Technology & Innovation: Volume 18, Number 4

ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Volume 18, Number 4 THE CONFERENCE ISSUE “Building on Foundations of Innovation” History of the NAI 235 Technology Transfer 295 Volume 18 • Number 4 Pages 227-344 Technology and Innovation 2017 National Academy of Inventors University Seed Capital 305

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF PAUL R. SANBERG ERIC R. FOSSUM University of South Florida Dartmouth College Tampa, FL Hanover, NH SENIOR EDITORS HOWARD J. FEDEROFF NASSER ARSHADI University of California, Irvine University of Missouri – Saint Louis Irvine, CA St. Louis, MO EDITORIAL STAFF Judy Lowry, Managing Editor Kimberly Macuare, Assistant Editor EDITORIAL BOARD Shantikumar Nair, Amrita University, India Steven J. Kubisen, The George Washington University Sethuraman Panchanathan, Arizona State University Jarett Rieger, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute David Winwood, Association of University Technology Managers Christopher Fasel, Idaho State University Jay Gogue, Auburn University Sharon Heise, Institute for Human & Machine Cognition Rivka Carmi, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel Cama McNamara, Inventor’s Digest Ernest B. Izevbigie, Benson Idahosa University, Nigeria Ken S. Lee, Jackson State University Mark Rudin, Boise State University Christy Wyskiel, Johns Hopkins University Gloria Waters, Boston University Solomon H. Snyder, Johns Hopkins University Farnam Jahanian, Carnegie Mellon University Mary Rezac, Kansas State University Joseph Jankowski, Case Western Reserve University Norman R. Augustine, Lockheed Martin Corporation Shinn-Zong (John) Lin, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital Kalliat T. Valsaraj, Louisiana State University Todd Headley, Colorado State University Richard Kordal, Louisiana Tech University Scot Hamilton, Columbia University Robert S. Langer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alice Li, Cornell University Rebecca Mahurin, Montana State University Donna M. DeCarolis, Drexel University Vimal Chaitanya, New Mexico State University Marti Van Scott, East Carolina University Kurt H. Becker, New York University Todd Sherer, Emory University Gerald Blazey, Northern Illinois University Daniel C. Flynn, Florida Atlantic University James G. Conley, Northwestern University Tachung (T.C.) Yih, Florida Gulf Coast University Arlene A. Garrison, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Tristan J. Fiedler, Florida Institute of Technology Lonnie G. Thompson, The Ohio State University Andres G. Gil, Florida International University John J. Kopchick, Ohio University Lawrence O. Gostin, Georgetown University Law Center Steven Price, Oklahoma State University

Neil A. Sharkey, The Pennsylvania State University Derek E. Eberhart, University of Georgia Curtis R. Carlson, The Practice of Innovation Richard C. Willson, University of Houston Kenneth J. Blank, Rowan University Lesley Millar-Nicholson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign S. David Kimball, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Taunya Phillips Walker, University of Kentucky Kenneth A. Olliff, Saint Louis University Mary Shire, University of Limerick, Ireland Arthur Daemmrich, Smithsonian Lemelson Center William M. Pierce, Jr., University of Louisville Arthur J. Tipton, Southern Research Institute Patrick O’Shea, University of Maryland Christos Christodoulatos, Stevens Institute of Technology Louis A. Carpino, University of Massachusetts – Amherst Robert V. Duncan, Texas Tech University James P. McNamara, University of Massachusetts Medical School Stephen Klasko, Thomas Jefferson University Kenneth J. Nisbet, University of Michigan Richard A. Houghten, Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies Henry C. Foley, University of Missouri – Columbia Woody Maggard, University at Buffalo – State University of Lawrence Dreyfus, University of Missouri – Kansas City New York Steve Goddard, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Stephen Z. Cheng, The University of Akron Zachary Miles, The University of Nevada, Las Vegas Richard P. Swatloski, The University of Alabama Kumi Nagamoto-Combs, The University of North Dakota Richard B. Marchase, The University of Alabama at Birmingham John Kantner, University of North Florida Frederic Zenhausern, The University of Arizona Thomas McCoy, University of North Texas Jim Rankin, University of Arkansas James H. Bratton, The University of Oklahoma Linda P. B. Katehi, University of California, Davis Lynne U. Chronister, The University of South Alabama Tom O’Neal, University of Central Florida Judy Genshaft, University of South Florida Patrick A. Limbach, University of Cincinnati Gordon C. Cannon, University of Southern Mississippi Inge Wefes, University of Colorado – Denver/AMC T. Taylor Eighmy, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Jeff Seemann, University of Connecticut Cynthia M. Furse, The University of Utah Mathew Willenbrink, University of Dayton John Biondi, University of Wisconsin – Madison David S. Weir, University of Delaware H. Holden Thorp, Washington University in St. Louis Jennifer Graban, University of Evansville Anthony J. Vizzini, Wichita State University David P. Norton, University of Florida Robert E. W. Fyffe, Wright State University Karen J.L. Burg, University of Georgia T. Kyle Vanderlick, Yale University National Academy of Inventors. Technology and Innovation, University of South Florida Research Park, 3702 Spectrum Boulevard, Suite 165, Tampa, FL 33612-9445 USA. Tel: +1-813-974-1347; Fax: +1-813-974-4962; [email protected]; www. academyofinventors.org.

PUBLISHING INFORMATION Technology and Innovation, Journal of the National Academy of Inventors (ISSN: 1949-8241) is published by the National Academy of Inventors, University of South Florida Research Park, 3702 Spectrum Boulevard, Suite 165, Tampa, F. 33612-9445 USA. Tel: +1-813-974-1347; Fax: +1-813-974-4962; tijournal@academyof- inventors.org; www.academyofinventors.org Subscriptions: Technology and Innovation (T&I) is published 4 times a year. For subscription information, please visit our website or contact [email protected]. Advertisement: T&I will accept advertisements. All advertisements are subject to approval by the editors. For details and rates, please contact [email protected]. Disclaimer: While every effort is made by the publisher, editors, and editorial board to see that no inaccu- rate or misleading data, opinion, or statement appears in T&I, they wish to make it clear that the data and opinions appearing in the articles and advertisements contained herein are the sole responsibility of the con- tributor or advertiser concerned. Therefore, the publisher, editors, editorial board, their respective employ- ees, officers, and agents accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for the effect of any such inaccurate or misleading opinion, data, or statement. Copyright Notice: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright for their article is transferred to the publisher if and when the article is accepted for publication. However, assignment of copyright is not required from authors who work for orga- nizations that do not permit such assignment. The copyright covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and dis- tribute the article, including reprints, photographic reproductions, microform, or any other reproductions of similar nature and translations. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys- tem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic type, mechanical, pho- tocopying, recording, or otherwise, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Photocopying information for users in the USA: For permission to reuse copyrighted content from T&I, please access www.copyright.com or contact Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, telephone +1-855-239-3415 (Monday-Friday, 3 AM to 6 PM Eastern Time), fax +1-978-646-8600. Copyright Clearance Center is a not-for-profit organization that provides copyright licensing on behalf of the National Academy of Inventors. The copyright owner’s consent does not extend to copying for general dis- tribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific written permission must be obtained from the publisher for such copying. In case of doubt, please contact T&I at [email protected]. Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors® Printed in the USA Cover Photos: (1) Thomas Edison’s laboratory in Menlo Park, NJ. From 1 Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, 10 January 1880; (2) Elmer Gates in his lab using sorting box, undated, Elmer Gates Papers Collection. Courtesy 2 of Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution; (3) Colt employees on the shop floor, circa 1900. Courtesy of 5 the Connecticut State Library; (4) Inventors Agency business card, no date, Warshaw Collection of Business Americana. Courtesy of Archives Center, National Museum of American History; and, (5) Albert Latham and his son, Harold Albert Moore Latham, used these machinist tools 4 3 and toolbox during their careers at the United Shoe Machinery Company during the early 20 century. Courtesy of Division of Work and Industry, th National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.

ISSN 1949-8241 Volume 18, Number 4, 2017 Pages 227-344 E-ISSN 1949-825X CONTENTS SPECIAL TOPIC SECTION: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5 ANNUAL CONFERENCE TH NATIONAL ACADEMY OF INVENTORS Making History: The Fifth Annual Conference of the NAI 227 Steven J. Kubisen and Arthur Molella Highlights from the Fifth Annual Conference of the National Academy of Inventors 229 Kimberly A. Macuare and Steven J. Kubisen History of the National Academy of Inventors 235 Arthur Molella Alternative Natural Rubber Crops: Why Should We Care? 245 Katrina Cornish Invention, Innovation Systems, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution 257 Arthur Daemmrich Invention is not an Option 267 Yolanda L. Comedy, Juan E. Gilbert, and Suzie H. Pan “Why” vs. “What,” or “The Bad Penny Opera”: Gender and Bias in Science 275 Florence P. Haseltine and Mark Chodos Fellows Keynote Address 281 Andrew Hirshfeld The NAI Fellow Profile: An Interview with Dr. Emery N. Brown 285 Emery N. Brown and Kimberly A. Macuare GENERAL SECTION Technology Transfer for All the Right Reasons 295 James K. Woodell and Tobin L. Smith University Seed Capital Programs: Benefits Beyond the Loan 305 Donna L. Herber, Joelle Mendez-Hinds, Jack Miner, Marc C. Sedam, Kevin Wozniak, Valerie Landrio McDevitt, and Paul R. Sanberg

America’s Seed Fund: How the SBIR/STTR Programs Help Enable Catalytic Growth and Technological Advances 315 G. Nagesh Rao, John R. Williams, Mark Walsh, and James Moore Thoughts on Improving Innovation: What Are the Characteristics of Innovation and How Do We Cultivate Them? 319 Victor Poirier, Lyle H. Schwartz, David Eddy, Richard Berman, Selim Chacour, James J. Wynne, William Cavanaugh, Dean F. Martin, Robert Byrne, and Paul R. Sanberg Finding and Preparing Teachers to Meet the Needs of U.S. Student Innovators-in-the-Making 331 Paul Swamidass and Christine Schnittka T&I Book Review 343 Dean F. Martin Aims and Scopes i Preparation of Manuscripts ii Ethics Statement ii www.technologyandinnovation.org

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, pp. 227-228, 2017 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/18.4.2017.227 Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org MAKING HISTORY: THE FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE NAI Steven J. Kubisen and Arthur Molella 2 1 1 Technology Commercialization Office, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA 2 Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA This year’s National Academy of Inventors con- tion Ambassadors who show that invention is not ference was a milestone, marking the fifth annual an option but an imperative. Rounding out the con- meeting of our Academy. The occasion was indeed ference section are two historical pieces: a historical memorable, with an amazing slate of events, including review of the U.S.’s three industrial revolutions and a a gala at the Smithsonian and a splendid induction consideration of whether we are now in the midst of ceremony for the new Fellows; impressive keynote a fourth written by Dr. Arthur Daemmrich and Dr. speakers and distinguished presenters; and the Arthur Molella’s history of the National Academy historic official signing of our memorandum of agree- of Inventors and the Academy’s place in the long ment with the USPTO, our partner in supporting history of American academic invention. The depth academic invention. and breadth of these contributions underscore the We, as co-editors of T&I 18.4 and longtime sup- strength of the NAI itself, which spans diverse fields porters of the NAI, are very pleased to present this and embraces multidisciplinary collaboration. special issue containing a Special Section on the Fifth Two of our regular features—the NAI Fellow Pro- Annual Conference of the Academy of Inventors, file, which recognizes and celebrates the achievements which was held in April 2016 in Washington, DC, of our NAI Fellows, and the USPTO commentary— and a General Section. are also dedicated to conference themes in this issue. The Special Section kicks off with an article Dr. Emery Brown, noted anesthesiologist, neuro- summarizing the highlights from the conference scientist, and statistician as well as keynote speaker written by Dr. Kimberly Macuare of the NAI and Dr. at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Academy of Steven Kubisen of George Washington University. Inventors, is featured in this issue’s NAI Fellow Profile, Five invited papers are included in this Special Section while the USPTO commentary presents a transcrip- to highlight some of the conference presentations and tion of Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld’s to commemorate this historic fifth year of the NAI. remarks offered to this year’s entering class of Fellows Among these are Dr. Katrina Cornish’s examination at the induction ceremony. of an impending global shortage of natural rubber The General Section contains six papers, span- and the innovations being created to meet that chal- ning a wide range of subjects, including how to find lenge; Dr. Florence Haseltine’s analysis of bias and the and prepare teachers to meet the special needs of gender gap in the invention space; and a narrative STEM-oriented students, the multifaceted return on chronicling the feats of two AAAS-Lemelson Inven- investment provided by university seed cap programs, _____________________ Accepted November 30, 2016. Address correspondence to Steven J. Kubisen, Managing Director, GW Technology Commercialization Office, 2033 K Street NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20052, USA. Tel: +1 (202) 994-8394 227

228 KUBISEN AND MOLELLA and the potential for teaching students the habits of mind that lead to innovation. Also of great interest to our Academy are papers on the APLU Task Force findings on the management of intellectual prop- erty at universities and the importance of the SBIR/ STTR programs for spurring innovation. The General Section wraps up with a book review of Research to Revenue: A Practical Guide to University Start-Ups. This year’s conference highlighted a number of innovations that have sprung from university research and are having significant impact on our society.  They touch upon some of the urgent issues we are facing— health care, energy, and the environment. We look forward to the future work of these great academic inventors and others as they take on these pressing global issues and create innovations to improve life for us all. Steven J. Kubisen, Ph.D. NAI Fellow and Arthur Molella, Ph.D. Member of the NAI Executive Advisory Board

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, pp. 229-233, 2016 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/18.4.2017.229 Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF INVENTORS Kimberly A. Macuare and Steven J. Kubisen 2 1 1 National Academy of Inventors, Tampa, FL, USA 2 Technology Commercialization Office, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA This article presents highlights from the Fifth Annual Conference of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI), “Building on the Foundations of Innovation,” which was held on April 14 and 15, 2016, in Washington, DC. The NAI conference provides an annual forum for celebrating academic invention and inventors, recognizing and encouraging invention, and enhancing the visibility of university and non-profit research. INTRODUCTION Kicking off the opening session were Dr. Florence The Fifth Annual Conference of the National Haseltine of the National Institutes of Health and Academy of Inventors was held on April 14 and 15, Dr. Robert Fischell of the University of Maryland. 2016, at the Grand Hyatt Washington in Washing- Haseltine tackled one of the most topical issues of ton, DC. This year’s conference, “Building on the the day: women in science. Specifically, Haseltine first Foundations of Innovation,” explored the intersection traced out the causes of women’s underrepresentation between America’s storied past and its bright future as in patent production, noting that, “the research of a center of innovation and invention. In keeping with today has been shaped decades earlier by how a young that theme, presenters and panelists remembered the scientist was viewed and received when starting out.” trailblazers who laid the groundwork for sustained After examining origins, she moved on to review data innovation and charted the path for future endeavors from the National Academy of Inventors to identify in the innovation arena. our current status as regards gender equality and consider potential interventions to increase female SESSION A: CHANGING THE INNOVATION representation. You can read more about Haseltine’s CULTURE observations on the intersection between gender and On Thursday, April 14, 2015, the opening ses- invention in her article “Why vs. What” in this issue. sion of the conference, “The Changing Innovation Fischell, an innovation powerhouse who is author Culture,” featured a selection of speakers and panels on more than 200 patents, discussed the centrality focused on the vitality of innovation culture and how and importance of inventors and invention culture, its rapid changes have ushered in significant changes citing his influential work on epilepsy and migraine in technologies, disciplines, and practices. treatment, among other areas. Fischell encouraged _____________________ Accepted November 30, 2016. ® Address correspondence to Kimberly A. Macuare, Ph.D., Assistant Editor, Technology and Innovation, Journal of the National Academy of Inventors , USF Research Park, 3702 Spectrum Boulevard, Suite 165, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Phone: (813) 974-1347; E-mail: [email protected] 229

