials. These results add to evidence that the IRA may not have a negative impact on pharmaceutical innovation.
- Topic:
- Economics, Health, Inflation, Innovation, Biotechnology, Public Investment, and Inflation Reduction Act
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
7. Setting Pharmaceutical Drug Prices: What the Medicare Negotiators Need to Know About Innovation and Financialization
- Author:
- Öner Tulum and William Lazonick
- Publication Date:
- 09-2024
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
- Abstract:
- Mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the U.S. government through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over the “maximum fair price” of ten drugs in wide use by Medicare patients. Over the next few years, the number of drugs whose prices are subject to negotiations will increase. The pharmaceutical companies contend that a “fair” price would be a “value-based price” that enables the companies’ shareholders to capture the value that the drug creates for society. Invoking the dominant “maximizing shareholder value” ideology, the argument for value-based pricing assumes that it is only a pharmaceutical company’s shareholders who make the risky investments that fund drug innovation. Pharmaceutical executives and their lobbyists warn that a lowering of drug prices will reduce investments in new drugs. The purpose of this paper is to enable CMS negotiators to respond to these arguments by showing a) why drug-price regulation is required, given the relation between scale economies in supplying drugs and price inelasticity of drug demand; b) how the pharmaceutical companies with which they are negotiating prices are, in general, not using their profits from unregulated drug prices to fund drug innovation but rather to fund distributions to shareholders in the form of cash dividends and stock buybacks; c) that publicly listed pharmaceutical companies do not typically rely upon investment by shareholders to fund drug innovation; and d) that investment in drug innovation entails “collective and cumulative learning” in foundational and translational research that is both antecedent and external to the investments in clinical research that a pharmaceutical company may make to bring a safe and effective drug to market.
- Topic:
- Economics, Health, Finance, Innovation, Pharmaceuticals, and Medicare
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
8. The Western Innovators of the Mobile Revolution: The Data on Global Royalty Flows to U.S. and Europe and Why It Matters
- Author:
- Adam Mossoff
- Publication Date:
- 01-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Hudson Institute
- Abstract:
- The mobile revolution has radically altered our world in ways that were imagined only as science fiction a mere thirty years ago. Western innovators launched this revolution in creating its foundational telecommunications technologies; thus, it is unsurprising that private companies in the United States and Europe receive payments for the use of their telecommunications technologies, which is compensation for the billions in investments and decades of research and development of these inventions. The majority of the commercial implementers—the companies that make and sell consumer products that use these telecommunications technologies like smartphones or connected cars—are in Asia. China in particular has an increasingly growing share of these implementers across all sectors of the global innovation economy. This explains in part China’s domestic industrial policies that seek to lower the royalties paid by its national companies like Huawei or Oppo. Evidence-based policymaking should guide U.S. and European laws and regulations. Data confirm the critical role of reliable and effective patent rights, the rule of law, and courts using due process to resolve disputes have been essential for Western innovators creating the modern world—and will drive the technologies of tomorrow in the internet of things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI).
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Innovation, and Telecommunications
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, and United States of America
9. Kubernetes: A Dilemma in the Geopolitical Tech Race
- Author:
- Sunny Cheung
- Publication Date:
- 09-2024
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- China Brief
- Institution:
- The Jamestown Foundation
- Abstract:
- US-sanctioned Huawei has significant influence in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation and its open-source platform Kubernetes, which underpins US military platforms, including F-16 fighter jets and nuclear infrastructure. The use of open-source technologies in critical systems raises concerns. Despite US efforts to mitigate risks, Kubernetes remains tempting to exploit for attackers. Open source fosters global innovation, from which the United States benefits. But this same openness also strengthens US competitors. The United States should therefore develop a clear framework to understand and mitigate the challenges posed by open source.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Sanctions, Geopolitics, Innovation, Strategic Competition, and Huawei
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, and United States of America
10. Is the supermultiplier nil? - A Replication Study of Deleidi and Mazzucato (2021)
- Author:
- Jens Boysen-Hogrefe
- Publication Date:
- 05-2023
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
- Abstract:
- Analyzing US macro data via a structural vector-autoregressive model, Deleidi and Mazzucato (2021) find strong positive spillover of mission-oriented government spending on private research and development activity and on overall economic dynamism ("crowding in"). However the result hinges on specific transformation of the data. Deleidi and Mazzucato deflate all variables in their model via the GDP deflator. Applying originally price adjusted data a spillover on GDP cannot be found. Estimating the model with data starting in 1984, the results point at “crowding out” of private research and development activity.
- Topic:
- Economics, Fiscal Policy, Innovation, and Fiscal Multipliers
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America