Wonders Of Technology Could Boost Economy

February 25, 1993|By William Neikirk, Chicago Tribune.

CLEVELAND — Edward Keating can walk now, something of a miracle for the former Marine who thought only four years ago that he would never take another step.

That was when an accidental shooting rendered his legs useless and confined him to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, or so he thought. He felt as low as a human being could feel. "I couldn't look anybody in the face," he said.

The magic of technology put Keating back on his feet, maybe even saved his life. An experimental electronic device that he straps around his waist gives him new mobility and hope, and inspires others who watch him.

The magic of technology also may help put America back on its feet economically, perhaps save it from its competitors. Keating's device is one such hope, the culmination of 25 years of research into electrical muscle stimulation and spinal cord injury at Case Western University, financed with millions of federal dollars.

It occurred to the researchers and developers that helping paralyzed people to walk again, to use their arms or to stimulate other disabled muscles could be a lucrative business. So a new company-Advanced Bioelectronics Inc.-is being formed to do just that with the cooperation of state, federal and city officials.

"Cooperative capitalism" is about to become America's dominant economic policy under President Clinton. It promises to link governments, universities and industries as partners in a grand quest to create jobs, companies and entire new industries from a vast technological research base financed largely by the U.S. government.

While the federal government has been moving in this direction in recent years, the scale of the Clinton effort would be much larger, with Washington playing the role of a virtual director of civilian innovation. Clinton announced a four-year, $16 billion plan to stimulate technological development by diverting research funds from the military and steering private investment with tax credits.

This is a radical change in U.S. economic policy, and there are no guarantees that it will succeed. At worst, critics fear, the government could become a Big Brother of technology, running pork barrel programs that would divert funds to technological white elephants. At best, it could trigger a spurt in technological innovation, the likes of which the world has never seen, and generate millions of new high-wage jobs.

In either case, there may be no better way for the U.S. to compete in a global economy where other governments play an active role in promoting industry, in a climate where companies have become extremely averse to risk, where the costs of developing new high-tech products have risen and where sector after sector has suffered a loss in market share.

Defense no longer drives U.S. technological development as it did during the '50s and '60s, when it virtually gave birth to the modern aerospace, communications, computer and electronics industries.

Despite its wealth and overall prosperity compared with other nations, the U.S. is losing ground in one key technology after another.

The Carnegie Commission on Science, Government and Technology said in a recent report that science and technology development is increasingly central to effective democracy and prosperity. But it warned against any plan that would have Washington calling all the shots. "The nation cannot rely on the heavily centralized structure used during the Cold War," it said.

Yet, it still does, and that's the problem. More than half the federal government's $70 billion in research and development funding spent each year goes for defense, chiefly to develop weapons that have little commercial application. The remaining funds are spread among 11 other agencies with specific missions.

While the effort may be centralized in Washington, it is not centrally managed. The research and development structure that Clinton inherits at the federal level is splintered and ill-focused, designed for old missions that do not seem to have the same urgency as job creation. Often government policies work at odds, alternatively encouraging and inhibiting technological development.

In addition, the record is mixed on those federal efforts aimed squarely at civilian innovation. While many modern technologies sprang from U.S. funding, the government also has squandered billions on abortive projects, such as the nuclear breeder reactor and an effort to create a synthetic fuels industry.

If the medical device that enables Ed Keating to move himself about the Case Western campus without the aid of a wheelchair or crutches is any guide, cooperative capitalism faces some daunting obstacles, including a costly and cumbersome regulatory process that could stifle new companies.

An example: It took 6 1/2 years for researchers to obtain the general patent on the device that helped Keating, and it will require several more years for other, more specific applications to win approval. The cost of the first patent was $30,000.