230 MACUARE AND KUBISEN fellow inventors to hew to their “perseverance and the innovation outreach and impact, Sanberg noted that unrelenting desire to overcome obstacles” in order to the NAI’s seminal work on the role of invention in turn problems into opportunities for interventions tenure and advancement has spawned an Association that can resolve key problems plaguing humanity. of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) task In the fi rst of four keynote addresses, Dr. Emery force on tech transfer in tenure and promotion deci- Brown, Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Medical sions and a follow-up article co-authored by members Engineering and of Computational Neuroscience at of that task force, which appeared in the NAI journal the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gave an Technology and Innovation. Moreover, the NAI has informative presentation on his work in the areas of formalized its relationship with the USPTO, signing anesthesia and neuroscience—work that both changes an offi cial memorandum of agreement, and rigorously the way that we conceive of anesthesia and its eff ects pursued support to grant a federal charter to the NAI. and has broad implications for improving clinical As a result of these eff orts, the NAI is well-positioned anesthesiological practice. Brown began by giving to ever more actively pursue initiatives to advance an overview of the dynamics of the unconscious and protect academic invention. brain under general anesthesia, demonstrating that Rounding out the opening session, the AAAS- common conceptions of anesthesia as a “shutting Lemelson Invention Ambassadors hosted a panel off ” of the brain are incorrect; rather, monitoring discussion, “Invention Is Not an Option,” that brought EEGs reveals that anesthetic drugs cause strong oscil- together a diverse group of panelists with experience lations in the brain that interrupt communication in tech transfer to discuss current eff orts to create among its diff erent regions. As he notes, this state is ecosystems for entrepreneurship at universities. Led emphatically “not sleep” but more akin to a reversible by Dr. Yolanda Comedy of the AAAS, panelists Karen drug-induced coma. In addition to off ering scientists J.L. Burg, Juan E. Gilbert, Suzie H. Pun, and Michael a better understanding of drug and brain dynamics, A. Smith drew on their collective expertise to tackle Brown’s research has exciting implications for clinical the key issues of why invention is important, how practice, including the ability to give lower and thus we can get others involved, and how we can promote safer doses of anesthetic agents to older patients and invention more eff ectively. Although working in fi elds to awaken patients more quickly from the anesthetic as diverse as voting technology, drug delivery, health state. Brown concluded by observing that “general care monitoring systems, and biomedical engineer- anesthesia presents a unique window into the brain,” ing, all of the panelists agreed that the environment, one that researchers and clinicians can use to better understand the brain and improve clinical practice. oft en referred to as the innovation ecosystem, is key. You can learn more about Brown’s research in this Continuing the panel’s discussion, Comedy has spear- issue’s NAI Fellow Profi le. headed a follow-up article for this issue highlighting In keeping with the session’s focus on the changing inventors who are actively involved in creating and innovation culture, Dr. Paul Sanberg’s State of the fostering the ecosystem that spurs innovation. Academy Address spotlighted not only the advances the Academy had made during the year but also how SESSION B: TRANSFORMATIVE the NAI has changed and continues to impact the TECHNOLOGIES national conversation on innovation. In terms of Th e second session began with two oral presen- growth, the Academy had expanded to 201 member tations that explored the power of technologies to institutions by April 2016, welcoming Duke Univer- disrupt and transform the world around us. Dr. sity, UC Irvine, and Rice University, among others, Katrina Cornish of Th e Ohio State University focused as well as adding international affi liates in Australia, on the centrality of natural rubber to industrial prog- Brazil, France, and Canada. Th e society, in welcoming ress and the potentially devastating impact that the the class of 2015, grew to include 582 Fellows, repre- impending shortage of that natural resource will have senting over 190 universities and non-profi t research on a global scale. She then outlined the disruptive institutes. Among them, this impressive group technologies and patents that her group has produced holds 21,000 U.S. patents. In considering the NAI’s to head off that potential crisis, including establishing

NAI CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS 231 new alternative rubber crops and alternative rubber studies at McGill and Harvard to his posts at Stan- applications. As she notes, these efforts “can erode ford, Harvard, and Duke, among others, a trajectory the market share currently occupied by synthetic that prepared him as both a physician-scientist and rubber, with enormous carbon footprint savings.” organizational leader. Moving on to discuss his work To read more about Cornish’s discoveries, turn to in translational research, he focused on his work with her article “Alternative Natural Rubber Crops: Why renin and ACE inhibitors to treat human heart failure, Should We Care?” in this issue. In the second presen- which has improved the lives of millions of patients tation, Dr. Kristina Johnson of Cube Hydro Partners, and saves 400,000 lives annually in the U.S. Never whose pioneering work in display technologies has content, Dzau has pushed forward, creating stem impacted 3D films, rear projection systems for tele- cell therapies to improve heart function and working visions, digital mammograms, and near-to-the-eye on gene therapies that will be able to “reprogram” displays, among other areas, discussed her work on hearts following injury. His own experience as a phy- color management in projection displays and 3D sician-scientist working in translational medicine films. Her work on birefringent materials, materials allowed him to see the often fragmented process whose refractive index depends on their polarization, from discovery to translation to implementation, led to the development of color polarization technol- which has led him to advocate an efficacious and ogy that was sold to RealD and used in blockbuster efficient discovery to care continuum, a practice he films, including Avatar. Johnson’s story, chronicling put into place as a change-agent during his tenure technology that is seen but not observed, speaks to as Duke’s chancellor for health affairs and president the often quiet ways in which inventions transform and CEO of Duke University Health System. Integral our lives. to this process was the establishment of the Duke In the session’s panel discussion, “Building Translational Medicine Institute, Duke Global Health Paths to Commercialization for Student Entrepre- Institute, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, neurs: Exploring Challenges and Opportunities for and Duke Institute for Health Innovation in order Post-University Support,” Graham M. Pugh of the to foster “global health innovations through collab- Lemelson Foundation moderated a discussion on the orations across Duke and beyond.” Dzau finished very real challenges facing students with entrepre- by highlighting the importance of continuing this neurial ambitions after they graduate and no longer innovative work on a national scale as he has taken have access to the resources they enjoyed as students. the reins as president for the NAM and has initiated Panelists Soumyadipta Acharya, Dan E. Azagury, Pre- work on global health risks, human gene editing, and tik Patel, and Joseph Steig weighed in on the debate, grand challenges in health and medicine. As Dzau noting the significant financial and infrastructural noted, when it comes to leading innovation, “the problems related to supporting young entrepreneurs and identifying programs that are providing success- journey continues.” ful safety nets for these innovators and thus allowing them to continue to produce and transfer technol- SESSION C: ENTREPRENEURSHIP DRIVES ogy to positively impact universities and society as INVENTION FORWARD a whole. On Friday, April 15, 2016, the second day opened In “Bench to Bedside to Policy: A Journal of Inno- with the third keynote address, “Catalyzing Inno- vation,” the second keynote address of the conference, vation to Meet Grand Challenges,” by Cristin A. Victor Dzau, president of the National Academy of Dorgelo, the former chief of staff for the White House Medicine (NAM) and 2014 Fellow of the National Office of Science and Technology. Recognizing the Academy of Inventors, used his own innovation key role that the federal government plays in spurring journey as a springboard for discussing the broader innovation in the U.S., Dorgelo detailed the White institutional change he has spurred and continues House’s initiatives in that arena under President to advocate in his role as president of NAM. Dzau Obama. She began by laying out the framework for began by covering his personal history from his birth these interventions, which can be found in “A Strategy in Shanghai and childhood in Hong Kong to his for American Innovation,” a report jointly produced

232 MACUARE AND KUBISEN by the National Economic Council and the Office of saving products. Baughman began by explaining how Science and Technology. The report recognizes that his early work with single crystal polydiacetylene by investing in the “building blocks of innovation,” fibers failed to achieve its original aims but led to the we will both “fuel the engine of private sector inno- use of printable diacetylene inks for time-temperature vation” and “empower a nation of innovators.” The indicators, an idea that is used to warn of vaccine White House’s efforts to accomplish these ambitious perishability and has saved over 140,000 lives in the but achievable goals have been diverse and impressive. last decade. Knowing that this discovery was made They have established a set of grand challenges to possible because of the company’s belief in the value of focus foundations, universities, companies, investors, high-risk research, Baughman took that attitude with students, and innovators on solving key problems in him when he transitioned to academia as a professor, diverse areas, such as brain research, solar energy, where he has led research on artificial muscles that asteroid threats, prenatal and neonatal treatment, and are much stronger than human muscles and have Ebola. The White House has also seen the benefits exciting potential for applications where superhuman of offering inducement prizes, as they can engage strengths are sought, such as robots and exoskeletons. people who may never have considered focusing on a As he acknowledged, commercializing this or any problem before. The Challenge.gov site has launched other technology “is risky, but we mitigate risk, by more than 625 competitions, awarded $220 million in our choice of collaborators for invention, scientific prizes, and engaged over 250,000 “solvers,” a feat for understanding, and commercialization.” which it has earned the Harvard Ash Center’s “Inno- Rounding out the session on entrepreneurship vations in American Government Award.” Finally, was the third panel discussion, “Managing Risk in because they recognize that engaging citizens in inno- Academic Innovation.” Moderated by Elizabeth Lang- vation is key, Dorgelo highlighted efforts at opening don-Gray of Harvard University, the panel brought data to the public and engaging in citizen science together university leaders, Delos M. Cosgrove, Alan efforts. In support of these efforts, citizenscience.gov W. Cramb, and Stephen K. Klasko, to discuss how was created to provide a portal for citizen science and to balance risk and reward as they spur innovation crowdsourcing, through which “the federal govern- at their respective institutions. In a wide-ranging ment and nongovernmental organizations can engage conversation, they identified managing conflicts of the American public in addressing societal needs and interest, corporate partnerships, and student IP as accelerating science, technology, and innovation.” key areas in which they are working to assure that In the second session’s oral presentations, Mir risk is handled in a way that is effective for creating Imran of InCube Labs and InCube Ventures pre- change and for safeguarding universities. sented “Innovation, Invention & Entrepreneurial In the fourth and final keynote address, Andrew Thinking,” a practical examination of the applica- H. Hirshfeld, U.S. Commissioner for Patents, spoke tion of entrepreneurial thinking to innovation and about some of the UPTO’s initiatives to support the invention. Drawing on his rich background as an patent system. He began by highlighting the ALL in inventor and entrepreneur, Imran used InCube— STEM program, which was created to increase the which has started 28 companies with a combined participation of women and girls in STEM educa- >800 U.S. patents at a 4.7x return to investors—as tion and careers. He noted the strong role models an exemplar of an effective innovation ecosystem. provided by the 22 female inductees in this year’s He clearly outlined how to successfully negotiate Fellow class and the strong female leadership at the the innovation-invention-commercialization cycle USPTO, most notably USPTO director Michelle Lee. and differentiate between disruptive and incremen- Hirshfeld finished by discussing the enhanced patent tal innovation. Ray H. Baughman of the University and quality initiative, which grew out of asking two of Texas at Dallas wrapped up the conference’s oral core questions: 1) What can you do to make every- presentations with his “The Living Platform Theory thing that you do better? and 2) How can you better of Invention Spawns Powerful Artificial Muscles,” support the patent system? The answers led them to which focused on the immense benefits that scientific establish a system based on three pillars: excellence in risk-taking can have for game-changing and life- work products and services; excellence in measuring

NAI CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS 233 patent quality; and excellence in customer service. You can read Hirshfeld’s speech in its entirety in this issue. Hirshfeld’s address served as a prelude to the final event of the conference, the Fellows Induction Cere- mony for the 2015 class of Fellows. With the induction of the 168 2015 Fellows, the NAI now comprises 582 of the most illustrious inventors and innovators from the United States and abroad, representing more than 190 prestigious universities and governmental and non-profit research institutions.



Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, pp. 235-244, 2017 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/18.4.2017.235 Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF INVENTORS Arthur Molella Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Although the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) is still very young, it is not too soon to reflect upon its history. It is and always will be a future-oriented organization, but history is where the future begins. As a curator and historian of science and technology, I felt uniquely privileged to have joined the board of the National Academy of Inventors soon after its founding. What better way to observe in real time and to feel part of that early history (if only in a small way)? While memories and the excitement of creation are still fresh, I asked NAI founder Paul Sanberg to sit down with me to share his thoughts on the academy’s genesis. What follows incorporates the results of that interview along with some historical reflections on the relationship between invention and academia. Key words: Invention; Innovation; American inventors; History of invention; National Academy of Inventors; National Academy of Sciences, U.S. patents; Academic invention THE MAKING OF AN ACADEMIC INVENTOR no idea if anybody would come,” recalls Sanberg. Most organizations have a creation story. Writ- To his utter surprise, over one hundred colleagues ten or unwritten, these founding narratives share showed up. a common purpose of crystalizing and justifying Why was he surprised? As a seasoned academic the organization’s ethos and goals. In the case of the scientist and administrator, he was prepared to expect National Academy of Inventors (NAI), the story at best indifference and at worst hostility to his call. He was all too aware that traditional academic researchers begins with an impromptu luncheon at the University are often allergic to patenting and commercialization. of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, one that packed a For some, indeed, the applications of their scien- surprise for the academy’s founder, Paul Sanberg. It tific work to the marketplace and capitalism were was the surprise that launched NAI. anathema. “It wasn’t pure science, and, therefore, Early in 2009, Paul Sanberg, senior vice president there was some taint to it. And that was unfortunate,” for research, innovation, and economic development says Sanberg. In the ivory tower, even the very term at the University of South Florida, issued a cam- “academic innovation” can sound like an oxymoron. pus-wide invitation to all colleagues who had interests Plainly, this is not how Sanberg thinks. He sees in invention and held at least one U.S. patent. “I had no conflict between the search for knowledge and _____________________ Accepted November 30, 2016. Address correspondence to Arthur Molella, Director Emeritus, Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, Smithsonian Institution, NMAH, Room 1210, MRC 604, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA. Tel: +1 (202) 633-3447; Fax: +1 (202) 633-4593. 235

236 MOLELLA applying that knowledge in the marketplace and to patenting until after I was a full professor [a rank he the needs of society. To the contrary, he considers achieved while still in his early thirties] and worked the activities mutually reinforcing. But, to convince with a company.” Initially, he didn’t even think about others of this, he faced significant hurdles ahead, as licensing and patenting, largely out of ignorance of we’ll see. His own discovery of the joys of innovation what he was missing. “The University never taught came through a circuitous route. He began his career me anything about intellectual property (IP).…It as a precocious but relatively traditional laboratory wasn’t until I went into industry for a startup at Brown scientist publishing extensively in neuroscience jour- University that I learned anything about IP and why nals. investors care about that.” At that point, he made an important life decision, electing to give up his tenured position at the University of Cincinnati to take his chances in the innovation marketplace. He joined a startup company associated with Brown University, where he also accepted a non-tenured faculty appointment. It was the early 1990s, on the eve of America’s high-tech boom, and the startup opened a whole new world to him, a world in which he knew he had a lot of catching up to do: “It was an incredibly fast learning experience for me to work in commercialization.” Figure 1. Dr. Paul R. Sanberg in his laboratory speaking with NURTURING A CULTURE OF INNOVATION former Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Sanberg immediately began applying what he had Sanberg churned out scientific articles in neurosci- learned from his early experiences to his work at USF, ence at an extraordinary pace. Blessed with a talent for which had recruited him in 1992 to help raise the working with his hands and making things, he regu- university’s profile as a research campus. After spend- larly published methods articles or included a section ing a decade building his own laboratory and center in his research articles on experimental techniques, into models of innovation, he moved into senior highlighting novel apparatus he devised to “make his administration and was able to put his ideals into research more cost effective.” Among his inventions practice on a larger scale. Given his hands-on style of were novel automatic counters and printing calcula- scientific publication, Sanberg took for granted that tors used in experiments where laboratory animals experimental research and invention were mutually were prompted to press on bars. “I was looking for reinforcing—a belief that informed his administrative ways to automate and to do things less expensively policies at USF. He was determined not only to boost and on a larger scale,” he explained. He enjoyed show- research output but to transform the way research was casing his new instruments to colleagues, who were being done. In a word, he wanted to bring the whole learning a great deal from the descriptions of his of USF into the world of invention and innovation. techniques. But he still didn’t think of himself as an He was fully aware that patenting had not been part inventor. Then came a shift. Some of those colleagues of the academic culture at USF. But, if he was going told him that he should make more of his work on to change things, what did he have to work with? It experimental techniques and devices. Eventually it was this question that led him to extend his lunch dawned on him that he could try to patent his new invitation in 2009. As a result of that momentous devices. “That’s when I first felt I was being an inven- meeting, he knew he was not alone in his enthusiasm tor,” he told me. for innovation. In the one hundred-plus attendees, Reflecting on his first brushes with invention, he found a vibrant sub-culture of colleagues at USF he said, “I went through training as a scientist and who shared his passion for invention and commer- never learned anything about patents…. I didn’t start cialization. But, up until then, they had been working

HISTORY OF THE NAI 237 below the radar at USF and not all that effectively. Entrepreneurship, a group of entrepreneurs, investors, Their patents were few and far between, achieving and university leaders, was created to facilitate the only limited financial success for their academic filers. implementation of the America COMPETES Act. Those colleagues who were inventing did so essen- They were tasked with coming up with new ideas tially as a sideline, receiving little if any support or and providing guidance and feedback on policies recognition from the administration—least of all from intended to spur innovation and entrepreneurship. tenure and promotion committees. Sanberg judges Sanberg recalls, “That environment, which encour- that this neglect was not so much out of hostility aged the university to take a larger role in economic as sheer ignorance within academic cloisters of the development, had a big impact on me. My role here bigger world of innovation. Sanberg’s non-traditional in the university was to promote that economic attitudes and encouragement must have come to these development and build on it. It was just a matter of would-be academic inventors as a breath of fresh looking for opportunities….” Fortunately, he also air. Discovering the extent of this latent interest was had the unwavering support of USF President Judy equally bracing to Sanberg. Genhsaft and other senior administrators. Some of Coming off that lunch meeting with renewed those administrators—Stephen Klasko, now president enthusiasm, Sanberg began to wonder what was going of Thomas Jefferson University; Karen Holbrook, now on at other universities: president of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; We were a mid-level state university on the rise, and John Wiencek, now provost and executive vice and if it was here, then there must be a lot more president of the University of Idaho—have gone on out there…. So I talked to a number of VPRs [vice to take the NAI to their new universities, joining as presidents of research] and other senior leaders member institutions and starting university chapters. at various places, and they were all looking for Within a year, he and others, including Howard ways in which to start doing what I was trying to Federoff of Georgetown University, moved forward do [finding and supporting the early adopters]. on his concept of the NAI. He and Howard met with Richard Maulsby of the U.S. Patent and Trademark This got him thinking about an idea for an organiza- Office (USPTO) and later with David Kappos, Under tion that would extend beyond USF, out to the state Secretary of Commerce and Patent Office Director, level and even nationally. both of whom supported the idea of the NAI. He discovered there was a demand out there, not only LAUNCHING NAI within USF but also around the nation. In 2009, the U.S. economy had just tanked, he In short, he was convinced the time had come reminds us, “and there were discussions that industry for a new, long overdue organization. Those enti- is going to help us; the private sector’s got to be more ties that already existed in the area of advancing involved with universities.” At around this same time, innovation just didn’t do the job. To his mind, what the National Advisory Council on Innovation and distinguishes the National Academy of Inventors Figure 2. The first luncheon of USF inventors.

