Transtech Proposal to Oregon

Reilly Jones 7/8/03

Also featured in the futurist webzine Transhumanity and posted on Technopolis Times - Ideas Forum for Portland's Growth

Recent news of biotech, nanotech and the Oregon economy

I am concerned about recent newspaper reports of negative talk and self-defeating lowered expectations about biotech prospects in Oregon. Some of the talk reflects a rather limited vision and leadership, but some of it correctly notes a systemic problem that realistically has to be addressed. I am making a near-term proposal to overcome self-defeating discussion of business prospects in Oregon and a long-term proposal to overcome a systemic obstacle to our knowledge-based job creation plan. This has been sent to interested and responsible parties. Permission to forward all or part is granted with attribution.

In government, it has gone to the governor’s office, the Portland mayor’s office, the state senator and state representative who are co-sponsoring biotech Senate Bill 362, the US Senate subcommittee chairman on science, technology, and space from Oregon, and to my own 3rd district US Representative. In associations, it has gone to the Portland Development Commission (PDC), the Oregon Council of Knowledge and Economic Development (OCKED), the Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD), the Oregon Bioscience Association and Cascade Policy Institute. It has gone to an alliance of higher education including OHSU, OGI School of Science and Engineering, the Oregon University System, Oregon State University, University of Oregon and Portland State University. In the media, it has gone to the Oregonian, the Portland Tribune and Oregon Business magazine.

Oregon has the worst unemployment in the country and the Multnomah County Auditor’s most recent financial report for 2002 shows that one thousand businesses have been lost recently; not jobs, businesses. Replacement businesses are needed badly and knowledge-based industry initiatives supported by the city of Portland and the state seem promising. Just as this need is most acute, Multnomah County increased income taxes and the Beaverton School District increased property taxes, although these may be mitigated for certain high-income venture capitalists and scientific researchers through SB 362 as recommended by the OCKED.

The Portland Tribune (4/18/03) reported, “After three years of shrinking employment and a succession of corporate exits to the suburbs, city officials have pinned their hopes for future job growth on the North Macadam development and its emergence as a biotech hub.” The Oregonian (2/2/03) ran a series of stories about high-tech and electronics industries leaving the state, “China’s marriage of high-tech and low-cost labor undercuts competitors in… Portland’s Sunset Corridor.” Furthermore: “Competition from Asia [primarily China and India] poses what may be the most significant long-term threat to the foundation of Oregon’s high-tech economy - even as leaders try to map a path out of recession. At risk are not only some of the best-paying manufacturing jobs in the state, but also white-collar jobs tied to research and development.” The articles concluded with a dire prediction. Tom Potiowsky, Oregon’s state economist, was quoted as forecasting that: “When things come back, Oregon isn’t going to be at the top of anyone’s list for expansions…. Over time, we could see the existing operations dissipate.”

What will people do to make a decent living when the high-paying manufacturing jobs along with research and development jobs have “dissipated”?

Negative talk

Negative talk has been building, in the Portland Tribune (1/3/03), Ralph Shaw of Shaw Venture Partners, was quoted: “Nanotechnology is an interesting opportunity, and it’ll be big. But we don’t have any advantage over anyplace else.” Again, the Portland Tribune (4/18/2003) reported: “City leaders may be determined to turn the North Macadam District into a biotech neighborhood, but recently released job forecasts show the scientific sector will account for only a small share of the 30-acre site’s jobs…. Local venture capitalists like Ralph Shaw, however, have warned that the city is late in jumping onto the biotech bandwagon and should look for alternatives.”

Then, the Portland Tribune (5/2/03), under the less-than-edifying headline of “City Hall, business bigwigs play blame game,” highlighted disagreements within the business community over how serious regulatory concerns factor into the loss of businesses. One of the North Macadam Investors, Homer Williams, is quoted: “The [Portland Business Alliance] is taking a negative approach to it…. You have to look at the reality of it. I don’t know where these guys are coming from. It’s destructive. She’s (the mayor) busting her tail, and so is PDC (the city’s redevelopment arm, the Portland Development Commission).” Clearly, negative talk, if not “destructive,” is at least self-defeating. A publicly optimistic, positive expectation is one of the main contributions to future success. It is important to project that we can overcome business limitations due to excessive regulation, difficulty with funding sources and inability to attract top management.

