We all know that innovation is becoming increasingly important to the competitive advantage of nations around the World. As the OECD recently noted, innovation and job creation go hand in hand over the long term to help create an inclusive and high-employment economy that all nations aspire to.
Despite this, there seems to be little we know about those amazing people who drive forward technological progress by creating innovative new products and services that, in turn, raise incomes and improve the quality of life for everyone.
That is why a study published recently by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in the USA is important in shining some light on these individuals and how their age, gender and place of birth has an influence on the development of innovation.
“The Demographics of Innovation in the United States” surveyed those who have been responsible for some of the most important innovations in America including those who had won national awards for their inventions and those who had filed patents across a range of technology areas in different countries.
It shows that innovators are highly educated individuals, which is not unexpected given what they have achieved. Four fifths have at least one advanced degree with over half having earned a doctorate in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subject.
This clearly demonstrates the importance of ensuring that those wishing to develop their research careers are given the support and opportunity to do so as it will lead to greater innovation and a potential impact on the economy.
Whilst stories about the founders of companies such as Google or Facebook in locations such as Silicon Valley would make one think that it is people in their 20s who are driving forward innovations, this study shows that the actual median age for innovators is 47.
With regard to gender balance, women only represent 12 per cent of all US innovators and the major contribution to this under-representation seems to be the low enrolment numbers for women in STEM doctorate programmes i.e. only 37 per cent of chemistry Ph.D recipients, 22 per cent of engineering Ph.D recipients and 21 per cent of computer science Ph.D. recipients are female.
Another significant finding from this study is that whilst those born outside of the United States make up only 14 per cent of all residents, they account for 36 per cent of innovators.
Indeed, immigrants born in Europe or Asia are more than five times as likely as the average native-born U.S. citizen to have created an innovation in America.
This is not surprising as immigrant innovators also are better educated than native-born innovators and over two-thirds have doctorates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects.
In terms of where the innovators work, there is evidence that partnership is key in this area. For example, twenty percent of innovations were collaborations between a number of institutions with over half of these partnerships between private companies and universities or government research laboratories.
Indeed, public research laboratories were involved in 13 percent of innovations and universities accounted for another 7 percent, showing the importance of government funding for research in supporting the creation of market-ready innovations.
Another interesting finding is that 60 percent of private-sector innovations originate from businesses with more than 500 employees with only 16 percent originate from firms with fewer than 25 employees. More importantly though, more than half of smaller companies had received assistance for developing innovation from a range of public sources including grants from those government departments responsible for Defense, Energy and Health. This reinforces the growing view that government can play a critical role in supporting new innovation especially amongst smaller firms.
So what are the lessons from this study?
As in the UK, there is a real challenge in ensuring to ensure that more women gain STEM degrees and this focus on science needs to start in school and not just universities.
And with foreign-born STEM workers being critical to innovation success in the United States, it is also proposed that there should be an easier way to retain, legally, those from overseas who wish to remain in the country of their education. Indeed, we face the same problem in the UK with many talented young scientists and engineers from non-EU countries finding it difficult to stay on because of immigration rules that simply do not differentiate properly for talent.
However, the most critical finding of all is the fact that to be able to develop innovation that leads to economic prosperity, there is a need for more qualified scientists, mathematicians, technologists and engineers to boost innovation.
More importantly, government has a real role to play in ensuring that there is support for our brightest students to progress to doctoral studies and, as a result, increase the chances of more innovation in the economy.
Certainly, if Wales is to start improving its economic performance especially within innovative industries, this is something that all political parties should be focusing on in their manifestos in the run to the next elections in May.