238 MOLELLA The Academy put forward a sweeping and ambi- tious mission. Accomplishing it, however, required nothing less than a major cultural transformation: “Since its founding, the NAI has played a vital role in changing the academic culture to one of valuing patents and commercialization within its member institutions across the country” (2). HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Figure 3. Under Secretary David Kappos, an early supporter To effect this sort of cultural transformation within of the National Academy of Inventors, speaks with conference academe was no easy matter. Understanding why attendees Tanaga A. Boozer (left) and Marcus W. Shute (right). requires some historical perspective. Sanberg may from other organizations that promote innovation, not have been aware of it at the time, but the National such as the National Academy of Engineering, is the Academy of Inventors was faced with bridging a gap NAI’s focus on academic innovation: “NAI focuses between academics and inventors that had bedeviled on academics, and that’s what makes us unique,” says the culture of American innovation for well over a Sanberg. “The technology people and the researchers century. have their own groups, but that doesn’t reach out to This rift dates back at least to the formation of the th academics.” American scientific community in the late 19 cen- The National Academy of Inventors was formally tury. The founders of the community were attempting launched in 2010 at an inaugural meeting at USF in to establish their professional identities. As part of Tampa with David Kappos. Rather than retracing the that quest, they articulated strong ideological con- stages of the organization’s early development, which victions about the relationship between science and are well documented on the Academy’s website (1), technology. They believed that science should not only be valued for its own sake, as the search for this brief overview of the young organization’s gen- knowledge, but also as the one and true source of esis will focus rather on its founding aims and spirit, technological progress. with an eye to the key relationship between academic research and patented innovation that the NAI was Physicist Joseph Henry vs. the “Practical Men” designed to foster. Sanberg was out to change minds and knew there was a lot of consciousness-raising to Listen to Joseph Henry (1797-1878), Princeton do. But it turned out the NAI had its work cut out physics professor, first head of the Smithsonian Insti- for it, for the relationship between inventors and aca- tution, and one of the main architects of the American demics has a long and fraught history in the United science community: States, a history that Sanberg had no choice but to Every mechanic art is based upon some princi- reckon with. ple [or] general laws of nature and…the more To fully grasp what this effort entailed, it is worth intimately acquainted we are with these laws the reviewing the mission statement on the Academy’s more capable we must be to advance and improve website: [the useful] arts. (3) Although he had first articulated this view as a The NAI was founded in 2010 to recognize and young scientist, he remained faithful to its spirit encourage inventors with patents issued from the throughout his life. It was a view widely shared by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, enhance the peers in the scientific community. visibility of academic technology and innovation, According to this ideology as stated by Henry, encourage the disclosure of intellectual property, James Watt’s invention of the steam engine depended educate and mentor innovative students, and on the heat theory of the physicist and chemist Joseph translate the invention of its members to benefit Black, the improvement of the windmill “employed” society. the mathematical calculations of the mathematician

HISTORY OF THE NAI 239 and physicist Daniel Bernoulli, and so on. Such view. Praising the Institute’s long-time commitment statements about the science-technology relation- to basic science, he said that the main role of start-up ship are now considered a simplistic and outdated and entrepreneurial activities supported at MIT was description of a complex process. Yet, without going to take the fruits of that basic science out into the into details of the shortcomings of Henry’s account, it world. is fair to say that the basic notion that technological Yet, unlike today, in Joseph Henry’s time there invention depends on prior theoretical discovery has existed a widespread counter-ideology. The late 19 th demonstrated remarkable staying power. century was the age of the independent inventor cel- It anticipates, for example, the sort of view that ebrated as a hero in democratic America. Theory was Vannevar Bush of the Massachusetts Institute of dismissed as mere book learning and scientists as Technology (MIT) (1890-1974), head of American wool-gatherers. The true heroes were the unschooled research and development (R&D) during World War ‘practical men’ whose ‘Yankee ingenuity’ produced II, put forward in his influential 1945 report to the all the notable patented inventions driving America’s President, Science the Endless Frontier. Bush called for technological and economic progress. government support of basic science as the source for Patenting is one of the pillars of the NAI’s mission, technological progress, a call that paved the way for reinforced by a strategic alliance, ratified in 2016, with the National Science Foundation. The idea is taken for the USPTO. It is difficult to conceive that 125 years granted today among many scientists and engineers. ago patenting had become a major bone of contention Recently, for instance, this writer heard a high-rank- among scientists and inventors. While Henry and ing academic official at MIT implicitly affirm this like-minded scientists had no objections to patenting Figure 4. Men of Progress from The National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. Pieced together by artist Christian Schussele from individual portraits, the painting depicts Joseph Henry (standing at center) looking down, perhaps uncomfortably, on the white-maned Morse sitting by his telegraph.

240 MOLELLA per se, they complained that too many patents were wasted on meaningless gadgets made by ignorant men with inflated egos. By no means underestimating the value of invention, Henry himself built the first prototypes of the telegraph and electric motor as part of his research in electromagnetism. But they remained prototypes, which he declined to patent, considering it beneath the dignity of a professor of natural philosophy (as science was then called) to profit from invention. Particularly offensive to Henry were inventors who exalted themselves at the expense of scientific discoverers. One of the most Figure 5. Henry Rowland and his Dividing Engine. From Popu- famous patent litigations of the 19th century pitted lar Science Monthly, 1903. Henry against the inventor Samuel F. B. Morse and is not an uncommon thing, especially in American his business allies, whose telegraph patents embodied newspapers, to have the applications of science broad claims about applying electrical principles to confounded with pure science; and some obscure invention. Pointing out that principles of nature are American who steals the great ideas of some mind not patentable, Henry argued the credit had been of the past, and enriches himself by the application of stolen from him and, more importantly, from basic the same to domestic uses, is often lauded above the science (Figure 4) (4). great originator of the idea, who might have worked This belief that basic science was the true mother out hundreds of such applications, had his mind of invention eventually morphed into a more extreme possessed the necessary element of vulgarity.” interpretation of the ‘pure science’ ideal—the pursuit His article then argues for the purity of the aca- of knowledge solely for its own sake —that took hold demic calling, objecting to those science professors in certain quarters of American academia in the last who engage in consulting or “devote themselves to quarter of the 19 century (5). commercial work, to testifying in courts of law, and to th While this version of a pure science ideology any other work to increase their present large income.” implied an isolation of science from technology, the connection was still maintained through a sort of Ira Remsen’s Johns Hopkins Lab: Patents trickle-down effect, by which the chain of invention Unwelcome could be traced back to an initial scientific discovery. Chemistry professor Ira Remsen (1846-1927), As we’ll see in a moment, some scientists took the Rowland’s Johns Hopkins colleague, provides a dra- more cynical view that, in some cases, inventors stole matic example of pure-science ideology in action. from scientific discoverers for financial gain. Like many American chemists of his era, he received his Ph.D. in Germany, where he had imbibed the Henry Rowland and the Ideology of Pure Science ideology of pure science. When he accepted a profes- In 1883, the Johns Hopkins University physics sorship at Johns Hopkins in 1876, he brought these professor Henry A. Rowland (1848-1901) penned convictions with him, establishing the nation’s first what became the classic statement of the purity ideal academic research lab in chemistry. in an article titled “A Plea for Pure Science” (6). “I In 1878, Remsen invited into his lab Constantin have often been asked [he writes] which was the more Fahlberg, a Russian post-doctoral student, to work important to the world, pure or applied science. To with him in the study of compounds of coal tar, a have the applications of science, the science itself viscous by-product of converting coal into coke. One must exist.” day, after leaving the lab for dinner without thor- Much of the rest of the article rehearsed Joseph oughly washing his hands, Fahlberg discovered a Henry’s litany of complaints about injustices inflicted sweet tasting substance on his fingertips. Suspecting on scientific discoverers. Rowland writes, “And yet it where it had come from, he immediately rushed back

HISTORY OF THE NAI 241 to the lab and began tasting the chemicals in all his science mentality—albeit in a less extreme form— beakers—miraculously not poisoning himself in the certainly has not disappeared from the U.S. academic process. Sure enough, one of them contained the scene, as Paul Sanberg discovered. But its popularity th sweet substance he was seeking—a classic instance had begun to fade with events in the early 20 cen- of serendipity. He and Remsen (whose name was tury, as America entered World War I and the nation included as head of the lab) then published a joint turned to scientists and engineers for help, inviting article on the synthesis of the new substance. In 1884, them out of their academic enclaves. Under President Fahlberg went on to file for patents in the U.S. and Woodrow Wilson, scientists and engineers were offi- Germany, calling the new substance saccharin and cially recruited to the war effort. Josephus Daniels, launching a lucrative business in sugar substitutes. Secretary of the Navy, set up the Naval Consulting Arguably, a university lab is prime territory for Board headed by America’s most famous inven- such serendipitous discoveries, as free-ranging basic tor, Thomas Edison. The Board brought together research would seem to multiply the chances for the “luminaries in the realm of science and technology,” unexpected to occur. University administrators today applying theory and experiment to invention (9). At would celebrate and capitalize on such an accidental the same time, the National Research Council was invention. set up under the auspices of the National Academy of Not so Remsen, however. The Johns Hopkins Sciences (NAS) to offer Wilson advice in the national chemist was furious that his former postdoctoral crisis (10). assistant had filed for patents without his knowledge This trend of applying science and engineering and, even worse, claimed the discovery was his alone. knowledge accelerated during World War II, known Remsen’s anger at being slighted was understandable. as the “physicists’ war” because of the success of the But that was not the only reason for his ire; rather, Manhattan Project, bringing together academic and as a devotee of pure science, he disdained industrial industrial scientists. This combined effort of aca- chemistry and commercialization in general. Much deme, corporations, and government resulted in the less did he want his own laboratory sullied by an rise of Big Science, the systematic and well-funded association with patents (7). application of research to technology that became Ironically, almost exactly one hundred years later the template for modern R&D. The application of scientists to war efforts has (1981-1983), Paul Sanberg was a post-doctoral Fellow deep roots in American history. In the midst of the at Johns Hopkins University. Traces of Remsen’s dim Civil War, the NAS was signed into law by President view of patenting still lingered. In a recent letter to Lincoln (March 3, 1863). The NAS was “charged with Sanberg, Solomon Snyder, the eminent Johns Hop- providing independent, objective advice to the nation kins neuroscientist who mentored him at Hopkins, on matters related to science and technology.” The detected welcome signs of change: “Congratulations plan was to enlist science in aid of the Union cause on your elegant PNAS [Proceedings of the National (11). Although responding to many government Academy of Sciences] article on incentives for inven- requests for reports on military and civilian mat- tors. Historically—at many universities, including ters in the post-Civil War era, by the 1890s, the NAS Hopkins—faculty who patented and commercial- was called upon for advice only infrequently and fell ized their discoveries were denigrated rather than into a torpor. It devolved primarily into an honorific celebrated. Fortunately, this is no longer the case at organization, remaining that way until revived and Hopkins and most other universities. Hopefully, your pressed again into public service during World War piece will help change thinking in academia” (8). I, when it became an active scientific body, a status it has retained ever since. Academics Go to War At first glance, in its mission to honor scientists This brief historical excursion into the 19 century and serve the public, not to mention its very name, th illustrates the changing fortunes of the relationship the NAS looks like it might have been a direct model between academic science and invention. The pure for the National Academy of Inventors. When asked

242 MOLELLA HISTORY OF THE NAI 243 if it was, however, Sanberg hesitated and said, “No, technology hubs, Sanberg believes there is plenty some academics might be hypersensitive to perceived not originally. It was not at first a central focal point of room for growth elsewhere. He reveals this was a challenges to the values of unfettered research. He for me, perhaps from being trained in Canada and major consideration behind the establishment of NAI: fully appreciates a value system in which uninhib- Australia. When I became a senior administrator, we “You didn’t have to be a Harvard or Stanford to do this ited academic inquiry is considered a non-negotiable were looking at metrics to become a better univer- kind of work. Every community in this country needs right, critical to the free flow of scientific information sity…. One metric was: How many National Academy to be helped by an ‘ivory tower’ institution that could and the diffusion of knowledge and experimental members does that university have?” look outside and interact more with the community findings. All the apparatus needed to sustain this to create start-up companies, do research with com- flow—journals, letters, on-line exchanges, profes- DEMOCRATIZING INVENTION panies, and get the country going and flowing. And sional meetings—are deemed equally vital to the Although NAS’s high-powered membership did not just with giving more research grants. Let’s get our enterprise. inspire his and Under Secretary Kappos’ idea of hav- Figure 6. Several NAI Fellows from the 2013 class (from left to faculty communicating. We need to train the faculty Sanberg feels that no one should feel his or her call- ing elite NAI Fellows, Sanberg departed significantly right: Samir Mitragotri, W. Mark Saltzman, Joachim Kohn, Cato as well as students (who I think push the faculty)— ing is at risk. On the contrary, he is at pains to avoid from the National Academy model in other ways. In Laurencin, Edith Mathiowitz, Kathryn Uhrich, Laura Niklason, with student companies, student incubators, and so any hint of threat. He argues instead for a broader its early years, the NAS was criticized as elitist and and Marsha Moses). on. The NAI promotes this sort of training.” This perspective—for opening up space in academe for undemocratic (12). Whether or not it actually was, in the innovation space, including a forthcoming kind of activity fosters a higher level of community both pure and applied activity at the expense of nei- Sanberg was determined to break the mold: “The NAI, special issue (13-15). engagement and spurs economic development, both ther. Those who are so inclined (as he is) are welcome from its inception, has been expansive and inclusive, Traditionally, the national academies “are tasked of which are paramount to the modern university’s to do both. In the end, as he points out, nothing is truly democratized,” he said. He points out that all the to answer questions from Congress, the White House, mission. lost intellectually. In fact, there is everything to gain: national academies—the NAS, National Academy of and various government agencies. We haven’t fully It is an interesting paradox that—despite the “We know that those faculty that are high achievers Engineering, and National Academy of Medicine— developed that aspect yet at the NAI.” It is clear, manifest importance of research at colleges and in academic invention are even higher achievers in only have individual members. By contrast, he said, though, Sanberg would welcome a wider govern- universities to technological innovation, industry, academic research.” “We wanted to make the NAI as prestigious as the ment advisory role for NAI, a role that supports his and the economy—obstacles to academic innovation The benefits of breaking down the cultural barriers NAS as far as the kind of people we have in it, espe- values of public service. Accordingly, Sanberg and remain entrenched in some institutions and in depart- between pure and applied research are obvious to the cially at the Fellow level, but make it a different kind members of the NAI board are now actively lobbying mental enclaves. A restrictive vision of the academic members of NAI. The advantages are also validated by of academy, one that also has universities….The NAI for a Congressional charter (16) for the organiza- calling is clearly one of the reasons behind this. As history. At one time, American scientists were criti- is universities, it’s individuals, and it’s very high level tion to give it more of a government service function for commercialization, resistance within university cized, if not dismissed, by many historians of science people in the Fellows program....” That expansive view comparable to the national academies. In the future, administrations to patents began to fade decades for being mired in the everyday and the practical— is reflected in the 757 NAI Fellows, the 215 member Sanberg would also like to work more closely with ago when state and federal funding began to dry especially when compared with European greats, institutions, and the 3,000 individual members who other national academies in shared areas of interest, up. Congress increased the incentives for academic from Newton to Einstein. It turns out, however, that represent over 250 institutions worldwide (as of Jan- a natural overlap given that many of the NAI Fellows patenting with the passage in 1980 of the Bayh-Dole Newton was interested in the theory of ship-building uary 2017). are also members of other national academies. Act, which gave colleges and universities the rights and that Einstein, besides earning a living in the Bern One of Sanberg’s major aims has also been to to products from their government-funded research patent office, had approximately 50 patents to his drastically increase female participation in inven- LOOKING AHEAD: TEARING DOWN THE projects. The only conspicuous obstacle has been in name, including one for a safer refrigerator. As Har- tion and innovation. “All the national academies are BARRIERS the area of faculty buy-in. vard science historian Peter Galison argues, in fact, doing everything they can to make up for the past In a way, the current enthusiasm, even craze, for Despite the inevitable pushback, Sanberg remains Einstein’s revolutionary insight into the relativity of and bring in more women as academy members and innovation that began in the early 1990s makes an committed to his goal of the cultural transformation time emerged from his experiments using telegraphs as a percentage of the workforce. At the NAI, we organization like the NAI almost inevitable. Today, of academia: to coordinate clocks in train stations (17). History have the advantage of being a start-up organization, knowledge and institutions of every kind are linked to shows that, far from being handicapped, American not weighed down by our history. And, we’re highly the innovation ethos. Universities have had a special To change the culture of universities so they rec- scientists have benefited from their abiding interests motivated toward change. We are making tremen- relationship with high-tech regions ever since Stan- ognize that academic invention is important and in things practical and even commercial (18). Amer- dous strides in acknowledging the role of women in ford spawned Silicon Valley in the late 1950s. It is a part of their mission. Culture is changing vis-à-vis ica’s unequaled bounty of Nobel Prizes testifies to the our enterprise—inducting women as Fellows and as model emulated around the world. Tech corridors promotion and tenure, for example. You won’t country’s lasting contribution to knowledge. Practical NAI members. To see this, all you need to do is look and their equivalents would not be what they are probably make big money out of it as faculty, but problems stimulate the imagination, require creative at photos on our website of the NAI annual meet- without the knowledge base provided by academia. you still get credit for it. problem solving, and provide research opportunities ings, group photos of our decision-making board Nevertheless, universities serving as technology hubs Not that Sanberg, an eminent neuroscientist in all but indistinguishable from scientific problems. The members, and our incoming class of Fellows.” This are still in the minority. his own right, means to question the importance dichotomy between pure and applied has lost almost commitment has also been evident in the T&I jour- While great institutions like Stanford, MIT, of pure research. In light of today’s insistent push all meaning. High-tech innovation, in biomechanical nal’s publication of pieces addressing the gender gap and Berkeley dominate the landscape as regional toward a culture of innovation, he understands why engineering, for example, is as much science as it is