Settling for less

After the optimistic sales pitches to taxpayers for the federal $677M nanotech initiative, the $26M Portland economic plan, the $200M Oregon Opportunity, the $30M state nanotech initiative and the $50M Children’s Initiative, it seems as though we are now being asked to settle for less. First, it was reported in the Portland Tribune (1/24/03): “Dr. William New Jr. [bioscience manager at OHSU] bluntly says OHSU officials are suffering from ‘delusions of national grandeur’ in trying to establish Oregon as a major biotechnology research center. Oregon is 20 to 25 years behind Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area...” The manager is quoted: “Oregon’s focus ought to be electronics, computer hardware and software, wireless.... Oregon is world-class in electronics. Why would anyone even think about anything else?”

A better question is: why should we settle for the high-tech and electronic industries just as they are being shipped off to China and India?

Then, the Oregonian (6/30/03) reported major lowered expectations: a) “We can’t be the top,” said Portland Mayor Vera Katz… “We won’t be passing Boston and other (biotech) places in the country…” b) “Joe Cortright, an economist with Impresa Consulting of Portland, agrees that Portland is not headed for the top tier…. Ralph Shaw, a Portland venture capitalist, doubts that biotech is the answer for Portland,” c) “Dan Dorsa, vice president of research at OHSU…. says if commercialization efforts in Portland focus on things such as medical devices and diagnostic tools… bioscience can play an important role in Portland’s economy,” and d) “We don’t think our success or failure should be measured by whether we are the leading bioscience center in the country, but by whether we are getting our fair share of what will be a growing industry,” said Steve Stadum, OHSU’s general counsel…”

Why should we settle for crumbs from under other people’s tables, when taxpayers have already paid for a meal at their own table?

Systemic problem

There is, however, a serious systemic problem: our educational model. Ralph Shaw is quoted in the Portland Tribune (1/3/03): “Oregon doesn’t have the ability to graduate people who can now replace the technologies that are leaving.... [Mentor Graphics] just can’t hire anyone graduating from engineering schools here because they’re just not prepared.”

MIT economics professor Lester Thurow, said in an interview with the Portland Tribune (6/27/03) that: “You’ll find talented engineers and managers don’t want to move to Oregon. The problem will get much worse in the future because any talented person will want to get a good education for their kids. A person isn’t going to go to a place where they say, ‘We’re cutting the school year. Our class sizes are getting bigger.’”

This systemic problem must be addressed head-on because of the prerequisites for successful biotech.

Prerequisites for biotech success

In the PDC plan’s bioscience appendix (July 2002), these prerequisites were emphasized: “There are a number of critical factors that fuel the research engine. Key, of course, is a large cadre of world-class scientists.... The institutions together with their scientists must create an atmosphere that attracts and supports excellent research associates, graduate students, fellows and postdoctoral investigators…. [T]he recruitment of additional intellectual horsepower and the construction and renovation of research space are essential components of this biomedical growth strategy.”

It is the concentration and collaboration of world-class intellect that counts. Every other consideration pales before this one over the next 20 years.

The Portland Tribune (4/4/03) reported that: “Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., sees the potential. He is one of the principal sponsors of a bill called the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act…” David Chen, a partner in OVP Venture Partners, gets right to the heart of the immediate need: “If nanotech is the next new thing, as a community we are incredibly well positioned to take advantage of it…. What we’re wrestling with is what’s the magic pill to jump-start the industry.”

There is a magic pill and it is aligned with the Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD) strategic plan’s value of excellence: “We are dynamic and creative. We embrace change and welcome new challenges.” Assuming that we really mean this, I have a proposal for a near-term solution to the negative talk and settling for less.

Transtech proposal

In his interview (6/27/03), Prof. Thurow made the critical observation that: “For the first time in history, humans can change their own genetic makeup. That may come to be seen as the most important invention in human history…. Think about it: We can change who we are. That is an incredible fundamental revolution.”

Prof. Thurow does not use the term “transhuman technologies,” but this is, in fact, what he is referring to. An internet search of “posthuman” and “transhuman” shows the ubiquity of related ideas, books and technologies. These technologies are entering the realm of practicality and must now be brought from the cultural periphery into the cultural mainstream. They have been broadly discussed in academia, research centers and cyberspace for the last decade. They include realistic technologies applicable in two primary areas: human longevity (including repair of aging processes and damage, life extension, disease and disability cures and prevention) and human enhancements (including perceptual, emotional and cognitive abilities, and physical and aesthetic attributes). A sample of core transhuman technologies would include: gene therapy, cloning, cyborging, genetic engineering, medical nanotechnology and brain-computer connectivity.

