Watching my grade-school children react to the 2008 campaign, I realized that the last time a presidential race generated so broad an involvement, I was in grade school and John Kennedy was the candidate.
This spring, as I listened to President Obama's address before the National Academies, I couldn't help but see another powerful connection to events of that era -- ones that shaped my life and that of countless other Baby Boomers.
Meeting Kennedy's challenge "of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth" not only drove important technological developments, it ensured that science and technology were constant topics of conversation in classrooms and at dinner tables across America.
Fifty years ago the space race shaped attitudes about the importance of studies in math, science and engineering that has been unmatched since. The equally bold challenge to achieve energy sustainability may again serve to emphasize the critical nature of the physical sciences in our future. There is no debating the pressing need to solve energy independence for the future. Like the space race, the mere pursuit of the goal will captivate and motivate young Americans to prepare for careers across all fields of science and technology.
Asserting the federal government's role in supporting basic research is an important first step to re-establishing America's role as a global innovator. This investment will produce a knowledge base that may create practical alternatives to a petroleum-based economy and most certainly will stimulate an increased flow of trained scientists and engineers to fuel the needs of industry.
As Obama cited in his speech, Vannevar Bush, engineer and advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, recognized this critical function of government over 60 years ago. His 1945 report, "Science, the Endless Frontier," set in place policy decisions that fostered an explosion of basic scientific discovery and built a system of higher education that remains the envy of the world.
In some respects, the challenge before us is even greater than it was as America emerged from World War II. Then, our major corporations had the resources and vision to create vibrant industrial research divisions like RCA Sarnoff Labs, Westinghouse Research, Chevron Research Corporation and the iconic Bell Laboratories. Organizations like these were the seat of innovation that brought us the transistor, integrated circuits, color television, automatic transmissions and countless other products that we now take for granted.
Corporate research and development of that stature is gone or diminished in scope, and the modern business model is not likely to see their return.
If this country is to derive an economic development benefit from investments in basic scientific research, then we need to understand the important difference between discovery and invention. The role of the scientist is to observe and explain the world as we know it, while it is the role of the engineer to invent the world as we wish it to be. Basic scientific discovery remains outside the mission of American industry, but the type of research that invents solutions for tomorrow rather than products for the next business cycle is also disappearing.
Many of the nations with whom we now compete for global market share have recognized the importance of creating an infrastructure for innovation. They have invested in a variety of models for public-private partnerships that advance the interests of their core industries as a strategic asset -- and the results speak for themselves.
Invariably, these approaches involve strong coupling to universities built around science and technology as a core mission. We can speak for one, NJIT, New Jersey's Science & Technology University, that stands ready to work with this administration to ensure that our scientific discoveries end up as innovative American products and services -- innovation that pushes the edge of knowledge and once again allows us to dream.
Donald Sebastian is provost of NJIT, the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Agree or disagree? Leave your comments below.