HISTORY OF THE NAI 243 technology hubs, Sanberg believes there is plenty some academics might be hypersensitive to perceived of room for growth elsewhere. He reveals this was a challenges to the values of unfettered research. He major consideration behind the establishment of NAI: fully appreciates a value system in which uninhib- “You didn’t have to be a Harvard or Stanford to do this ited academic inquiry is considered a non-negotiable kind of work. Every community in this country needs right, critical to the free flow of scientific information to be helped by an ‘ivory tower’ institution that could and the diffusion of knowledge and experimental look outside and interact more with the community findings. All the apparatus needed to sustain this to create start-up companies, do research with com- flow—journals, letters, on-line exchanges, profes- panies, and get the country going and flowing. And sional meetings—are deemed equally vital to the not just with giving more research grants. Let’s get our enterprise. faculty communicating. We need to train the faculty Sanberg feels that no one should feel his or her call- as well as students (who I think push the faculty)— ing is at risk. On the contrary, he is at pains to avoid with student companies, student incubators, and so any hint of threat. He argues instead for a broader on. The NAI promotes this sort of training.” This perspective—for opening up space in academe for kind of activity fosters a higher level of community both pure and applied activity at the expense of nei- engagement and spurs economic development, both ther. Those who are so inclined (as he is) are welcome of which are paramount to the modern university’s to do both. In the end, as he points out, nothing is mission. lost intellectually. In fact, there is everything to gain: It is an interesting paradox that—despite the “We know that those faculty that are high achievers manifest importance of research at colleges and in academic invention are even higher achievers in universities to technological innovation, industry, academic research.” and the economy—obstacles to academic innovation The benefits of breaking down the cultural barriers remain entrenched in some institutions and in depart- between pure and applied research are obvious to the mental enclaves. A restrictive vision of the academic members of NAI. The advantages are also validated by calling is clearly one of the reasons behind this. As history. At one time, American scientists were criti- for commercialization, resistance within university cized, if not dismissed, by many historians of science administrations to patents began to fade decades for being mired in the everyday and the practical— ago when state and federal funding began to dry especially when compared with European greats, up. Congress increased the incentives for academic from Newton to Einstein. It turns out, however, that patenting with the passage in 1980 of the Bayh-Dole Newton was interested in the theory of ship-building Act, which gave colleges and universities the rights and that Einstein, besides earning a living in the Bern to products from their government-funded research patent office, had approximately 50 patents to his projects. The only conspicuous obstacle has been in name, including one for a safer refrigerator. As Har- the area of faculty buy-in. vard science historian Peter Galison argues, in fact, Despite the inevitable pushback, Sanberg remains Einstein’s revolutionary insight into the relativity of committed to his goal of the cultural transformation time emerged from his experiments using telegraphs of academia: to coordinate clocks in train stations (17). History shows that, far from being handicapped, American To change the culture of universities so they rec- scientists have benefited from their abiding interests ognize that academic invention is important and in things practical and even commercial (18). Amer- part of their mission. Culture is changing vis-à-vis ica’s unequaled bounty of Nobel Prizes testifies to the promotion and tenure, for example. You won’t country’s lasting contribution to knowledge. Practical probably make big money out of it as faculty, but problems stimulate the imagination, require creative you still get credit for it. problem solving, and provide research opportunities Not that Sanberg, an eminent neuroscientist in all but indistinguishable from scientific problems. The his own right, means to question the importance dichotomy between pure and applied has lost almost of pure research. In light of today’s insistent push all meaning. High-tech innovation, in biomechanical toward a culture of innovation, he understands why engineering, for example, is as much science as it is

244 MOLELLA technology. It is key to many improvements to the 14 Jul 2014, 15:15 minutes. [accessed 2016 human condition, both in society at large and individ- Oct 15]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ually (in prosthetics, for example). Such innovation Bt3oa6TBbBY. speaks to our whole being and responds to society’s 9. Amato I. Pushing the horizon: seventy-five years intellectual, economic, and even spiritual needs. The of high stakes science and technology at the marriage between invention and theory has already Naval Research Laboratory. Washington (DC): conferred uncounted benefits. Naval Research Lab; 2001 [accessed 2016 Oct 15]. The National Academy of Inventors’ boldly ecu- http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/ hori- menical philosophy raises a pressing question: Is it zon.pdf. time to finally tear down the cultural barriers between 10. Schindler S. Providing scientific knowledge science and invention and between academia and the to solve public problems: National Research broader community of innovation? For Sanberg, the Council. In: Fleishman JL, Kohler JS, Schindler answer is a resounding yes. S, editors. Casebook for the foundation: a great American secret. New York (NY): PublicAffairs; REFERENCES 2007. Chapter 8; p. 23-24. 1. History of the NAI: from idea to action. Tampa 11. History: founding and early work. Washington (FL): National Academy of Inventors; c2016 (DC): National Academy of Sciences; c2016 [accessed 2016 Oct 15]. http://academyofinven- [accessed 2016 Oct 15]. http://www.nasonline. tors.org/ about.asp#history. org/about-nas/history/archives/founding-and- 2. Changing the culture of academic invention. early-work.html. Tampa (FL): National Academy of Inventors; 12. Kevles D. The physicists: the history of a scien- c2016 [accessed 2016 Oct 15]. http://academy- tific community in modern America. Cambridge ofinventors.org/ about.asp #culture. (MA): Harvard; 1978. 3. Molella A, Reingold N. Theorists and inge- 13. Olsen P. Invention: does gender matter? Technol nious mechanics: Joseph Henry defines science. Innov. 17(4):193-196; 2016. Science Studies. 3(4):331-332; 1973. 4. Mossof A. O’Reilly vs. Morse. Antonin Scalia 14. Haseltine F. “Why” vs. “what,” or “The Bad Penny Law School, Law & Economics Research Paper Opera”: gender and bias in science. 18(4)275-279; Series; Aug 2014 [accessed 2016 Oct 15]; George 2017. Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 15. Technology and Innovation. Tampa (FL): 14-22. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Data_ In- National Academy of Inventors. Forthcoming. tegrity _Notice.cfm?abid=2448363. Issue on the gender gap in invention. 5. Lucier P. The origins of pure and applied science 16. To Grant a Federal Charter to the National in Gilded Age America. Isis. 103(3):527-536; Academy of Inventors. H.R. 976, 115th Cong., 2012. 1st Sess. (2017). https://www.congress.gov/ 6. Rowland HA. A plea for pure science. Science. bill/115th-congress/house-bill/976/cospon- 2(29):242; 1883. sors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22nation- 7. Hicks J. The pursuit of sweet. Distillations al+academy+of+inventors%22%5D%7D&r=1. (Chemical Heritage Foundation). 2010 [accessed 17. Galison P. Einstein’s clocks, Poincaré’s maps: 2016 Oct 15]. https://www.chemheritage.org/ empires of time. New York (NY): W.W. Norton; distillations/article/ pursuit-sweet?page=1. 2003. 8. Paul Sanberg presents at the AAAS-Lemelson 18. Reingold N. Alexander Dallas Bache: science “Celebrate Invention” Event [video]. AAAS- and technology in the American idiom. Technol Lemelson Invention Ambassadors Program. Cult. 11(2):163-177; 1970.

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, pp. 245-256, 2017 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/18.4.2017.245 Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org ALTERNATIVE NATURAL RUBBER CROPS: WHY SHOULD WE CARE? Katrina Cornish Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Ohio Agricultural Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Natural rubber is a strategic raw material essential to the manufacture of 50,000 different rub- ber and latex products. Until recently, natural rubber has been produced solely from a single species, the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis), which is grown as genetically similar clones in tropical regions and harvested by hand. Developed countries import all the natural rubber they require: >1.2 megatons/year by the U.S. and >12 megatons/year globally. Steadily increasing demand cannot be met in the future by the rubber tree alone, and viable alternative crops that can be established on farms and managed with mechanized equipment are required. If we fail to accomplish this goal in the near future, adverse economic consequences are predicted. However, while the introduction of any new crop is extremely challenging, a new rubber crop requires parallel coordinated expansion of farm acreage and processing capacity, initially feeding high-value niche markets suited to small-scale production, but which can gradually transition to address the much larger commodity markets. Sustainability of new rubber crops depends on valorization of the entire plant and environmentally-friendly processing. In the long term, the rubber from alternate rubber crops, especially more heat-stable derivatives such as epoxidized rubber, may supplement sections of the market share currently occupied by various synthetic rubbers with enormous carbon footprint savings. Key words: Buckeye Gold; Domestic crops; Economic security; Guayule; Hevea; Kazak dan- delion; Natural rubber; Rubber dandelion; Rubber root; Russian dandelion; Sustainability NATURAL RUBBER IMPORTANCE emerging economies such as those of China, India, Current natural rubber (NR) supplies from trop- and Brazil. World NR consumption is expected to ical countries are insecure because of burgeoning be 16.5 mt/y by 2023 (1) and to continue to increase global demand led by the industrialization of devel- thereafter. Predicted impending global natural rubber oping countries, labor shortages, and fungal crop shortages are greater than the 1.2 mt imported annu- diseases. Total rubber consumption increased 61.2% ally by the U.S. As economies of rubber-producing from 2000 to 2014, and demand is continuing to Asian countries improve, they struggle to support increase. In 2014, global NR consumption reached low cost natural rubber production from plantations 12.159 megatons (mt), nearly a 6.8% increase from of Hevea brasiliensis (rubber tree), and acreage is the previous year (1), and consumption is expected replaced primarily with less labor-intensive oil palm to continually increase due to rising demands from (2). This is because natural rubber is harvested by _____________________ Accepted November 30, 2016. Address correspondence to Katrina Cornish, Ph.D., Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineer- ing, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691-4096, USA. Tel: +1 (330) 263-3982; Fax: +1 (330) 263 3887; Mobile: +1 (760) 622-4330; E-mail: [email protected] 245

246 CORNISH hand, tapping the bark of the rubber trees to dribble to 65% of the total rubber market, and increasing the rubber-containing latex into small cups (3). About demand for these materials parallels the increasing 11% of the latex is concentrated by dewatering before demand for natural rubber. Natural and synthetic it is shipped to latex product manufacturers. The rubber materials are essential to virtually all manu- remainder is converted to solid rubber (by various facturing sectors, but all NR and a significant amount methods) for products such as tires (tires consume of SR used in the U.S. are imported, although the U.S. ~70% of all natural rubber) (4). Replacement rub- could manufacture sufficient SR to meet its internal ber tree acreage is established in poorer countries demand. However, virtually all SRs are currently pro- after first clearing more rain forest, a practice with an duced from non-sustainable fossil-fuel feedstocks increasingly devastating ecological impact (5). Partly and contribute heavily to pollution of air, soil, and in response to this practice, the World Wildlife Fund all natural sources of water. Natural rubber can sup- is supporting a global deforestation moratorium. This plement synthetic rubber (currently responsible for is gaining traction, and Michelin is the first major tire ~90 mt of CO2/y) in some applications, supporting company to commit to the moratorium (6). Wide- national goals of a sustainable and resilient bio-based spread acceptance that additional deforestation in economy (10). biologically-diverse rain forests is unacceptable will limit, or even prevent, the planting of new rubber NATURAL RUBBER INSECURITY tree plantations (7). The immediate requirement for Even without increasing rubber demand, the nat- new plantings to meet predicted demand in a five to ural rubber supply is at risk because, unlike most seven year time frame requires new acreage of 32,817 other agricultural commodities, it depends on a square miles (8.5 million ha) (5), an area similar in single species grown as clonal scions on seedling size to Austria or the U.S. state of South Carolina. rootstocks. A lack of genetic diversity makes any Thus, there is a critical need to establish sustainable, crop prone to failure. Only a very few closely related alternative rubber crops to supply the global natural clones are used, a single genetically-identical clone rubber market in general, and U.S. industry in par- can account for hundreds of thousands of hectares of ticular, before economically damaging disruptions in NR supply occur. production, many fungal diseases constantly infect It is curious that the importance of natural rub- the plantations/small holdings, and obviously the risk ber is largely unnoticed by all those not intimately of crop failure is extremely high (11). South American involved in the industry even though it is a critical Leaf Blight (SALB) (Microcyclus ulei), a fatal rubber raw material essential to the manufacture of 50,000 tree fungal disease, prevents large-scale production different NR products, and all industrial, consumer, in Brazil, the country of origin of this species (11- medical, and military sectors. Recognizing rubber’s 13). Work is in progress on finding SALB resistant importance, a recent Rubber Journal Asia article asks, germplasm, but it takes approximately 25 years to “What would industrial progress be without natu- simply introduce each new clone, let alone replace ral rubber? It’s hardly imaginable” (8). The History the rubber tree acreage with resistant high-yielding Channel’s Modern Marvels series states the issue even clones. Thus, biodiversification of the natural rubber more directly, declaring: “Our four most import- supply is essential for long-term sustainability and ant natural resources are air, water, petroleum and security. rubber” (9). Modern life is dependent upon natural rubber, and it cannot be replaced by petroleum-de- ALTERNATIVE NATURAL RUBBER CROPS rived synthetic rubber in many high-performance Two alternative rubber-producing species are applications. To put this demand in context, the 2014 under development to address rubber biodiversity global consumption of 12.2 mt is equivalent to the and critical supply needs: Parthenium argentatum weight of approximately 11 full-grown, male African (guayule) (14) and Taraxacum kok-saghyz, (rubber elephants every minute of the year. By 2030, the pre- dandelion, also known as Buckeye Gold, Kazak(h) dicted demand of 30 mt/y will require the equivalent dandelion, rubber root, Russian dandelion, TK, and of 28 elephants/minute—all collected in little cups! TKS) (Figure 1 (a) and (b)) (15). Guayule is native to At the moment, synthetic rubber (SR) occupies 55% the Chihuahuan desert of North America, whereas

THE HOME-GROWN RUBBER IMPERATIVE 247 species differ, and their behavior, properties, and uses differ as well (16). Similarly, all natural rubber, chemically, is cis-1,4-polyisoprene, usually with a 2 to 3 unit trans-polyisoprene piece on the front end (17-19). However, molecular weight, macromolecular structure, intrinsic crosslinking, branching, and com- Figure 1. Field grown alternate rubber crops: (a) Taraxacum position are species-specific and affect properties and kok-saghyz (rubber dandelion) and (b) Parthenium argentatum (guayule). uses (Table 1) (20-24). Plants make many cis-polyiso- prenes, but they are only considered “rubber” if they rubber dandelion is native to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, are at least 100 isopentenyl units long, and at least and Northwestern China. The agricultural ranges 15,000 units are required for high quality rubber (>1 of the rubber tree, guayule, and rubber dandelion million g/mol molecular weight). It is well recognized are distinct, and the three species can cover most that rubber is elastic and will revert to its original size of the agricultural regions of the world (Figure 2). and shape after deformation. However, what makes Both alternative species are being developed on farms rubber such an irreplaceable material is its ability and research centers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia to to stress-strain crystallize (22,25). This means that safeguard national manufacturing requirements and as rubber is stretched, its polymers change from a induce global price stability. random to an ordered arrangement and effectively crystallize in the rubber matrix. This is evinced by NATURAL RUBBER DIFFERENCES the strength of the material rapidly increasing the It is important to understand that rubber pro- more the material is stretched. This property can duced from different species is not the same (Table be deliberately increased by crosslinking the rub- 1). This is analogous to starch from corn, potatoes, ber polymers along their length, usually by heat and and rice, for example. Chemically, all starches are sulfur as in the common vulcanization process. As made of linear and helical amylose and branched crosslink density increases so does material strength amylopectin (16). However, the composition and and durability, but stretchiness and softness decrease macromolecular structure of starch from different at the same time. The rate of crosslinking and the Figure 2. Global climate map, which indicates approximate geographical ranges of the Hevea rubber tree, guayule and rubber dandelion.

248 CORNISH Table 1. A Comparison of Some Properties of the Rubber from in the specific cytosol in which the rubber parti- Table 1. A Comparison of Some Properties of the Rubber from Three Species cles were made (29), the rubber particle mono-layer Three Species Rubber tree Rubber dandelion Guayule biomembrane (26), and the extraction method used (tapping, aqueous or solvent extraction). Molecular weight High High High Branching Yes Yes No NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC RUBBER Gel Yes Yes No DIFFERENCES Protein High High Low SR does not yet exist that can match the key prop- erties of NR. Such properties include high elasticity, Allergenic protein Yes Yes No high resilience, dynamic performance, high tensile Fatty Acid Low Low High strength, good wear resistance, low electrical con- ductivity, and excellent heat dispersion. Specific NR Tensile Strength High High High properties become progressively more important in Modulus High High Low tire manufacturing the higher the tire performance Elongation Medium Medium High required. For example, the rubber component of airplane tires is entirely composed of natural rub- final crosslink density are regulated by the chemical ber. Compared to NR, SRs are more resistant to oil, ingredients mixed into the rubber and the tempera- certain chemicals, and oxygen; have better aging and ture and time that the rubber is baked (cured). This weathering characteristics; and demonstrate better is where intrinsic compositional differences really resilience over a wider temperature range. Some of matter because non-rubber components are part of these intrinsic drawbacks of NR have been addressed the compound and alter the rubber curing chemistry. by epoxidized NR in both H. brasiliensis (30,31) Thus, compounding chemistry must be adjusted to and P. argentatum (32). Epoxidized forms of NR are fit different natural rubbers from different species. more oil- and temperature-resistant and have higher All natural rubber is synthesized and compart- hardness, allowing their use in some traditional SR mentalized in cytoplasmic rubber particles (Figure application spaces. 3) (26,27). These rubber particles often are made in Some major SRs are styrene-butadiene rubber multinucleate pipe-like vessels in the bark called lat- (SBR) produced from copolymerization of styrene icifers (3). This is the case in H. brasiliensis trees and and butadiene; butyl rubber (IIR), a copolymer of T. kok-saghyz roots. However, P. argentatum makes isobutylene with isoprene; nitrile rubber (NBR), an its rubber particles in the cytosol of individual bark oil-resistant rubber copolymer of acrylonitrile and parenchyma cells (although it does make terpenes butadiene; neoprene (polychloroprene); and cis-poly- in pipe-like resin vessels) (28). The compositional isoprene. differences of rubber from these species are rooted Figure 3. Scanning electron micrographs of rubber particles purified from Hevea brasiliensis, Parthenium argentatum and Ficus elastica (from left to right, respectively).The scale bar for H. brasiliensis is 1 µm and applies to P. argentatum as well. The scale bar for F. elastica is 2 µm.

