Posted here earlier was “An Idea For Innovista” that suggested a new use for the University of South Carolina facilities that have, thus far been either poorly managed or misconceived. As anticipated, my friend Will Folks has taken exception to my suggestion.
Will has long opposed Innovista because of the sloppy application of its resources and failed vision for the concept. That’s fair and I can’t argue the point. However, I think he and some of his readers have neglected salient points of my recommendation either stated or implied.
Key among the criticisms of Innovista (as currently established) and my suggestion is that government (and taxpayer dollars) shouldn’t be involved in what is best a commercial effort. As one of Will’s commentors put it: “Just like we didn’t need gov’t intervention to “invent” gasoline (ie., hydrogen) we don’t need gov’t ‘resources’ to further internet security as there are already plenty of well run private companies that do that WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.”
On this subject, that’s not just a weak argument, it’s an ignorant one.
Universities around the world have engaged in essential research for generations, research usually funded by government grants. If it is so damning to have an educational institution involved in research and, instead, have it ”return to its core educational mission,” then should all such activities be ceased? This would include research on cancer and other medical topics, transportation, marine biology, geology, climatology, economics, psychology, electronics, etc. And what of something very dear and important to South Carolinians like the Clemson Extension Service? Yep, your taxes at work!
Browse through the National Council of University Research Adminstrators list of public and private University research offices and see how much and what kind of activities are conducted as “core educational mission.” Among them you’ll find that the University of South Carolina’s
School of Medicine Drs. Mitzi and Prakash Nagarkatti have been awarded a five-year $1.55 million R01 grant from the National Institute of Health to test their “fetal basis of adult disease” hypothesis developed following evidence that malnutrition or exposure to environmental stress during pregnancy, may have a lasting impact on the developing fetus and that a subsequent baby during its adult life would be more susceptible to a wide range of diseases including cardiovascular and autoimmune diseases such as hypertension and diabetes and cancer.
Should this work be shut down and turned over to a pharmaceutical company or a commercial genetics firm?
The other complaint is that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been sunk into Innovista with no return on that investment. Very true, but, as I said in a posted comment on FitsNews “As long as the facilities and other resources are available, it makes sense to retool them for a contemporary and much more relevant area of pursuit.” I’m not proposing building new facilities, but using what is there. Cybersecurity isn’t theory or speculation, it’s all too real and the numerous examples I gave don’t give justice to the full scope of the money and interest being put into it. Why not take advantage of the already built and paid for resources and recycle them to good use?
The University has a growing number of Computer Science PhDs and the Department of Computer Science and Engineering is winning grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). More government money to be turned down by the University in favor of private enterprise? A redirected Innovista could take advantage of a thriving academic environment and give it a chance to grow to the benefit of everyone who uses the global information grid – which is to say, everyone.
Will Folk’s vitriol towards Innovista is political as well as fiscal. He’s known for not trusting any politicians and since there were/are so many of them involved, then I imagine he believes nothing good could come of it. I won’t challenge that. In fact, he’s done South Carolina a great service by chasing his mistrust with eye-opening public revelations of political chicanery.
Rejecting new ideas because what went before (though unrelated) failed, is anti-progress. We correctly argue that we need to retool the current workforce to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st century. South Carolina doesn’t need more mill machinery mechanics, she needs a population skilled in higher technology engineering, design and manufacturing. Relegating the state’s flagship university to “its core educational mission” rather than seeking new, modern pursuits is pretty much limiting it to readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic.
Don’t give up on Innovista, particularly because of the monies already spent. Rather, use it for better purposes.
You’ve got a lot of good points in regards to technology and the like but there’s no need to pour more money into this particular boondoggle which was an egregiously insulting misuse/abuse of taxpayer funds to begin with. (Not to mention the idiotic name.) Your idea has what I think are its particular merits without the need of the Innovista facility nor even public funding in all likelihood.
As a taxpayer, I’d rather see this place be sold off and the idea and example go down in flames and humiliation than to be redeemed or salvaged at the last minute. I say this just because the corruption as usual political crowd was all about this boondoggle and we have to fight them by, among other things, pointing out their fascist-socialist failures and not encouraging the spending of our tax money on what the ruling class thinks is the best use of our money.
Tommy: It isn’t about “pouring more money” into it, it’s about getting money FROM it. Use the facilities as part of the University’s Computer Engineering Department. Any costs to retool the facilities would be minor and predicated on the acquisition of grant monies. Selling it off in this economy would be irresponsible and a huge loss.
USC invested millions on sports facilities partly as a way to attract better student athletes. Here, the millions have already been invested, but we haven’t been recruiting the RIGHT players. I’m saying remarket Innovista to attract investment in a proven and growing industry.
I actually have a new and better idea, one that relates to what you are saying, but at the same time makes it a little more specific.
As a computing major at USC I see how we have completely filled up every room at the 2 main engineering buildings, and filled up a few other annexes around campus. My suggestion is to take the Computing school out from engineering and put it in its own building (maybe one from the innovista centers) with its own College designation. That way they can decide how to better use the resources of all of the university instead of relying on the school of engineering where they really aren’t connected. This would also allow for more focused degrees, so instead of the current 3 degrees, we could customize them more for the needed uses (current: Computer science-several different paths, computer information systems-computer science and business hybrid, and computer engineering-making the actual computers). We could make more useful and explanatory majors in cyber/information security, database management, mobile management (Android, iOS, Blackberry, Meego, Symbian, and WebOS are the main Operating systems), game developement, IT specialization, with the list of needed majors extending beyond any other major (computers are used for everything, but every use of a computer is different from the next, and it is very far from a one size fits all area).
The idea of expanding the computing school over to one of the innovista locations is a great use for the innovista, and a tremendous opportunity for the University in general.
(not so) Smart Kid Grant – the Computer Science Program being part of the College of engineering is one of the smartest moves either program ever made. I recruit for USC, the synergy of USC’s College of Engineering and Computer Science is now being mimicked across the country. USC was one of the first universities to realize that the two belong together and has done it better than most. That’s why you find your classrooms full; they simply reflect the success of the program.
Don’t disagree that using some of the Inovista (wasted) office space is a good idea but separating the College of Engineering and Computing is almost as stupid as starting Inovista.
Boy, do I feel dumb. I thought Innovista was a doomed
idea that was about to happen. I didn’t realize that it
had already come and gone. I looked at the ‘list of public
and private University research offices’ and found forms
from Hell where I expected to find individuals and
companies conveniently listed with the successes,
failures and cost overruns. But as with all bureaucracies
the deeper you dig, the more entangled the cluster.
Let’s just say a few ‘Hail Marys’ and go home.
Look, if it is a national emergency, then I agree that we
need to take a large view of the problem.
If we want to look at history, put a man in charge,
Leslie Groves for example, and a physical place where it
all happens, Los Alamos for example. Gen’l Groves was
the force (made resources available on demand).
But these resources were itemized by the inventors:
Oppenheimer and friends. Internally, the operation
was run by Oppenheimer. It was not then nor did it
ever become a bureaucracy and it was an astonishing
success. There does not exist a bureaucracy called
‘Manhattan Project’.
If you can make Innovista ‘the place’, then I’m all
for it.
One last word, you cannot train a person to
become an inventor. Don’t try.
Postscript:
May your warnings go unheeded and drain
peacefully underneath a long lost ball bearing
in the back corner of Bledsoe’s garage.
there are more pressing things to research.