КАТЕГОРИИ:
АстрономияБиологияГеографияДругие языкиДругоеИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураЛогикаМатематикаМедицинаМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПсихологияРиторикаСоциологияСпортСтроительствоТехнологияФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияЧерчениеЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника
|
Text IASECRETS OF SUCCESS. WHAT MAKES SOCIETIES INNOVATE? Genius and talent seem to know few national borders, and yet some countries clearly do better at invention and innovation than others. Why is this? The unsatisfying answer is that we really don't know and that mostly common sense is of help. In two words: culture and circumstances. Some countries nourish a climate that consistently encourages the new, the practical and the useful. The United States shines here. In other cases, circumstances - war or its threat, inter-national commercial rivalries - induce bursts of invention or enthusiasm for new technology. Japan is the classic example. Innovation - putting new ideas and technologies to practical use - differs from pure discovery and invention. The United States, though the world's most innovative and technologically advanced society, has hardly monopolised critical discoveries or inventions. Until World War II, most great science was done in Europe: from Isaac Newton's physics to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Major breakthroughs in technology also often originated in Europe. The Italian Guglieimo Marconi invented the radio in 1895. It's no secret why the West now dominates invention and innovation. One requirement for success is a belief that science and technology matter for national power, human well-being and economic growth. This is a Western idea - a product of the Renaissance - that, until recently, didn't have much place in Asian or African societies. Japan was the first Asian nation to adopt the Western faith. Having (like China) isolated itself, Japan was stunned by the arrival of U.S. warships in 1853 with superior weapons. Rather than re-main vulnerable, the Japanese scoured the West for new technologies and methods. By 1905 the Japanese had caught up so well that they humbled the Russians in the Russian-Japanese War. Consider: "I accost an American sailor and inquire why the ships of his country are built so as to last for only a short time," Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America" in the 1830s. "He answers without hesitation that the art of navigation is every day making such rapid progress that the finest vessel would become almost useless if it lasted beyond a few years." The drive to discover and improve reflected an optimistic belief in progress and a rejection of traditional society, where status and power were fixed by birth or custom. Tocqueville contrasted America's democratic impulse with Europe's aristocratic heritage: "We do not find [in the United States], as among an aristocratic people, one class that keeps quiet because it is well off; and another that does not venture to stir because it despairs of improving its condition. Everyone is in motion, some in quest of power, others of gain." Tocqueville was mostly right. Not until after World War II did the United States get Germany and Britain (separately) in Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry. Generally, Americans have done best by using science and technology practical-ly and profitably. The great American inventors (from Thomas Edison and the light bulb to Alexander Graham Bell and the phone and the Wright brothers and the plane) make the point. So does Silicon Valley. Because everyone seeks to win - and no one knows exactly what theory, gadget or trick will work - there's constant experimentation and improvisation. Silicon Valley succeeds in part because "failure here is understood to be an integral aspect of the growth process," writes Christopher Meyer of Stanford University in a new book ("Relent-less Growth"). "Investors, entrepreneurs, and technologies will readily abandon a company or technology .that looks unlikely to thrive." Just what causes societies to be like this isn't especially clear. Countries have no guarantee of permanent success. Great Britain remains the classic fall from grace. It pioneered the Industrial Revolution. Yet by the end of the 19th century, Britain was falling. behind both Germany and the United States for reasons that remain unsettled. Harvard historian David Landes argues that Britain became a victim of its own success: merchants were complacent about markets; companies stayed under control of founding families that had long lost their drive and imagination. American innovation has (so far) endured, though its style has varied. In the 19th century, invention evolved from a mostly amateur affair into a professional activity. Later, many large companies (General Electric, Kodak, AT&T) created their own laboratories. After World War II - and because of it - the federal government sharply raised its support of research. In 1995 federal funds were 35 percent of all R6-D; of this, four fifths was for military, health and space projects. There is no magic formula. Breakthroughs grab headlines, but more typical are routine improvements, refinements and advancements in products and technologies. There's constant feed-back between customers and suppliers, laboratories and factories, universities and companies. Innovation is a spirit; it subsists on trial and error. It would be odd - indeed a contradiction - if anyone found a once-and-for-all way to do it.
Vocabulary. Word Study. Ex. 2. Match the phrases with their Russian equivalents. Ex. 3. Translate the following sentences into English. Comprehension Check. Answer the following questions. 1. Do genius and talent know national borders? 2. What causes inventions? 3. What does traditional society mean? 4. What is the requirement for success? 5. How is failure understood? 6. Do countries have a guarantee of permanent success? 7. Is there a magic formula for innovations and inventions?
Topics to Discuss. 1. Invention. 2. Requirements for success. 3. Possibility of constant success. 4. Failure in research or innovation.
|