THE HOME-GROWN RUBBER IMPERATIVE 249 NATURAL RUBBER EXTRACTION AND PURIFICATION H. brasiliensis solid rubber is made by tapping the latex from tree bark and then coagulating the rubber by various methods, such as drying or acidification (4). The latex contains rubber particles and all compo- nents of the cytoplasm (the nuclei and mitochondria are retained by the laticifer upon tapping so that the laticifer, which is essentially a giant multinucleate cell, remains alive and can resynthesize new latex) (3). Many of these non-rubber cytoplasmic compo- nents are retained in the final solid rubber material and become part of the cure compound and finished product (23,24). T. kok-saghyz rubber is not harvested by tapping root laticifers. Even if this were possible to do, most of the rubber (>75%) in the root laticifers has coagulated inside the root during the life of the plant or, at least, at the point of extraction (33,34). This rubber has entrained cytoplasmic components. Also, since there is no apparent value to extracting the <25% latex fraction separately from the coag- ulated (solid) rubber (35), the harvested roots are dried before extraction, which converts the latex Figure 4. Protein profiles of purified rubber particles purified fraction into solid rubber (36). The solid rubber can from different rubber-producing species (top panel) and relative gel content (bottom panel). Lane 1, molecular weight marker; be extracted either by strong organic solvents (37) lane 2, Hevea brasiliensis; lane 3, Ficus elastica; lane 4, Parthenium or by an aqueous milling (38) and enzymatic pro- argentatum; lane 5, Taraxacum kok-saghyz. cess (36). Rubber produced by the aqueous process retains a significant amount of non-rubber constit- When these different natural rubbers are com- uents, whereas the solvent extraction process can pared, it is clear that H. brasiliensis and T. kok-saghyz lead to purer rubber. P. argentatum rubber also can have similar composition with respect to gel (nat- be extracted by organic solvent from chipped dried urally crosslinked rubber) and protein, while P. shrub, which then requires fractionation to remove argentatum has little of either (Figure 4) (20,23,24,29). resins and degraded rubber (37). However, the rubber The membrane is made of protein and lipids, and it particles also can be extracted from fresh shrub in is clear that P. argentatum has a much higher lipid to the form of a latex (39,40). Unlike in T. kok-saghyz protein ratio than the other two. Also, lipid compo- roots, virtually all the rubber in P. argentatum bark sition is different (29) although we do not yet know parenchyma cells remains in the form of individual the lipid composition of T. kok-saghyz rubber particle particles provided the shrub is healthy and hydrated membranes. The lipid and protein composition of the (41,42). Latex extraction requires plant homogenization particle membrane significantly affects rubber particle to rupture the bark parenchyma cells and release the properties and properties of the rubber itself. For rubber particles into the medium (39,43). The homog- example, the Ficus elastica rubber particle lipids are enate “soup” contains all components of the shrub and unusually long (waxes), and the proteins are integral so the particles must be separated from the other con- to the membrane (29). This makes the membrane stituents. The separation and washing process yields a stiff (26), and the particles sometimes crack open like rubber emulsion (an artificially-produced latex) that little eggs, letting the rubber polymer interior empty contains very few non-rubber particle components, out (Figure 3) (27). The waxy membranes and low but the particle membrane components are retained molecular weight rubber make F. elastica dry rubber and become part of the rubber compound (44). friable and of poor quality. The proteins and lipids

250 CORNISH in H. brasiliensis, P. argentatum, and T. kok-saghyz processing capacity. P. argentatum rubber and latex rubber particles create flexible membranes, and their also have better polymer filler interactions than their dry rubber is cohesive and of high quality. The gel H. brasiliensis versions, which may also prove to sup- component comes in two forms, hard and soft gels, ply a competitive advantage to these materials (48,50). which affect processing parameters. Hard gel does not dissolve in strong organic solvents, whereas soft SCALING UP gels can be rendered soluble by protease and lipase In response to transient global shortfalls and/or breakdown of intermolecular linkages (45). excessive prices, domestic rubber crops have briefly appeared in the U.S. over the last 100 years but lacked ALTERNATIVE NATURAL RUBBER commercial viability in normal economic times. The APPLICATIONS rubber from both T. kok-saghyz and P. argentatum As discussed above, T. kok-saghyz rubber appears can be (and has been) used to produce tires, albeit similar to H. brasiliensis rubber, including in respect with distinct compounding chemistries. Early fed- to cross-reactivity with life-threatening Type I latex eral and industrial funding mostly supported solvent allergy (36). This means that T. kok-saghyz rubber extraction of P. argentatum rubber for the tire indus- shares the same applications as H. brasiliensis but try, as in the Department of Defense’s $60 million certainly will lack the economies of scale needed to response to the oil embargo of the late 1970s, which compete in the commodity rubber market on price for drove up rubber prices. However, when rubber prices many years to come. However, it may be possible to fell, this investment was not continued, and guayule interest manufacturers of high-margin products (e.g., fell out of favor because of the lack of an immediate shoes, sports equipment, etc.) in premium-priced, need for its rubber. Most recently, Cooper Tire and “Made in America,” sustainable T. kok-saghyz rubber Rubber Company led a National Institute of Food and because, unlike tires, such products can absorb large Agriculture-Biomass Research and Development Ini- price differentials in their raw materials. tiative (NIFA-BRDI) 2012 grant for $6.9 million, and In contrast, P. argentatum rubber can capitalize Bridgestone Tire and Rubber Company’s 2014 >$100 on its intrinsic differences. Performance limitations million investment into its Agro-Operations Research of H. brasiliensis natural rubber latex, currently the Farm (2013) and Biorubber Research Center (2014) highest performance elastomer for dipped products, has reinvigorated industrial interest. However, secu- have been reached in many mature manufacturing rity in P. argentatum production requires publically industries, including, but not limited to, condoms, available germplasm, established farming practices, weather balloons, catheters, and specialty/medical and multiple processing companies willing to buy gloves. However, P. argentatum’s rubber is distinctly guayule crops from growers and sell purified rubber different, being unbranched high molecular weight of consistent quality into the rubber manufacturing rubber with low protein and high fatty acid content. industry. Without these connections, farm loans and Latex films have superior thin film performance, com- crop insurance will not be obtainable, and guayule bining softness and stretchiness with high strength will not be a feasible choice for farmers. Similarly, T. and have no cross-reactivity with Type I latex allergy kok-saghyz development also is predominately sup- (36,40,44,46,47). P. argentatum latex opens up new ported by tire manufacturers, especially in Europe, growth potential to these industries. EnergyEne Inc., with Continental Tire recently announcing a €35 an Ohio start-up company focused on guayule latex million investment (2016) for a research facility in (GNRL), is targeting initial sales to select specialty Germany and Apollo-Vredestein providing support high-end products, such as condoms, lineman’s in a rival effort, but again this is too proprietary, and gloves, and high altitude weather balloons, which production is very far from cost-effective. Much more require the outstanding and unique performance support is needed on the crop development end of characteristics of GNRL. These relatively small but both of these alternative crops if they are to fulfill high added-value markets will also allow revenue their potential. to be maximized from initially limited farming and

THE HOME-GROWN RUBBER IMPERATIVE 251 In addition, a major downside of this tire-centric the global rubber market, and even a single line of approach is the challenge presented by scaling up new tires requires capacity well out of the current these alternative rubber crops. If money is not being reach of any alternative rubber crop. Much smaller made during scale-up, the cost to reach the very large markets are needed to fund expansion (e.g., shoes, scale suited to commercial tires may be prohibitive sporting goods, rubber bands, and, in the case of P. (Figure 5). High-value niche applications are abso- argentatum, medical and consumer products such as lutely required with concomitant valorization of the catheters, gloves, balloons, etc.). non-rubber crop components. Thus, currently P. argentatum remains a perennial RISK ASSESSMENT crop most suited to aqueous extraction of natural The risks and benefits of P. argentatum are reason- latex (applications are about 10% of the global rubber ably well understood, and no adverse consequences demand) because it is hypoallergenic (50,51) and pro- have yet been identified, especially when water- duces superior latex films (46). P. argentatum rubber based processes are used. However, T. kok-saghyz is softer than H. brasiliensis and is likely to be used has a much higher perceived risk because it is a close only as a minor part of the elastomeric component relative of the common dandelion, a pervasive weed. of most tire types, although 100% guayule tires can We are rapidly domesticating this species using clas- be made. However, producing guayule rubber for sical selection and breeding combined with modern tires is not a commercially viable path until econo- molecular tools. We expect that domestication traits mies of scale are achieved and enormous production will include changes that may affect the ecological targets are achieved. Tires currently absorb >70% of impact of the crop in both positive (e.g., reduced seed - Figure 5. Schema illustrating the challenges posed by the imperative to concomitantly scale up crop production and processing capacity and match production to high-value niche markets until economies of scale allow competition in commodity markets.

252 CORNISH dispersal) and potentially negative (e.g., increased which may naturally occur and be found by selec- vigor and herbicide resistance) ways. We are taking tion, or are created by mutagenesis or gene-editing care to understand, mitigate, and resolve potentially (53) by genetic modification (GMO) (54,55), or by negative impacts before they become a problem for interspecific hybridization. In addition, the impacts crop production or acceptance (52). We also intend in North America are not the same as in Europe, and to ensure that farmers, regulators, and the public perhaps other growing areas, because Europe is a cen- understand the actual risks of production, instead ter of dandelion diversity, and, unlike North America, of the imagined risks, and the proper way to manage diploid common dandelions co-exist there with their the crop to reduce or eliminate the risks. This must triploid apomictic form (56) and can readily hybridize be in the context of understanding the economic with the rubber dandelion. Global interactions need consequences of not producing this rubber crop. Reg- to be explored, understood, and appropriately and ulatory bodies attempt to protect the environment, sustainably planned for. Another example would be the worker, and the public from negative effects of the competition for land between this crop and food production, process, and utilization. However, in crops, which can be investigated and managed in a general, they are understaffed and are generalists similar way. There are many more examples related rather than specialists. None can be fully informed on to crop production, of course. However, these broad any specific new crop or process or material because issues are very difficult for individual researchers to they need to encounter it first. We need to lead these manage. processes and educate regulatory personnel before they are required to make regulatory decisions. This THE POLITICS OF ALTERNATIVE NATURAL is a crucial aspect of domestic rubber development RUBBER across the value chain. To explain further, T. kok-saghyz is a rubber-pro- Extensive interdisciplinary research between aca- ducing cousin of the obnoxious and pervasive weed, demia and industry, supported by a range of funding the common dandelion. Commercial fields require mechanisms, is clearly required. Competitive grant excellent weed control to prevent the crop being programs are challenging to put into place because overwhelmed by vigorous weeds. If we use conven- of a general lack of understanding of the strategic tional chemical methods, many questions must asked: and economic importance of NR and the lack of a Which ones can be used and at what rates? Do they common frame of reference to inform the need for contaminate the rubber? Do they contaminate the integrated, informative research from the plant (biol- soil? Do they affect the next crop in that field? What is ogists) through processing (engineers) to the product the impact of soil type? And the list goes on. However, (chemists). it is likely that complete chemical weed control will The Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984, not be achieved because of the close genetic relation- Public Law 98-284, recognized that natural rubber is ship of the rubber dandelion to weedy dandelion. of vital importance to the economy, security, defense, Genetic herbicide resistance is very probably going progress, and health of the Nation but did not appro- to be required. The gut reaction of most people is: priate funding to address this critical need. However, “Oh no! This will spread into common dandelion the economic impacts of successfully deploying alter- and make it herbicide resistant!” We already have nate rubber crops in the U.S. would be immense. Also, demonstrated that this does not and apparently as U.S. alternative rubber crops expand beyond those cannot happen in North America because common needed to serve U.S. needs to meet global NR projec- dandelion in North America is a triploid obligate tions, and then to replace part of petroleum-based apomict, which cannot accept pollen from the dip- SR, we predict a mature market supporting at least 50 loid, sexual, rubber-producing dandelion. However, mt/y NR, on 25 to 50 million hectares, with biofuel we must develop educational tools and wording to production equivalent to ~24 EJ/y. This is a quarter explain this to nontechnical audiences in advance of of today’s U.S. energy requirement. This acreage is deployment. We also plan to investigate and assess the 62.5-fold the acreage needed for U.S. natural rubber full ecological ramifications of variants of this new self-sufficiency and is 2.0-fold the EISA 2007 liquid crop, including new hybrid lines with different traits, fuel goal for 2022. Every 20,000 ha of production

THE HOME-GROWN RUBBER IMPERATIVE 253 would require a processing plant and approximately bioenergy with bioproduct, which may give alterna- 4,000 workers across production and processing.As tive rubber crops an opportunity among the many the crop expands, the concomitant infrastructure, oilseeds competitors looking to elbow into current rural development, and jobs creation would be enor- soybean markets. New specific grant programs are mous (160,000 jobs for U.S. NR self-sufficiency alone, needed because the peer review process in current and 10 million jobs to meet global demand). programs is heavily stacked against new crops, as the We have the capability and land area to actually peer reviewers usually are not in this field and so do accomplish this. P. argentatum can be planted on not generally support new crops because they would semi-arid lands, requires minimal maintenance, and divert funds away from their own interests. Recent the latex in new plantings can be first harvested in proposals have received occasional good comments only 18 months. Unlike most crops, the shrubs can on the science but have failed to fund because of views be harvested throughout the year, and stumps regrow such as “what would corn do if this succeeded?” to rubber-containing branches, which can be harvested the recurrent “I don’t believe in new crops—they will again annually, a cycle that can be repeated several never work” to “we can make up the rubber shortfalls times. Cultivation will not, therefore, directly compete with synthetic rubber” (obviously not the case because with food production, with the possible exception of of performance issues and lack of sustainability). beef cattle. The Emergency Rubber Project of World War II estimated a P. argentatum-eligible land area CONCLUSIONS of 52 million ha, and much of this land is not cur- We have a unique opportunity to proactively rently under cultivation (57) because it is semi-arid. develop and deploy two major industrial crops with Arizona, for example, has approximately 4 million many product applications, as well as the concomitant ha of arable land, and only 0.5 million ha is under processing and manufacturing facilities. However, cultivation (USDA- National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2016). T. kok-saghyz can be farmed on a much major obstacles impede the accomplishment of this larger land area across the northern U.S. This crop proactively in advance of a significant supply short- is likely to do well on marginal lands, but even on fall. This proactive approach strongly contrasts with conventional farms, it will have minimal impact on normal reactive responses. In the past, funding has food production if it is incorporated into a validated only been released after unforeseen problems across crop rotation scheme. However, at current rubber the production and value chains have occurred. This prices, 100% crop consumption will be required with time, we can foresee the impending problems in time development of a multitude of applications to support to address them if “we” so choose. scaling up (such as resin and biomass derivatives in It is very clear that members of the general public, P. argentatum and inulin and biomass derivatives in and sometimes policy-makers, commonly form their T. kok-saghyz). views from what they see/hear on mass media—espe- If the U.S. is serious about redirecting industrial cially television and the internet. Scientists are not progress towards the bioeconomy and protecting very effective at countering erroneous information, critical raw materials supplies, it is essential that and the nation has frequently paid a heavy price for policy makers are educated and encouraged to sup- this. Domestic rubber production can demonstrate port new industrial crops and bio-based materials how effective accurate dissemination of scientific and products. This is most important at the federal information to the public can be across the entire level because, with the sole exception of the United sustainable materials production chain and is almost States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) NIFA- as exciting an opportunity as domestic rubber itself. It BRDI program and the USDA Agricultural Research may even be possible to then use similar approaches Service, new bio-based product support has been to reverse the negative impressions around biotech- focused entirely on existing materials produced on nological approaches to food crop improvement—a a large scale (corn, soybeans, etc.). This past year stigma bizarrely not shared by biotechnologically- (2016) is the first time grant programs are combining produced medicines.

