The case for industry leadership in Science, Technology & Innovation (STI) policy implementation

Society typically relies on the industrial sector to supply product and service innovations through the free market system. When an area of free market failure is deemed important to society, governments intervene by applying... [ view full abstract ]

Society typically relies on the industrial sector to supply product and service innovations through the free market system. When an area of free market failure is deemed important to society, governments intervene by applying alternative innovation systems. Governments routinely apply a procurement contract approach led by industry, in areas involving technology-based deliverables, such as military, aerospace and energy systems. In contrast, governments tend to apply an exploratory grant approach in biomedical and social service areas where the academic leadership's culture lacks progress milestones and defined deliverables. This latter approach expects passive diffusion to somehow eventually transform scholarly findings into innovations with beneficial socio-economic impacts. This paper refutes this expectation and approach based on two factors: 1) The major global economies (European Union, United States and China) have narrowed the definition innovation to the context of commercial business markets; 2) The lack of evidence drawn from a specific market failure example; assistive technology devices for persons with disabilities. The conclusion being that all market failure areas at the intersection of science, technology and innovation should be re-oriented to follow the procurement contract approach led by industry.