The National Academy of Sciences has released Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Employing America for a Brighter Future, a report recommending measures to maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology.

A quick overview of the report reveals a market-friendly bent--with discussion of tort reform, a mention of broadband deregulation and spectrum policy, the need for flexible capital markets, and a review of Ireland's economic reformation. But then there is also considerable emphasis on government-funded research.

The report's four highlighted choices for changes to the patent system follow the earlier NAS report, as one might expect:

1) Better funding for the patent office.
2) Adopting first-to-file.
3) Shielding research uses of patented inventions from liability.
4) Changing laws that act as barriers to innovation in specific industries such as pharmaceuticals.

One final comment about the report; like much commentary in the "innovation economy" area, the report emphasizes the need for the United States to maintain its leadership in innovation to maintain standards of living etc.

I'm always a little worried about this sort of comparison; unqualified, it implies that the world economy is a zero sum game--i.e. if the rest of the world does better, we are worse off. Taken to an extreme, it implies that we should celebrate stagnation in the rest of the world. Whereas in fact we are better off too if the rest of the world also enjoys higher standards of living and better economic policies. They compete with our firms, but they also can buy our stuff and become part of the larger market, and our consumers can enjoy their products and services. Comparative advantage, and all that. New York and Kansas are not worse off if Texas thrives.

On the other hand, comparisons across countries that reveal loss of our relative position are meaningful, *if* that loss came about not just because other countries gained in wealth, but because we are losing ground compared to where we were before or where we might be (because taxes are rising, or because educational reform has stalled, or for whatever other reason). That is, we don't need to be "leaders" in the sense of being rich while everyone else is poor. But we do need to be doing as well as we possibly can be. Being the "leader" is a reasonably good measure of that, assuming that the rest of the world is not just going to hell in a hand-basket. Not always a safe assumption.