254 CORNISH REFERENCES 13. Guyot J, Cilas C, Sache I. Influence of host resis- 1. [IRSG] International Rubber Study Group. IRSG tance and phenology on South American leaf Report. Singapore: IRSG; 6 Jan 2016. blight of the rubber tree with special consider- 2. Rusli N, Majid MR. Monitoring and mapping ation of temporal dynamics. Eur J Plant Pathol. leaf area index of rubber and oil plam in small 120:111-124; 2008. watershed area. IOP Conference Series: Earth 14. Ray DT, Coffelt TA, Dierig DA. Breeding guayule and Environmental Science. 18:12036-12042; for commercial production. Ind Crops Prod. 22:15-25; 2005. 2014. 15. Kirschner J, Stepanek J, Cerny T, De Heer P, van 3. d’Auzac J, Jacob J-L, Chrestin H, editors. Phys- Dijk PJ. Available ex situ germplasm of the poten- iology of rubber tree latex. Boca Raton (FL): tial rubber crop Taraxacum kok-saghyz belongs CRCPress; 1989. to a poor rubber producer, T. brevicorniculatum 4. Sethuraj MR, Mathew NM. Natural rubber: biol- (Compositae-Crepidinae). Genet Resour Crop ogy, cultivation and technology, v. 22. Amsterdam Ev. 60:455-471; 2013. (Netherlands): Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.; 16. Ellis RP, Cochrane MP, Dale MFB, Duffus CM, 1992. Lynn A, Morrison IM, Prentice RDM, Swanston 5. Warren-Thomas E, Dolman PM, Edwards DP. JS, Tiller SA. Starch production and industrial Increasing demand for natural rubber necessi- use. J Sci Food Agric. 77:289–311; 1998. tates a robust sustainability initiative to mitigate 17. Chiang CK, Xie W, McMahan C, Puskas JE. impacts on tropical biodiversity. Conserv Lett. Unraveling the mystery of natural rubber bio- 8(4):230-241; 2015. synthesis. Part I: Investigation of the composition 6. Bakouma J. WWF lauds Michelin’s sustain- and growth of in vitro natural rubber using high able NR policy. http://www.tirebusiness. resolution size exclusion chromatography. Rub- com/ article/20160825/NEWS/160829974&tem- ber Chem Tech. 84:166-177; 2011. plate=printart. 18. Puskas JE, Chiang K, Barkakaty B. Natural rubber 7. Wiskind A. Companies scramble to meet (NR) biosynthesis: perspectives from polymer consumer demand for zero deforestation. chemistry. In: Kohjiya S, Ikeda Y, editors. Chem- TriplePundit [2014 Sep 25; 2014 Sep 26]. istry, manufacture and applications of natural http://www.triplepundit.com/ 2014/ 09/ com- rubber. Cambridge (UK): Woodhead Publishing panies-scramble-meet-consumer-demand- Ltd.; 2014. Chapter 2; p. 30-67. zero-deforestation/. 19. Tanaka Y. Structural characterization of natu- 8. Biorubber can boost rubber security. Rubber ral polyisoprenes: solve the mystery of natural Journal Asia. 2015 Sep 25. rubber based on structural study. Rubber Chem Technol. 74:355-375; 2001. 9. Rubber [season 10, episode 15]. Modern Marvels. 20. Cornish K, Siler DJ, Grosjean OK, Goodman 2004 Jun 9. 10. Rasutis D, Soratana K, McMahan CM, Landis AE. N. Fundamental similarities in rubber particle architecture and function in three evolutionarily A sustainability review of domestic rubber from divergent plant species. J Nat Rubber Res. 8:275- the guayule plant. Ind Crops Prod. 70:383–394; 285; 1993. 2015. 21. Cornish K. Similarities and differences in rubber 11. Rocha ACS, Garcia D, Uetanabaro APT, Car- biochemistry among plant species. Phytochem- neiro RTO, Araujo IS, Mattos CRR, Goes-Neto A. istry. 57:1123-1134; 2001. Foliar endophytic fungi from Hevea brasiliensis 22. Ikeda Y, Junkong P, Ohashi T, Phakkeeree T, and their antagonism on Microcyclus ulei. Fungal Sakaki Y, Tohsan A, Kohjiya S, Cornish K. Divers. 47:75-84; 2011. Strain-induced crystallization behaviours of 12. Furtado EL, Menten JOM, Passos JR. South natural rubbers from guayule and rubber dan- American leaf blight intensity evaluated in six delion revealed by simultaneous time-resolved clones of young and adult rubber trees in the WAXD/tensile measurements: Indispensable Vale do Ribeira region, Sao Paulo state, Brazil. function for sustainable resources. RSC Adv. 6: Trop Plant Pathol. 33:130-137; 2008. 95601-95610; 2016.

THE HOME-GROWN RUBBER IMPERATIVE 255 23. McMahan CM, Xie W, Wong R, Cornish K, 34. Cornish K, McNulty SK, Bates GM, Amstutz N, Wood D, Mattoso LHC, Malmonge JA, Shintani Wolfe SJ, Kopicky SE, Kleinhenz MD, Walker DK, Whalen M. Natural rubber from domestic SD, Cardina J, Bennett MA, Grassbaugh EM, crops: interspecific comparisons. Rubber Chem. Jourdan PS, Rossington J, Michel FC Jr. Buckeye Tech. Fall 176th Technical Meeting of the Rubber gold (Taraxacum kok-saghyz) in northeast Ohio. Division of the American Chemical Society, Inc.; Paper presented at: Proceedings of Tire Technol- 2009 Oct 13-15; Pittsburgh, PA. ogy; 2014 Feb 11-13; Cologne, Germany. 24. McMahan CM, Kostyal D, Lhamo D, Cornish K. 35. Michel FC Jr, Kozak R, inventors. Process for Protein influences on guayule and hevea natural high yield and purity extraction of natural rubber rubber sol and gel. J Appl Poly Sci. 132:42051- from Taraxacum species. The Ohio State Univer- 42057; 2015. sity (patent pending), OSU Tech ID: 2015-085; 25. Thuong NT, Yamamoto O, Nghia PT, Cornish K, 2015. Kawahara S. Effect of naturally occurring cross- 36. Cornish K, Xie W, Kostyal D, Shintani D, Hamil- linking junctions on green strength of natural ton RG. Immunological analysis of the alternate rubber. Polym Advan Technol. 2016 [2016 Jul natural rubber crop Taraxacum kok-saghyz indi- 19; date accessed 20 Jul 2016]. http://onlineli- cates multiple proteins cross-reactive with Hevea brary. wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/ pat.3887/pdf. brasiliensis latex allergens. J Biotechnol Biomater. 26. Cornish K, Wood DF, Windle JJ. Rubber par- 5:201-207; 2015. ticles from four different species, examined by 37. Schloman WW Jr, Hively RA, Krishen AK, transmission electron microscopy and elec- Andrews AM. Guayule byproduct evaluation: tron-paramagnetic-resonance spin labeling, are extract characterization. J Agric Food Chem. found to consist of a homogeneous rubber core 31:873-876; 1983. enclosed by a contiguous, monolayer biomem- 38. Eskew RK, Edwards PW, inventors; NASA, brane. Planta. 210:85-96; 1999. 27. Wood DF, Cornish K. Microstructure of purified assignee. Process for recovering rubber from fleshy plants. United States patent US 2,393,035 rubber particles. Int J Plant Sci. 161:435-445; 2000. A. 28. Backhaus RA. Rubber formation in plants – a 39. Cornish K, inventor; The United States of mini-review. Israel J Bot. 34:283-293; 1985. America as Represented by the Secretary of 29. Siler DJ, Goodrich Tanrikulu M, Cornish K, Agriculture, assignee. Hypoallergenic natural Stafford AE, McKeon TA. Composition of rub- rubber products from Parthenium argentatum ber particles of Hevea brasiliensis, Parthenium (Gray) and other non-Hevea brasiliensis species. argentatum, Ficus elastica, and Euphorbia lacti- United States patent US 5,717,050 A. 10 Feb 1998. flua indicates unconventional surface structure. 40. Schloman WW Jr, Wyzgoski F, McIntyre D, Plant Physiol Biochem. 35:881-889; 1997. Cornish K, Siler DJ. Characterization and per- 30. Baker CSL, Gelling IR, Newell R. Epoxidized formance testing of guayule latex. Rubber Chem natural rubber. Rubber Chem Technol. 58:67-85; Technol. 69:215-222; 1996. 1985. 41. Cornish K, Chapman MH, Brichta JL, Vinyard 31. Chuayjuljit S, Yaowsang C, Na-Ranong N, Poti- SH, Nakayama FS. Post-harvest stability of latex yaraj P. Oil resistance and physical properties in different sizes of guayule branches. Ind Crops of in situ epoxidized natural rubber from high Prod. 12:25-32; 2000. ammonia concentrated latex. J Appl Polym Sci. 42. Cornish K, Chapman MH, Nakayama FS, Vin- 100:3948–3955; 2006. yard SH, Whitehand LC. Latex quantification in 32. Schloman WW Jr. Low-molecular-weight gua- guayule shrub and homogenate. Ind Crops Prod. yule natural rubber as a feedstock for epoxidized 10:121-136; 1999. natural rubber. Ind Crops Prod. 1:35-39; 1992. 43. Cornish K, Brichta JL. Purification of hypoal- 33. Cornish K. Yield and survival of Buckeye Gold lergenic latex from guayule shrub. In: Janick (Taraxacum kok-saghyz). Paper presented at: J, editor. Trends in New Crops and New Uses. Proceedings of Tire Technology; 2015 Feb 10-12; Proceedings of the 5 National Symposium on th Cologne, Germany. New Crops and New Uses: Strength in Diversity;

256 CORNISH 2001 Nov 10-13; Atlanta (GA). Alexandria (VA): allergic to Hevea brasiliensis latex with a new ASHS Press; 2002. p. 214-221. source of natural rubber latex from guayule 44. Cornish K, Williams J, Hall JL, McCoy RG. Pro- (Parthenium argentatum). J Allergy Clin Immu- duction and properties of Yulex (R) - the natural nol. 98:895-902; 1996. solution to latex allergy. Rubber Chem Technol. 52. Iaffaldano BJ. Evaluating the development and 81:709-722; 2008. potential ecological impact of genetically engi- 45. Nimpaiboon A, Ammuaypornsri S, Sakdapi- neered Taraxacum kok-saghyz [dissertation]. panich J. Influence of gel content on the physical [Columbus (OH)]: The Ohio State University; proterties of unfilled and carbon black filled 2016. natural rubber vulcanizates. Polym Test. 32:1135- 53. Iaffaldano BJ, ZhangY, Cardina J, Cornish K. 1144; 2013. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing of rubber-pro- 46. Nguyen KC, Williams JL, Wavrin JL, Cornish ducing dandelion Taraxacum kok-saghyz using K. Effect of the cure temperature, time, and film Agrobacterium rhizogenes without selection. Ind thickness on Yulex latex. Paper presented at: Pro- Crops Prod. 98:356-362; 2016. ceedings 11th International Latex Conference; 54. Collins-Silva J, Nural AS, Skaggs A, Scott DJ, 2008 Jul 22-23; Independence, Ohio. Hathwai U, Woolsey R, Schegg K, McMahan 47. Cornish K, Brichta JL, Yu P, Wood DF, McGloth- CM, Whalen M, Cornish K, Shintani DK. Altered lin MW, Martin JA. Guayule latex provides a levels of the Taraxacum kok-saghyz (Russian dan- solution for the critical demands of the non-al- delion) small rubber particle protein, TkSRPP3, lergenic medical products market. Agro Food result in qualitative and quantitative changes in Ind HiTech. 12:27-31; 2001. rubber metabolism. Phytochemistry. 79:46-56; 48. Barrera CS, Cornish K. Novel mineral and 2012. organic materials from agro-industrial residues 55. Zhang Y, Iaffaldano BJ, Xie W, Blakeslee JJ, Cor- as fillers for natural rubber. J Polym Environ. nish K. Rapid and hormone-free Agrobacterium 23:437-448; 2015. rhizogenes-mediated transformation in rubber 49. Barrera CS, Cornish K. High performance producing dandelions Taraxacum kok-saghyz waste-derived filler/carbon black reinforced and T. brevicorniculatum. Ind Crops Prod. guayule natural rubber composites rubber. Ind 66:110-118; 2015. Crops Prod. 86:132-142; 2016. 56. van Dijk P, van Damme J. Apomixis technology 50. Hamilton RG, Cornish K. Immunogenicity stud- and the paradox of sex. Trends Plant Sci. 5:81-84; ies of guayule and guayule latex in occupationally 2000. exposed workers. Ind Crops Prod. 31:197-201; 57. Nakayama FS, Cornish K, Schloman WW Jr. 2010. Guayule natural rubber: a promising source of 51. Siler DJ, Cornish K, Hamilton RG. Absence of latex for medical products.J Arid Land Stud. cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies from subjects 5:203-206; 1996.

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, pp. 257-265, 2017 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/18.4.2017.257 Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org INVENTION, INNOVATION SYSTEMS, AND THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Arthur Daemmrich Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA This article reviews the interplay of major inventions and changes to innovation systems during three historical industrial revolutions as the basis for understanding whether a new revolutionary era is underway at present. The periods start with widespread use of steam power and manufacturing using interchangeable parts from the 1850s onwards; electrification, synthetic materials, and mass production beginning in 1900; digital computing and electronic communications starting in the 1960s; and a potentially emerging fourth revolution of arti- ficial intelligence and distributed small-scale manufacturing. Specific inventions, changes to national innovation systems, shifts in workplaces and the organization of labor, and evolving styles of consumption are considered for each of the discrete industrial eras. The article con- cludes with lessons about spillovers from innovation that underpin industrial revolutions and offers perspective on contemporary debates concerning the rate of technology change. It also suggests that organizational and institutional structures that support inventors and ensure returns to corporate innovation in the United States will need to adjust if a fourth industrial revolution has begun. Key words: Invention; Industrial revolution; Innovation system; Labor; Consumption INTRODUCTION arising from new methods of producing and shipping A fourth industrial revolution has started accord- goods or for generating and transmitting information ing to recent essays by technology entrepreneurs, (3). Industrial revolutions are profound because they policy reports issued by the World Economic Forum, are periods in which key innovations lead to new and organizers of numerous high-profile conferences ways of doing things, not just efficiencies or increased (1,2). Defining and dating industrial revolutions— production at lower prices. More recently, a debate periods during which technology, manufacturing, and emerged in the 1990s about the significance of rela- employment change rapidly and in synchronicity— tionships among science, technology, and industry for can be contentious among historians of technology, industrial revolutions and the sometimes awkward fit business, and economics. Yet, ever since Joseph of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries with Schumpeter’s groundbreaking Business Cycles was traditional divisions of steam power as the source of published in 1939, historians, economists, and others the first, electricity as core to the second, and com- have delineated epochs to explain systemic changes puting and communications as the foundation of _____________________ Accepted November 30, 2016. Address correspondence to Arthur Daemmrich, Director, Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation Smithsonian (NMAH), Lemelson Center, MRC 604, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC, 20013-7012, USA. Tel: +1 (202) 633-6396; E-mail: daemmricha@ si.edu 257

258 DAEMMRICH a third industrial revolution (4,5). Other historical foretells rising productivity, longer lifespans, and even studies have contested the very existence of industrial a transhuman merging of people with computers revolutions, with some scholars arguing instead for (8,9). Other forecasters, including Sun Microsystems gradualist or evolutionary interpretations (6,7). founder Bill Joy, warn that a near-term future dom- Rather than being only gradual or always revo- inated by artificial intelligence has no place for or lutionary and accelerating, this article suggests that need of humans (10). Historical perspective from past change over time exhibits features of punctuated periods of rapid and profound change suggests that equilibrium. Sometimes technology and social sys- even revolutionary innovation in technology does not tems undergo incremental adjustments, but at other eliminate work or make humans unnecessary (11). Of historical periods, which can last for three or four equal importance, and largely missed by proponents decades, rapid and profound changes occur. Each of a fourth industrial revolution, technology does not of the industrial revolutions analyzed here involved change through its own agency. Revolutionary peri- changes in widely used technologies, innovation ods inevitably bring significant changes to work and systems (ways of organizing and financing innova- consumption as methods and means of production tion), the organization of labor (places and ways of are transformed. However, these changes emerge working), and methods and means of consumption. through a dynamic push and pull relationship among These four aspects only rarely change rapidly together. inventors, business entrepreneurs, and consumers, When they do, the impacts are significant, conse- and not from human adaptation to the imperatives quential, and ultimately global in scope. of new technology. This article describes the key components of three widely recognized industrial revolutions in the United THE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION States and offers an initial assessment of whether a th fourth is underway. The first industrial revolution Originating in England toward the end of the 18 began in Britain with the introduction of steam century, the first industrial revolution took hold in th power; mechanization of agriculture, manufactur- the United States starting in the mid-19 century. In ing, and transportation; and shifts to factory work. It his magisterial study of the United Kingdom, Paul manifested later in the United States with the inven- Mantoux defined it succinctly: “The industrial revo- tion of precision tooling and interchangeable parts. lution consists in the invention and use of processes The second industrial revolution originated in the which make it possible to speed up and constantly to United States with the electrification of the country, increase production” (12). Mantoux and subsequent scaling of mass-production via assembly lines, and the historians analyzed the first industrial revolution as invention and mass production of synthetic plastics more than a one-time change in technology or as and other new materials. The third industrial revo- resulting inexorably from innovations in steam power. lution also began in the United States thanks to the Instead, they argued that the industrial revolution invention of semiconductors, widespread adoption of involved the emergence of a completely new approach computers, and new systems for information storage to production, work, and consumption, a process and processing. A fourth industrial revolution may be that took over a century to fully unfold in England. about to begin thanks to a convergence of advances People moved from rural villages to urban centers as in artificial intelligence, reduced barriers to entrepre- work was centralized in factories. Consumption also neurship, and the spread of technologies that enable shifted, as goods increasingly were produced not just rapid prototyping and niche market sales. In each of for royal families, but also for a broader, albeit still these revolutionary periods, new inventions and new exclusive, capitalist class. approaches to organizing innovation led to anxieties Entrepreneurs in the United States rapidly bor- about the deskilling of labor and fears of disruptions rowed new ways of generating and using energy from to existing political and social order. England, and trained craftsmen, such as Samuel Slater, The present historical moment is characterized by a brought knowledge of new milling and weaving prac- high degree of anxiety around technology change and tices to North America (13). A transformative and disruptive innovation. To technological utopians, a revolutionary moment came for the United States convergence of computing power and bioengineering with the invention of precision milling, first for guns

