Hear, hear, Tom!

This matches my experience exactly, in that I have, as an unexpected result of my PhD research at QUT, created a global facility designed to reduce transaction costs in the music industry (see www.musowiki.net). But when I look for support from the government to help build this innovation, I find that I'm not eligible because the funding programs are obsessed with patentable technologies.

Patentable technologies are not the only outcomes of innovation, nor drivers of progress. When William Webb Ellis picked up the round ball and ran with it he created a revolution in sport, but his innovation was hardly patentable - in fact, trying to protect it would have killed it very quickly! Similarly, there are many innovations that could use some support but are not associated with a gadget or widget.

There is a parallel to this mindset in New Guinea. When I walked the Kokoda Track some years ago I was struck by the number of villages that have a lovely demountable hospital facility carved in to the jungle. No doctors, no medical supplies, but a lovely new building, complete with "Funded by Rotary" plaque and photos of smiling Australians proud of their contribution to the health of the local population ...

The sooner this false consciousness is debunked, the better.

The real innovation we need is in wealth distribution.
Australia has loads of potential, as long as the generational theivery ends and we start funding our best, not just the best connected.

Ozandy has it in one short message "... and we start funding our best, not just the best connected." I think most of the public would be surprised at many scientist's motivation, and how they are rewarded.

Scientists have promotions to seek, mortgages, children to bring up, bills to pay like anyone else, so develop skills not just in scientific method but in fund raising - the best presentations that I have seen in the 20 years of my corporate career, were by government scientists. A lot of scientists end up doing stuff they didn't expect when they were studying, I'm sure.

They are not adverse to cutting each other's throats for a grant, or research funding - and they know how to dress up their work so as to attract funding (note to all the AGW subscribers, if you want $ in this current research environment, link it to Climate Change and away you go)

If you ask CSIRO or DSTO, or I'm sure many universities, what fundamental research have they done, most don't know - as their whole existence is based on getting funding for new research, not finding someone to take existing outcomes to market. CSIRO and DSTO have no register of what has been done, I know, I've asked.

The US model of allowing companies to invest in internal R&D, known as IRAD, without all the incredible overhead we add here has led to mountains of inovation. Almost every company I know in the US in the technical field uses it.

I'd like to see that voucher system in effect here, I reckon we could do a lot with it - save us from useless fundamental research that gets funded because someone is well connected, or has linked it to a popular issue. Good article.

I agree, in part, with Toms article.

Government likes to think it influences everything by “picking winners” (HA HA) and directing effort.

The truth is genuine “innovation” cannot be picked, the same way the next top-ten music hit will not be “picked” by the music industry gurus.

My analogy to the music industry is deliberate for a reason.

Only 1 in 40 bands who send their demo tapes/CDs into record companies even get selected for commercial sponsorship and a recording contract. After that the probability of that band having a successful single (let alone album) is about 16:1.

40:1 by 16:1 means 640:1 probability of an innovation, which someone has passionately pursued getting presented and accepted by a willing public.

That is for music and I believe if you inspected any other innovative pond, you would find similar probabilities.

And governments thinks it can pick winners (at 640:1)?

Government is better disposed to helping manage the environment which allows innovation to incubate, rather than pretend it has a magic wand.

“Venturesome Australia calls for more development funding but this carries an opportunity cost for the taxpayer.”

And it also carries a speculative risk.

Personally, I feel it would be better if government help the incubation process through reduced overall taxation, leaving more in the hands of individuals to speculate for themselves on innovative ventures, bearing their own risk and reaping their own reward.

The outcomes will be the same except, people with the passion and interest to see the winning opportunity through will be making the critical choices instead of some disinterested bureaucratic arbiter exercising government largesse with taxpayers funds.

Ozandy “The real innovation we need is in wealth distribution.”

Tried and failed, the only outcome of that little gem is

“mediocrity” with no incentive for innovative outcomes

Australia is fairly good at invention, but innovation is primarily a commercial process. Only about 1 in 3000 early-stage ideas pursued by companies make it to market, few of those which do are successful. The main driver of success is entrepreneurial spirit and the incentive of making and retaining wealth. Australian governments tend to undermine rather than promote those factors. In the most innovative country, the US, about half of all innovation comes from four huge metropolises which Australia could never replicate; and a major factor in successful innovation is closeness to market - the interaction between creators and users is critical. Australia is highly innovative in certain areas, e.g. mining and retailing, in which government has played no part.

There is no "right" level of innovation in an economy. Firms invest in R&D and innovation to the point where the risk-adjusted rate of return is at least equal to other uses of funds. They live or die by their decisions; government should stand aside.

Influencing and Tempting

Solar Botanic Energy Systems mimics the genius of the nature; we building artificial trees to generate solar power. Going a step further the technology also intends to generate wind power from the same artificial trees. With the help of the latest nanotechnology tiny solar generators will use sun’s light (visible light, infrared and UV) and heat plus wind energy to generate power; photovoltaic - thermovoltaic and piezevoltaic all united in a natural looking leaf design.
Solar Botanic Energy Systems plans is to deliver the first trees by the end of 2010 and offering the market a aesthetic and triple efficient solar, heat and wind collecting systems.
The added value of solar botanic trees are; providing shade, cooling the air, wind break, crop protection, prevention of heat islands in cities, road glare, noise barrier, protection of dune vegetation. Solar botanic trees can be fitted with additional equipment to filter the air, (taking out CO2) and in addition it can control water management.
Our trees are:

• Triple efficient.
• Durable.
• Low investment/high return.
• Easy to install.
• Weather resistant: rain, hail, dust, lightning, wind.
• Good monetary values for private homes.
• Varies sizes, colors and species
• Aesthetic natural design, in harmony with nature.
• Application for designer gardens, penthouses, balconies
• Wide arrangement of Solar flowers, shrubs (solar shrub fencing) water plants.

Applications for;
• Urban and Rural
• Recreational parks, city parks
• New housing estates
• Plug in trees for cars – streets & parking areas
• Golf courses and resorts
• Mountainous regions – far away places
• Coastlines
• Highways
• Airports
• Deserts
• Penthouses, balconies, verandas
• Private gardens
• De-forested areas
• Areas of commercial interest; Islands, nature resorts
• Ponds, lakes, seas and oceans
• Crop protection
• Solar Botanic flowering plants to harvest colourful your electric power
• Solar Botanics can be used for: Windshield, Shade, anti glare, objectionable views
• Sound barrier, windbreak, wind obstruction and air conditioning and much more

Do you think artificial trees could be a feasible energy source?
info@solarbotanic.com