Many peripheral technologies supporting or spun off from these core technologies would aid job creation, as long as the focus on core technologies wasn’t diluted. Medical devices is currently an important sector in Oregon’s biotech industry, but compared to core transhuman technologies, they are peripheral, analogous to fan belts in the automotive industry. Is this really what we should settle for when taxpayers believed more was coming?

Transhuman technologies can be shortened to transtech for ease of use and public recognition. Transtech is a focused umbrella term covering nanotech, microtech and biotech as they relate to human enhancements and longevity. To be successful, such focus is essential. There are a myriad of companies that currently use transtech in their names, deriving from: transportation, transmission, transformational, transworld, transitional, transfer, translation and transparent. Transtech has something to do with all of these, it is simply defined as a basket of technologies moving humans forward to a better future, one in which longer life is enjoyed with enhanced capabilities. The simplified solution to the negative talk and settling for less is that Oregon become Transtech Central.

Everyone wants the best for themselves, their families and friends in terms of living longer, healthier lives. Promotion of transtech is a win-win political issue given bold, confident and equitable leadership. Equitable access to emerging transtech is shaping up to be the greatest challenge to 21st century political leadership. Oregon can pave the way to just solutions.

The OCKED (2/12/03) made recommendations to the state legislature involving “developing programs and incentives to deepen management expertise and attract and retain top management talent.” I believe the best way to attract top talent is not to make them a privileged taxpayer class, as SB 362 would. If this is what it takes to attract replacement industries, then the tax structure is unsound and worse, unfair. The best way to attract top talent is to orient our political jurisdictions towards the forefront of this most important technological development of all time, “changing who we are.” This is the ground floor.

Whichever political jurisdiction openly makes itself a haven for transtech, will attract fresh, innovative talent from every quarter, along with a constellation of peripheral industries. This is the way to leapfrog the other, more advanced centers. Whichever jurisdiction is first in, with a favorable legal/regulatory/public opinion atmosphere, will sprint ahead. Oregon is renowned for its innovation: in the political sphere (initiative & referendum), the environmental sphere (bottle bill) and the ethical sphere (doctor-assisted suicide). The taxpayers have already endorsed futuristic knowledge-based industry.

Mayor Katz wants creative and dynamic young individuals to cluster in Portland for all kinds of synergetic benefits, from business replenishment to support of the arts community to ideas for political innovation. Embracing transtech and marketing this focus worldwide will make this happen. Oregon’s motto could become, “Don’t be yourself, be better than yourself.”

Long- term solution to systemic problem

The OCKED (2/12/03) also made recommendations to the state legislature involving “raising Oregon’s commitment to excellence in educating and training its knowledge-based workforce, expanding capacity to meet the growing demand for well-educated knowledge-based workers...”

To develop a knowledge-based workforce, a knowledge-based education is historically the most successful for producing sophisticated scientists, engineers and inventive entrepreneurs. Two basic learning models, using Bloom’s taxonomy (familiar to educators), are the cognitive model and the affective model. The cognitive model is knowledge-based education, stressing competition and individual accomplishment and focusing on, “What do you think?” “The cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills. (Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation).” The affective model is emotive-based education, stressing cooperation and group accomplishment and focusing on, “How do you feel?” “This domain includes the manner in which we deal with things emotionally, such as feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes. (Receiving phenomena, Responding to phenomena, Valuing, Organization, Internalizing values).”

I have raised three sons (currently ranged from university to grade school) and have been involved in school curriculum development, budget planning and policy development. I have witnessed the knowledge-based education of my school days inexorably give ground to the emotive-based education of today. Seven years ago, when my son brought home a survey given in math class that asked, “How do you feel about math,” I recognized that the transformation from the cognitive model to the affective model was total. When I brought my concern about this nonsense to the principal, I was informed that the new methods were approved by some association of mathematics teachers and this brought the discussion to a rapid end.

China and India utilize the knowledge-based cognitive model. The combined population of China and India outnumbers Oregon’s population by 670 to 1. To reverse the flow of knowledge-based industries to Asia requires that Oregon’s students develop the capacity to compete against those odds. To compete in the arena of knowledge-based industry, we must have a greater sector of knowledge-based education (the cognitive model) and a smaller sector of emotive-based education (the affective model).

Currently, Oregon has only one educational sector which still has access to the cognitive model, the internet-linked home-schooling sector. This is the sector that is producing brilliant and original students who are at the top of our SAT’s and our Talented Youth programs, who are winning our Spelling and Geography Bees out of all proportion to the size of their sector.