INVENTION AND THE 4 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 259 TH and soon thereafter for bicycles, sewing machines, and other components and to demonstrate the supe- and other consumer goods. Pioneered at the Harper’s riority of their materials (19). From the bespoke Ferry Armory in West Virginia, lathes designed for manufacture of goods for royal families and wealthy greater precision and built to follow repeated pat- merchants in Europe in the 16 and 17 centuries, th th terns for making metal parts ushered in a specifically the industrial revolution had made it possible by 1900 American contribution to the long wave of the first for an emerging middle class to own a household full industrial revolution (14). The resulting “uniformity of consumer products and to travel by themselves to principle” of interchangeable parts made it possible to neighboring towns, setting the stage for tremendous hire fewer skilled laborers for factory work, a critical demand for the automobile. factor in light of mid-19 century labor shortages th in the United States. Craftsmen at Harpers Ferry ELECTRIFICATION AND MASS PRODUCTION consequently spurned the new technology, viewing A second industrial revolution took hold firmly it as a threat. Yet, it soon caught on elsewhere, start- in the 1910s as American cities installed electrical ing with the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts, systems, Henry Ford opened the first continuously which developed systems and controls that made the moving production line, and synthetic chemicals new technology efficient and manageable (15). Other entered mass production. While Edison had demon- transfers and spillovers followed; for example, the strated power distribution from the famous Pearl machinist Christian Sharps brought skills learned at Street Station in New York City in 1882, it took addi- Harpers Ferry to the Colt factory in Hartford, Con- tional advances in generation and distribution via necticut, and then started making sewing machines. alternating current to make the system viable. Yet, by Other entrepreneurs built bicycles, household appli- 1930, over 70 percent of American households had ances, typewriters, and early automobiles using the electricity, and a wave of new consumer products same core approach (16,17). The innovation system underlying the American had entered people’s lives (20). Drawing on consis- industrial revolution relied on individual inventors, tent electrical power and building on the concept of system-builders for canals and rail, and ready access rapid production enabled by precision machinery and to speculative capital. U.S. government demand for interchangeable parts in the first industrial revolution, weapons produced to uniform standards was key to Ford’s assembly line played a significant role in an the initial innovations underpinning interchangeable exponential increase in manufacturing output. Other parts, but their spillover to other areas happened factories sprang up around the country to supply largely through individual entrepreneurship or the vacuum cleaners, kitchen appliances, and thousands hiring of skilled machinists by competitors. Neither of other new “conveniences” that quickly came to be corporations, nor universities, nor the federal gov- seen as essential to modern life (21). Many of these ernment were engaged in systematic and sustained were made using new materials, starting with Bake- research as would emerge in the 20 century. How- lite’s commercial production in 1910, then polyvinyl th ever, a thirty-year period beginning with the end of chloride (PVC) in 1920, neoprene in 1930, and nylon the Civil War did witness a remarkable growth of in the mid-1940s. patenting (18). An age of invention was underway, Like the first industrial revolution, the second also growing from some 6,099 patents issued in 1865 to involved major reconfigurations of the extraction over 24,000 in 1900. and use of natural resources and remarkable shifts Alongside advances in manufacturing and indus- in people’s daily lives within a single generation. To trial production, the first industrial revolution in the generate and transmit electricity across the vastness United States also saw mass-market demand and of the United States, huge power stations were built, consumption bubbles. For example, in 1887, some 300 with concurrent demand for coal and natural gas manufacturers produced over one million bicycles in production. As Ford’s assembly line reduced the time the United States. Bicycle manufacturers developed required to make one Model T from 12.5 hours to new promotional techniques, including sponsoring 93 minutes within the first year, a rigorous regime racing teams and obtaining celebrity endorsements, of work oversight was put in place, extending to and invested in research to create new hubs, wheels, managing the timing of the arrival and processing

260 DAEMMRICH of parts. In turn, Ford’s system all but demanded a operations (29,30) Governments worldwide actively vertically integrated firm that could ensure timely sought to promote national models of innovation, procurement of raw materials not just domestically including creating both policies to advance domestic but from overseas as well. By the time the Model T firms and barriers to protect natural resources and was discontinued in 1927, its price had fallen below other sources of competitive advantage (31). $300, and the company could produce one every 24 Even as the United States became a global seconds (22). Across numerous industrial sectors, industrial powerhouse, and the public was told by a large domestic market and new uses for natural conglomerates to “conform,” Americans forged a new resources of oil, gas, and iron ore underpinned large- consumer identity and began to demand broader scale, continuous flow manufacturing (23). choices. Innovations in the retail sector, including Daily production schedules featured scheduling catalog-based shopping, reached people across the systems that dictated use of different machine tools country and began to distinguish among narrower and forced employees to produce the same items by demographic price points (32). A distinctive con- the same process in the same unit of time (24). The sumption style emerged based on discretionary second industrial revolution thus led to new demands income, a need to “keep up with the Joneses,” along on the government to provide roads and other infra- with distinctive socio-economic markers based on structure. At the same time, unions expanded to clothing, cars, and other specific tiers of household represent the millions of workers engaged in fac- purchases (33). While the consumer economy gener- tory employment. Total employment shifted toward ated market pull for greater diversity, manufacturers manufacturing; thus, in 1916, on the eve of the United were strongly influenced by then-progressive notions States entering World War I, one-third of Americans of efficiency, standardization, and simplification worked in agriculture, one-third in manufacturing, advanced by industrial engineer Frederick Taylor and one-third held technical, clerical, service, and and home economist Lillian Gilbreth (34). other professional jobs. During this second industrial revolution, a distinc- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY tive innovation system emerged as corporations began to invest systematically in research and new product A third industrial revolution, which has mani- development. Between 1900 and 1931, over 1,600 fested largely as an information revolution, began to companies established industrial research laboratories take form in the 1960s as semiconductor technology in the United States (25). Firms would no longer be underwent an exponential inversion of comput- dependent on outside sources for new technology, and ing speed relative to cost. With the introduction they came to see innovation in materials, products, of personal computers in the late 1970s, the third and eventually services as fundamental to their ability revolution spread as firms and consumers began to to compete with peers (26). In the same timeframe, innovate new uses for computing technology. Under university-based scientists and engineers at technical the imperative of Moore’s Law—a doubling of the colleges found new opportunities for collaborations number of transistors on integrated circuits every and consulting that connected their laboratory work eighteen months—the price of calculations and data to applications in industrial settings (27). Yet, a clear sharing declined precipitously to the point where hierarchy of knowledge and behaviors tended to dom- any additional calculation or data processing step inate most thinking and writing about invention and was essentially free (35). Digital technology spread the innovation system, exemplified concisely in the to countless devices in factories, offices, and house- motto of the 1933 Chicago world’s fair: “Science finds, holds, with particularly significant scale impacts for industry applies, man conforms” (28). Innovation was automated manufacturing, data storage and retrieval, organized around a linear pipeline from basic research and entertainment media creation and distribution. to industrial or business application to consumer In 1970, office work was done by clerks using elec- acceptance (whether or not by choice, as signaled by tric typewriters with limited ability to cut-and-paste “man conforms”). Although independent inventors text, and calculations in fields like engineering or continued to work and sometimes thrive, they were accounting involved work by hand on electronic cal- increasingly marginal relative to industrial research culators. Within thirty years, every workplace used

INVENTION AND THE 4 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 261 TH internet-linked computers, had access to vast pools of Overall, employment in the United States under- information via the internet, and employed compu- went a steady change toward office work, retail, and a tation taking considerably less time than data entry. diverse mix of services. At the start of the information Aligned to information imperatives of the third technology era in the late 1960s, some 30 percent of industrial revolution, the innovation system shifted to Americans worked in manufacturing and 15 per- greater collaboration across government, university, cent in agriculture, while 55 percent of the employed and corporate research labs. Starting in the 1980s, worked in professional and service positions. By 2015, universities could patent discoveries and inventions fewer than 9 percent of Americans worked in man- even when supported by federal funds, sparking a race ufacturing and less than 2 percent in agriculture. to make priority claims. Contrary to predictions for Consumption patterns shifted gradually but inex- intensified disputes over intellectual property, new orably toward services in the United States and other models of open innovation emerged that fostered developed economies as the cost of food, clothing, greater exchanges and collaborations (36). At the and household goods held constant or even dropped same time, previously “wet” laboratory research in in real terms. Unlike the first two industrial revolu- chemistry and biology increasingly shifted to work on tions, the third did not feature a significant change in models and simulations using computational meth- transportation, although air travel became far more ods (37). Multinational firms seeking to invent new accessible as a leisure purchase. Notably, advances in medicines or innovate in chemistry, energy storage, communications technology and the ability to convert or myriad other fields began to manage research music, movies, and other goods into digital formats teams on two or three continents that shared dig- aligned to significant increases in media purchases. ital files with test results or tweaks to models. Even By contrast, healthcare services saw fewer transforma- as countries competed with national research and tive changes and next to no price efficiencies related development (R&D) investments, successful innova- to advances in information technology. As a result, tion began to involve collaborations across national consumer spending on pharmaceuticals, hospital borders (38). care, and pet care outpaced other areas (39). In some domains, independent inventors had great success in the third industrial revolution. For exam- A FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION? ple, few of the people who coded the first generation of video games in the 1960s and 1970s or the first apps A recent wave of essays, books, and techno-opti- for cell phones and digital tablets in the 2000s worked mistic TED talks has coalesced around the concept for large companies. Inventors of toys, games, kitchen that a fourth industrial revolution is underway. gadgets, and myriad household goods also were able According to leading proponents, three key features to use technologies of the third industrial revolution will characterize this next phase. First, the fourth to their benefit. Yet, the scale of work necessary to industrial revolution will see lower barriers between bring many inventions to market—including proto- inventors and markets thanks to 3D printing and typing, product safety testing, and manufacturing at other new technologies for prototyping (40). Costs low cost—meant changes for technology inventors for people with new ideas to create small companies as the third industrial revolution progressed. They will drop further, reducing barriers to start-up for- could patent but then typically licensed or sold their mation. In addition, products can prosper based on ideas to firms able to manufacture and market goods niche markets thanks to the emergence of “long tail” using global supply chains. Looking at patent data, strategies under which firms like Amazon stock and the percentage of all utility patents issued by the U.S. sell inventories massively larger than any physical Patent and Trademark Office the United States that store (41). were held by individual inventors, and not assigned Second, forecasters are predicting a far more active to a corporation or university, declined gradually role for artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics in from 15 percent in 1998 to just over 6 percent in coming years. Artificial systems that rationally solve 2015. The information technology age has not been complex problems or take actions to achieve goals characterized by a large number of successful inde- in a diverse set of real world circumstances pose a pendent inventors. threat to many kinds of employment but also offer

262 DAEMMRICH new avenues to economic growth and will create than sometimes portrayed. Across the industrialized new types of work that are difficult to predict (42). world, policies to retrain workers for large-scale tech- For example, driverless cars may modestly displace nology and economic change have had mixed results taxi and Uber drivers, but autonomous trucks would (49). In each of the revolutionary periods described potentially radically transform shipping with far fewer here, technology breakthroughs and new ways of jobs for truck drivers, but more positions in logistics organizing production saw some degree of automa- and planning. In other cases, a mix of professional tion of work previously done by humans. Overall barriers, skills impossible to fully automate, and reg- employment, however, was not destroyed; instead, ulations will lead to AI serving in advisory capacities total employment grew considerably in each period, for skilled professions, such as doctors and surgeons, including as women were brought into formal work- and as colleagues for many kinds of office work (43). places. Similarly, neither a dystopian future of mass Third, innovation systems in the fourth industrial unemployment nor a utopian life of pure leisure and revolution will integrate across different scientific and artistic expression are likely under a fourth industrial technical disciplines and incorporate other domains revolution. such as education rather than looking to hand off Nevertheless, a fourth industrial revolution also findings from one area to the next. Innovation will will involve changes to consumption behavior and to be supported through crowdsourcing of funds rather the ways in which people forge individual and group than exclusively government or corporate R&D fund- identities to make sense of their changing world. ing (44). Perhaps most significantly, these key forces Consumption is shifting at present, notably with the will come together in a “fusion of technologies that is growth of spending on travel, concerts, sports, and blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and other events in contrast to goods or services (50). biological spheres,” as suggested by the economist and Consulting reports now point to the need for firms founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab to create “experiential value” for customers, and both (45). McKinsey Consulting’s in-house think-tank the young (millennial generation) and growing ranks similarly has reported that a convergence of forces is of the retired value experiences above goods (51). leading to changes “happening ten times faster and Individual and group identity are likewise evolv- at 300 times the scale, or roughly 3,000 times the ing to focus on a variety of hubs and activity-based impact” of the first industrial revolution (46). centers—whether for start-up businesses, social Yet, some critics have also noted that the third entrepreneurship, or other forums for interaction— industrial revolution was already limited in its effects on people’s lives compared to the second or first, that differ from the commercial and governmental which more radically transformed households, ways locations that dominated the first three revolutionary of working, transportation, communication, and periods. consumption. Analyzing productivity growth rates th since the mid-19 century, the economist Robert CONCLUSION Gordon has argued that the digital revolution was Reviewing the three major industrial revolutions more limited than is widely believed and that no that first brought the United States into a position technology-driven revolution is on the horizon that of technological and economic leadership is reveal- will impact the public more generally (47). Similarly, ing on several fronts. First, a roughly 30-year time social critic Jeremy Rifkin has argued, “the Third period of especially intensive change characterized Industrial Revolution—the digital revolution—has each of the past industrial revolutions. Precision mill- yet to reach its vast potential, making it far too early ing and interchangeable parts were diffusing by the to declare it over and done” (48). mid-1850s, and their impact on the production of Looking across the first three industrial revolutions guns, bicycles, sewing machines, and other equip- identified here, it is striking that employment can ment unfolded through the mid-1880s. Likewise, change in a single generation (from farms to facto- electrification of the United States and impacts of the ries, and then from factories to knowledge work), Ford assembly line and industrial chemistry spread but within any one period, change is more gradual across a time period roughly occurring between 1910

INVENTION AND THE 4 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 263 TH and 1940. The information technology revolution is ACKNOWLEDGMENTS associated with a concentrated wave of innovations The author gratefully acknowledges comments that had profound impacts between the mid-1970s from Art Molella and two anonymous reviewers on and mid-2000s. On that basis alone, the time for a a previous version of this article. fourth revolution may be nearing though it would be flawed to treat periods of industrial and technological REFERENCES change as laws of nature. 1. Rose G. The fourth industrial revolution: a Davos Second, major applications of breakthrough tech- reader. Washington (DC): Council on Foreign nologies typically emerge only after a technology has Relations; 2016. been put into use and then undergoes a sequential 2. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. process of refinement and tweaking. New products Geneva (Switzerland): World Economic Forum, can take time to develop uses. For example, bicycles 2016. were used by a narrow niche of riders until inno- 3. Schumpeter J. Business cycles. New York: vations made them safer and easier for broader populations, especially women and children, to use McGraw-Hill; 1939. in the 1880s. New means of production find uses 4. Chandler A. Organizational capabilities and the in factories and other manufacturing sites over the economic history of the industrial enterprise. J course of decades, during which they displace prior Econ Perspect. 6(3):79-100; 1992. methods, whether human-based and reliant on craft 5. Hull JP. From Rostow to Chandler to you: how skills or machine-based but less efficient than the revolutionary was the second industrial revolu- innovation. In each of the revolutionary periods, tion? J Eur Econ Hist. 25(1):191-208; 1996. consumption patterns shifted significantly not just 6. Ziman J. Technological innovation as an evolu- because of changes in overall wealth levels but also tionary process. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge as people discovered previously unknown needs that University Press; 2003. were only made clear by the existence and marketing 7. Basalla G. The evolution of technology. Cam- of novel goods, services, and experiences. bridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1988. Finally, governments worldwide consider tech- 8. Kelly K. The inevitable: understanding the 12 nological innovation a social good, economic driver, technological forces that will shape our future. and imperative for international competition. From New York: Viking Press; 2016. being viewed as a means to create wealth and solve 9. Kurzweil R. The singularity is near: when humans problems in transportation, energy, healthcare, and transcend biology. London (UK): Penguin; 2005. other domains, innovation has now become an end in 10. Joy B. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired. itself (52). As a consequence, we may be undervaluing Apr 2000:17-30. both physical infrastructure and social and financial 11. Mokyr J, Vickers C, Ziebarth NL. The history of support for inventors not employed in large corpo- technological anxiety and the future of economic rations or able to secure scientific research grants. growth: is this time different? J Econ Perspect. Independent inventors will be key to the emergence of 29(3):31-50; 2015. a fourth industrial revolution. While crowdsourcing 12. Mantoux P. The industrial revolution in the eigh- and prizes are encouraging a new wave of invention, teenth century. Edinburgh (UK): J. and J. Gray; their lack of stability and winner-take-all structure 1948. are not presently building a sustained ecosystem. 13. Tucker B. Samuel Slater and the origins of the New organizational and institutional structures that American textile industry: 1790-1860. Ithaca support inventors and ensure returns to innovation (NY): Cornell University Press; 1984. in the United States are needed for a fourth industrial 14. Smith MR. Harpers Ferry armory and the new revolution to progress. technology: the challenge of change. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press; 1980.

264 DAEMMRICH 15. Chandler A. The visible hand: the managerial 28. Schrenk LD. Building a century of progress: the revolution in American business. Cambridge architecture of the 1933-1934 Chicago World’s (MA): Harvard University Press; 1977. Fair. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota 16. Hintz E. Hartford: factory town puts the pieces Press; 2007. together in explosive new ways. In: Molella AP, 29. Hughes TP. American genesis: a century of inven- Karvellas A, editors. Places of invention. Wash- tion and technological enthusiasm, 1870-1970. ington (DC): Smithsonian Press; 2015. p. 110-135. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 2004. 17. Hounshell D. From the American system to mass 30. Hintz ES. The post-heroic generation: American production. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins independent inventors, 1900–1950. Enterprise Press; 1984. Soc. 12(4): 732-748; 2011. 18. Khan ZB. The democratization of invention: 31. MacLeod R. Scientists. In: Winter J, editor. patents and copyrights in American economic Cambridge history of the First World War, v. 2. development, 1790-1920. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; Cambridge University Press; 2005. 2016. p. 434-459. 19. Petty RD. Peddling the bicycle in the 1890s: mass 32. Weil GL. Sears, Roebuck, USA: the great Amer- marketing shifts into high gear. J Macromarket- ican catalog store and how it grew. New York ing. 15(1):32-46; 1995. (NY): Stein & Day; 1977. 20. Nye DE. Electrifying America: social meanings of 33. Matt SJ. Keeping up with the Joneses: envy in a new technology, 1880-1940. Cambridge (MA): American consumer society, 1890-1930. Phila- MIT Press; 1990. delphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press; 21. Cowan RS. More work for mother: the ironies 2003. of household technology from the open hearth 34. Price B. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and the to the microwave. New York (NY): Basic Books; manufacture and marketing of motion study, 1983. 1908-1924. Bus Econ Hist. 18:88-98; 1989. 22. Brinkley D. Wheels for the world: Henry Ford, 35. Brock DC, Moore GE. Understanding Moore’s his company, and a century of progress, 1903- law: four decades of innovation. Philadelphia 2003. New York (NY): Viking Press; 2003. (PA): Chemical Heritage Foundation; 2006. 23. Bruland K, Mowery D. Innovation through time. 36. Chesbrough HW. Open innovation: the new In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, editors. Oxford imperative for creating and profiting from tech- handbook of innovation. Oxford (UK): Oxford nology. Boston (MA): Harvard Business Press; University Press; 2005. p. 349-379. 2006. 24. Hounshell D. From the American system to mass 37. Noyori R. Synthesizing our future. Nat Chem. production, 1800-1932. Baltimore (MD): Johns 1(1):5-6; 2009. Hopkins Press; 1984. 38. Gerybadze A, Reger G. Globalization of R&D: 25. Marchand R, Smith ML. Corporate science on recent changes in the management of innova- display. In: Walters RG, editor. Scientific author- tion in transnational corporations. Res Policy. ity and twentieth-century America Baltimore 28(2):251-274; 1999. (MD): Johns Hopkins Press; 1997. p. 175-181. 39. Daemmrich A. US healthcare reform and the 26. Reich LS. The making of American industrial pharmaceutical market: projections from insti- research: science and business at GE and Bell, tutional history. Pharmaceuticals Policy Law. 1876-1926. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge Uni- 15(3):137-162; 2013. versity Press; 2002. 40. Anderson C. Makers: the new industrial revolu- 27. Swann JP. Academic scientists and the phar- tion. New York (NY): Crown Publishing; 2010. maceutical industry: cooperative research in 41. Anderson C. The long tail: why the future of twentieth-century America. Baltimore (MD): business is selling more for less. New York (NY): Johns Hopkins Press; 1988. Hyperion; 2006.

INVENTION AND THE 4 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 265 TH 42. National Science and Technology Council. Pre- 47. Gordon R. The rise and fall of American growth. paring for the future of artificial intelligence. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2016. Washington (DC): White House; 2016. 48. Rifkin J. The zero marginal cost society: the inter- 43. Kaplan J. Humans need not apply: a guide to net of things, the collaborative commons, and the wealth and work in the age of artificial intelli- eclipse of capitalism. London (UK): Macmillan; gence. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 2014. 2015. 49. Eichhorst W. A road map to vocational educa- 44. Brabham DC. Crowdsourcing in the public sec- tion and training in industrialized countries. ILR Review. 68(2):314-337; 2015. tor. Washington (DC): Georgetown University 50. Quittner J. Why Americans are spending more Press; 2015. on buying experiences vs. buying stuff. For- 45. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution: what tune. [2016 Sep 1; 2017 Jan 15]. http://fortune. it means, how to respond. ForeignAffairs. [12 com/2016/09/01/selling-experiences Dec 2015; 2017 Jan 15]. www.foreignaffairs.com/ 51. Ernst & Young. Shifting from consumption to articles/2015-12-12/fourth-industrial-revolu- experience: winning in the omnichannel retail- tion. ing. EYGM Limited; 2014. 46. Dobbs R, Manyika J, Woetzel J. No ordinary 52. Godin B. Technological innovation: on the ori- disruption: the four global forces breaking all gins and development of an inclusive concept. the trends. New York (NY): Public Affairs; 2015. Technol Cult. 57(3):527-556; 2016.



Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, pp. 267-274, 2017 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/18.4.2017.267 Copyright © 2017 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org INVENTION IS NOT AN OPTION Yolanda L. Comedy , Juan E. Gilbert , and Suzie H. Pun 1 3,4 2,3 1 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington, DC, USA 2 Computer & Information Science & Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 3 AAAS-Lemelson Invention Ambassador Program, Washington, DC, USA 4 Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Inventors help solve all kinds of problems. The AAAS-Lemelson Invention Ambassador program celebrates inventors who have an impact on global challenges, making our communities and the globe better, one invention at a time. In this paper, we introduce two of these invention ambassadors: Dr. Suzie Pun and Dr. Juan Gilbert. Dr. Suzie Pun is the Robert F. Rushmer Professor of Bioengineering, an adjunct professor of chemical engineering, and a member of the Molecular Engineering and Sciences Institute at the University of Washington. Dr. Juan Gilbert is the Andrew Banks Family Preeminence Endowed Professor and chair of the Computer & Information Science & Engineering Department at the University of Florida. Both have a passion for solving problems and are dedicated to teaching their students to change the world. Key words: Invention; AAAS-Lemelson Invention Ambassador; Voting technology; Bioengi- neering; Materials science INTRODUCTION significant impact on society and solved challenging Inventors help solve all kinds of problems. The problems. Additionally, though many of us think AAAS-Lemelson Invention Ambassador program of invention as an individual sport, the inventors celebrates inventors who have an impact on global highlighted in this article work collaboratively with challenges, making our communities and the globe their students in a university setting, using their posi- better, one invention at a time. tions as professors to not only do research and teach We face many challenges. From figuring out how students but to help cultivate a new wave of future to save our planet to solving problems that impact inventors. only one country to making the quality of life bet- Dr. Suzie Pun is the Robert F. Rushmer Professor ter for many, inventors question the world around of Bioengineering, an adjunct professor of chemical them, constantly looking for solutions. This article engineering, and a member of the Molecular Engi- highlights the work of two academic inventors from neering and Sciences Institute at the University of very different fields whose inventions have made Washington. Dr. Juan Gilbert is the Andrew Banks _____________________ Accepted November 30, 2016. Address correspondence to Yolanda L. Comedy, Ph.D., Director, AAAS Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. 267

268 COMEDY ET AL. Family Preeminence Endowed Professor and chair there have been, and continue to be, issues in voting of the Computer & Information Science & Engineer- with respect to security and accessibility. As a result ing Department at the University of Florida. It is of the 2000 Presidential Election and the passing of likely that neither had the career goal of becoming the HAVA, Dr. Gilbert and his research team created an inventor, but they both have a passion for solving Prime III, universal voting technology. problems and teaching their students one important Suzie is a professor of bioengineering, an adjunct lesson: “If it’s not the way you want it to be, change professor of chemical engineering, and a member it.” And then they help their students do just that. of the Molecular Engineering and Sciences Institute at the University of Washington   Suzie once said INVENTORS IN THE MAKING she didn’t always see herself as an inventor, but she Juan leads the Human-Experience Research Lab went after medical challenges with a vengeance, and, and has research projects in voting systems and tech- in the process, an inventor was born. She and her nologies, advanced learning technologies, usability team focus on biomaterials and drug delivery, and and accessibility, ethnocomputing (Culturally Rel- she has contributed to drug delivery vehicles that evant Computing), and databases/data mining. He have entered clinical trials. Her research group has holds one U.S. patent that has been licensed. He has developed methods for drug delivery to the central published more than 180 articles and given more nervous system as well as injectable, synthetic hemo- than 250 invited talks. He is an AAAS Fellow, an stats for trauma treatment. Like many academics, she has written many research articles (100+) and has ACM Distinguished Scientist, an AAAS-Lemelson given numerous presentations (100), but, in addi- Invention Ambassador, a National Associate of the tion, she holds six patents. Suzie has been awarded National Research Council of the National Acade- a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists mies, and a senior member of the IEEE. and Engineers, a Young Investigator Award from One of the most impactful projects that Juan and the Controlled Release Society, the 2014 Inaugural his students have worked on is voting technology, Biomaterials Science Lectureship, and was named a where they created a universal voting technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s TR100 Young that can accommodate all U.S. voters regardless of Innovator and an American Institute for Medical and physical abilities or reading skills. They started with Biological Engineering fellow.   the premise that they could do something to remedy One of the major projects that Suzie and her group voting problems in the U.S. Believing that students at the University of Washington have been working are the future—and that their base of knowledge gave on for the last dozen years has been the development them both permission and a responsibility to change of synthetic polymers driven specifically by medical the world—the group took on “hanging chads.” The emergencies. Polymers, large molecules comprised of right to vote is a privilege of democracy and one many smaller repeat units, have been broadly used that some groups have worked hard to obtain in the in biomedical applications. Notable examples of United States. Since each person wants to ensure that polymers used in medicine include cellulose, a sug- their vote counts, the 2000 elections brought to the ar-based polymer, used in kidney dialysis membranes; forefront the worrying concern that our system does polyesters used in resorbable sutures; and poly- not always work as expected. Juan notes that in 2000, acrylamides used in soft contact lenses. Suzie notes the State of Florida forever changed the future of that the polymers that she and her group develop voting in the U.S. As a result of the infamous hanging are bio-inspired and based on natural processes or chads in the 2000 Presidential Election with Bush naturally-occurring materials. Their materials inte- v. Gore, the U.S. Congress took action and passed grate bioactive motifs with synthetic polymers. These the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. The bioactive motifs impart biological activity to the mate- HAVA appropriated $3.9 billion dollars for States to rials that remain amenable to large-scale production upgrade their voting equipment. HAVA also required as synthetic polymers rather than as biologics, which that every voting place have at least one “accessible” carry high cost and challenges in scale-up. The team’s voting machine. The aspiration for HAVA was to technology development addresses medical needs make voting more secure and accessible. However, using biological inspiration and design rationale.

INVENTION IS NOT AN OPTION 269 Two of her team’s current projects are: PolySTAT, an injectable polymeric hemostat, and VIPER, a non-vi- ral nucleic acid delivery vector. DESCRIBING PRIME III Prime III stands for premier third generation vot- ing technology. First generation voting technologies are paper and pen, lever machines, and other phys- ical voting apparatuses. Second generation would be touchscreen voting machines, also known as direct recording equipment (DRE). Third generation technologies are universally designed technologies. Universal design is the principle of designing a system Figure 1. Prime III, a secure, accessible voting system. or environment such that it has the broadest access for as many people as possible. Wheelchair ramps, organizational elections for Self-Advocates Becoming for example, have a universal design because they Empowered, National Council of Independent Liv- can be used by people with wheelchairs and those ing, National Society of Black Engineers, and others. who can walk. In 2002, when the HAVA was passed, Prime III was even used in an elementary school to conventional wisdom was that people with disabilities do a Presidential mock election. Prime III has been needed a separate voting machine. There was this used by people with disabilities ranging from visual notion that voters would have a separate but equal impairments to missing limbs as well as people who experience. It was thought that you could not build do not have any disabilities. In all of these studies, a universally designed voting machine. However, Dr. there were insights gained into how universal design Gilbert and his team did just that—they built Prime can be implemented in voting. As such, Prime III has III. In an interview, Dr. Gilbert said “So even if you been tested and proven to be a universally designed can’t see, you can’t hear, you can’t read, you don’t have voting technology. any arms, you can still vote on the same machine as In 2015, Dr. Gilbert released Prime III as open everyone else” (1). source on GitHub. The State of New Hampshire Prime III allows voters to mark their ballots acquired Prime III and used it statewide in 2016 in using touch and/or voice. Voters can interact with the February Presidential Primaries. New Hampshire the system by touch or a button switch and/or by was the first state to adopt Prime III for statewide use. voice through a headset with a microphone. These However, several others are investigating Prime III interactions allow people who can’t see, hear, or read as well. One of the motivating factors for adopting and those with limited upper body mobility to all Prime III is that the HAVA funding has run out, and privately and independently mark their ballots on there’s no promise of additional funding. Therefore, the same machine as everyone else. Independent of states are looking for options to replace their decaying your ability or disability, everyone can use the same voting technologies. As an open source option, the technology to mark their ballots using Prime III. The cost savings are significant. first version of Prime III was created in 2003 (Figure In addition to being an accessible voting tool 1). Dr. Gilbert and his team didn’t know it at the time, that implements a universal design, Prime III is but they had created the world’s most accessible voting also secure, an element more important than ever technology, and they would forever change voting in in light of recent events. While election security has the U.S. always been a major concern, in the recent 2016 U.S. Since 2003, Dr. Gilbert and his team have con- Presidential Election, election security surged to the ducted numerous elections, research studies, and forefront of many discussions. Questions about the demonstrations all across the U.S. Oregon, Wisconsin, security of votes were prominent, with candidates and New Hampshire have all done pilot elections and pundits questioning the integrity of the system. using Prime III. Prime III has also been used in Furthermore, there were several hacking incidents on

270 COMEDY ET AL. mail servers and other computers that fed the fears of hemostat), was inspired by the actions of Factor XIII, elections being hacked. Prime III’s major advantage an enzyme that, when activated, crosslinks and sta- in this respect is that the software is independent (2). bilizes fibrin, the protein used to form the mesh in Software-independent voting technologies have the blood clots. In addition to its biological activity, they property that no intentional or unintentional change wanted a material that would not require special stor- in the software can cause an undetected change in the age conditions so that it could be easily transported outcome of the election. When a voter uses Prime and used by first responders. The list of their desired III, they will mark their ballot using the universal material characteristics and proposed design solu- design features. When they are done, Prime III prints tions is shown in Table 1. a paper ballot with their selections. As such, the paper Using a recently developed controlled polym- ballot is the ballot of record. Prime III doesn’t retain erization technique known as RAFT (reversible any information about the voter or their selections. addition-fragmentation chain transfer) polymeriza- In many respects, Prime III is a sophisticated ink tion, they synthesized the first generation PolySTAT, pen. Therefore, changing the software cannot alter a polymer that displays on average 16 fibrin-binding votes because the printed ballot is the actual ballot peptides on a water-soluble polymer backbone (6). of record. PolySTAT integrates into forming clots (Figure 2), Prime III was created at a time when conventional resulting in a hybrid clot comprising natural fibrin wisdom was that people with disabilities needed a protein as well as synthetic PolySTAT. The hybrid separate voting machine. The timing and impact of this invention was way ahead of society. Fast-forward clot shows greater strength and more resistance to to the current time, and voting machine manufactur- degradation under coagulopathic conditions that ers are creating universally designed voting machines often result in patients after traumatic injury. inspired by Prime III, and elections officials and voters alike are requesting these technologies. More than a decade after its initial creation, Prime III has gone prime time in statewide elections in New Hamp- shire. In the years to come, many will realize that Dr. Gilbert’s invention forever changed the landscape of voting in the U.S. Figure 2. Confocal images of fibrin (red) clots formed in the pres- UNDERSTANDING PolySTAT AND VIPER ence of polySTAT (green) that polySTAT is integrated throughout the fibrin network. Scalebar = 10 μm. Figure reproduced with PolySTAT: An Injectable Polymeric Hemostat permission from AAAS (Chan LW, Wang X, Wei H, Pozzo LD, White NJ, Pun SH. A synthetic fibrin cross-linking polymer for Trauma is one of the major causes of death in modulating clot properties and inducing hemostasis. Sci Transl young people in the United States. Of the trauma-re- Med. 7(277): 277ra29-77ra29; 2015), copyright 2015. lated deaths, about one-third are due to hemorrhage, PolySTAT was designed to circulate for around or uncontrolled bleeding, that occurs immediately one hour after administration; this parameter was following the injury (3,4). Direct methods, such as selected because ~85% of the United States population compression and tourniquet application, are used in has access to a trauma center via ambulance or heli- the field to minimize blood loss. To restore blood loss copter within 60 minutes (7). Over time, PolySTAT during resuscitation, patients are infused with human plasma or blood products or other intravenous fluids is eliminated through the urine to minimize risk of (5). However, there remains a great need for injectable thrombosis. PolySTAT was tested in a rat femoral therapies that can be administered by first responders artery injury model with fluid resuscitation. Whereas to rapidly halt bleeding at incompressible injury sites. untreated animals or animals treated with control Suzie’s team partnered with Dr. Nathan White and substances (e.g., albumin as an oncotic control or a his laboratory to develop injectable hemostatic poly- comparable control polymer displaying scrambled mers for use in trauma medicine. The design of the peptides that do not bind to fibrin) had only 0% to first polymer they developed, PolySTAT (polymeric 40% survival, 100% of animals treated with PolySTAT