We cannot count on the internet-linked home-schooling sector to have the capacity to grow to the size we need to produce sufficient “intellectual horsepower” (to use the PDC’s phrase) to drive the transtech industry to the top tier, because: a) parental expertise and interest in science and math is spotty and b) there has been downward pressure on wages due to a shift to offshore businesses and heavy immigration, necessitating too many parents to be working outside the home. Therefore, we need to begin developing seed schools following the cognitive model, using the internet-linking techniques prevalent in the home-school sector to reach the whole state. An example of seed schools would be polytechnic charter schools in at least Portland, Salem and Eugene. The OHSU/OGI merger provides a blueprint for OHSU to expand in the other direction, towards a quasi-private polytechnic school for 7-12 grades. This would establish a knowledge-based educational pipeline from seventh grade through post-doctoral studies.

The reason the total number of annual graduates in science and engineering is declining nationwide is because our men are not going to college in the numbers they used to. Women’s college attendance has increased dramatically in relation to men’s, approaching a 60-40 ratio of women to men. Despite every conceivable incentive for women to go into science and engineering, their numbers have not made up for the loss of men.

It is imprudent, if not delusional, to presume that men are historically the primary inventors and leaders of technological development due to social factors alone. It is generally unproductive to argue with success on the scale of the historical record. This recognition in no way diminishes the historical record of women’s achievements in this area or makes assumptions as to the importance of their future contributions. It is vital to allow everyone the opportunity to contribute to the best of their abilities in developing transtech.

The shift in education from the cognitive model to the affective model is a major disincentive for young men to follow traditional paths into math and science. The Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security to 2025 concluded that the nation’s failure to reform math and science education is the second biggest threat to our national security. Given this conclusion, the acute under-representation of men in higher education should be thought of as a Homeland Security Code Red. If the dominance of the affective model is nearly the greatest threat to national security, we should ease off continued indulgence in this ‘experiment against reality.’

The City of Portland is making commitments to its economic vitality by promoting knowledge-based industry while its young men are not earning the number of advanced degrees in the fields these industries require. Accordingly, the Children’s Fund’s most effective allocations to advance the city’s overall objectives and promotions would be targeted primarily to boys’ development issues.

The main problem with Oregon’s educational system is not class sizes and the length of the school year, it is that the affective model does not grow the tax base to keep pace with funding needs. The choice between the cognitive model and the affective model is simple: would we rather be asking someone, “What do you think is the best design for a cellular repair nanobot,” or “How do you feel about losing your job?”

Conclusion

The combined strategy is to attract world-class researchers through the creation of a transtech atmosphere with cultural legitimacy, while the cognitive model develops sufficient homegrown intellect, able to compete with China and India. Simply meeting Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) standards in aggregate is not sufficient to produce a “large cadre of world-class scientists.” Promoting a transtech environment and re-orienting our schools would put Oregon into the national, indeed the international spotlight, generating interest on the part of the best and the brightest of the upcoming researchers.

We should try to be the best and not settle for less. This requires that we increase the diversity in our school system by expanding the size of the knowledge-based sector. The cognitive model will provide the brainpower to replace businesses lost to other countries. Without this commitment at the primary and secondary educational level, promotion of Oregon’s knowledge-based sustained business renaissance lacks credibility. With continued negative talk about Oregon’s technological prospects after such an optimistic sales pitch, suspicion is bound to grow that taxpayers are footing the bill for only certain individuals and not for the benefit of all. Are we serious about the economic future of all Oregonians or just a select few?

You need vision and optimism, distinction and uniqueness, to understand the culture of the younger generation of researchers and inventors. You don’t need to settle for third tier; you don’t need to stake your hopes on the electronics industry as it leaves town.

The pioneers settled this territory at the end of the Oregon Trail. It is a natural progression of this pioneering spirit to advance into the new frontier of transtech. The strength of the environmental concerns in Oregon is the best argument to ensuring that development of core transtech and its peripheral industries help the environment, not harm it. There will be strong public interest in transtech benefits as well as consequences. Political, environmental and ethical concerns are best addressed in an innovative and pioneering state such as ours.

Is Oregon going to lose out on the greatest commercial and technological opportunity in history to another political jurisdiction or does it have the vision and will to be the first? The words of the official state song guide us in this decision, “Onward and upward ever, forward and on, and on.” Time is of the essence because this idea is now publicly in play and the clock is ticking.