Competition & Innovation: SCSP Releases New Report and Hosts Global Emerging Technologies Summit
By Alisha Saxena (she/her), Editor in Chief
*Author Note: quotes were transcribed live, and so the complete accuracy of some quotes may be affected.
In This Fall Feature, Editor In Chief Alisha Saxena Notes Her Takeaways From The Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) Report And Their Global Emerging Technologies Summit. At This Summit, Global Leaders Came Together To Discuss The Future Of Competition, Innovation, And Action As Means To Curb The Geopolitical Threat Of China’s Technological Dominance.
Wendy Sherman, Department of State
“We are living in a time of extraordinary technological and scientific change. We are also living in a time of incredible technological competition.”
Competition and innovation were central to the panel discussions occurring at the Global Emerging Technologies Summit on Friday September 16th. Notable speakers warned the public of the geopolitical threat presented by Chinese technological domination. These warnings echoed the sentiments of the inaugural report released by the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) on Monday September 12th, Mid-Decade Challenges to National Competitiveness, which expressed the severe implications of China’s success for democracy, the internet, and international stability. As a result of these warnings, three broad calls to action emerged from this Summit: recognize the prolonged threat to democracy, emphasize innovation, and strengthen stakeholder collaboration.
Democratic Stability: A Global, Persistent Concern
“We don’t want to live in a world where the U.S. isn’t the one setting rules, doing the work, taking the lead”
Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State
The Future of Democracy Panel at the Summit addressed the guaranteed deterioration of democracy under a China-centric global order, with former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman commenting that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Ultimately, however, this specific panel very shallowly covered the specifics of China’s (PRC’s) threat to democracy in comparison to the report and other panels.
In his Keynote speech, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger emphasized the need for proactive action, “so that we do not slack into self-destruction.” But what happens if the status quo of relative inaction remains and China becomes the technological superpower? In their report, the SCSP articulates a domino effect, a quick spiral, which would begin upon this achievement.
First, technological advantages would result in economic dominance, where China controls the supply chains of solar, wind, and nuclear energy technology, and of emerging technologies. Second, China uses this techno-economic advantage for political leverage, and countries reliant on Chinese technological infrastructure and platforms are unwilling to resist China, whether in PRC’s data demands or displays of public support. Third, China and Russia partner to dominate the global sphere and countries follow their authoritarian structures in quick pursuit (16-17).
With this, authoritarianism begins to sweep the world politically and technologically, and worse impacts are witnessed. First, restrictive algorithms and surveillance remove digital freedom and compromise the Internet. Second, China operates the core digital technologies, key electronics components, and finished products that are woven into every system, leaving the world more vulnerable to the PRC. Third, the U.S. military’s technological edge erodes, as China uses their newfound edge to outmatch U.S. capabilities. Finally, if all of this comes to fruition, China fulfills their promise to limit supply of microelectronics and other technological inputs to the U.S., creating a technology tap to America which China can turn off at any time (17-18).
Optimistically, Dr. Condoleezza Rice noted in the panel that “Japan, India, Australia, and other countries have pushed closer to the U.S. in the past few years because of Chinese foreign policy.” Others, such as Ami Appelbaum who serves as the Chairman of the Israel Innovation Authority, were confident that governments will bolster investments in education, R&D, and other crucial resources due to the innovation pursuit demanded from this crisis.
Israel is a notable case study, and they are frequently referred to as “the startup nation” as their economy is dominated by industrial high-tech and entrepreneurship. This legacy is partially due to the government’s education investments, as they reported the highest percentage of GDP spent on elementary and secondary institutions in all OECD countries. Ultimately, Appelbaum noted that high innovation is what contributes to making a country the best, ahead of everyone else- without it, there is no way such a goal can be achieved.
This leads us to the next theme of the conference, and a central theme in the report: innovation is crucial, but the United States is lagging behind.
A New Era: A Hard Divergence from the Innovation Status Quo
“Innovation without creativity is just iteration.”
Chris Darby, CEO of In-Q-Tel
Though I was personally expecting this messaging to be strongly emphasized by private sector leaders, it was actually many of the government leaders who admitted this gap between innovation potential and realization. Stacey Dixon, U.S. Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (DNI), argued that schools and universities were not producing enough talent- she claimed this is because educational institutions are failing to attract enough students to enroll in their degree and certificate programs. Her belief is in line with recent findings that Americans have become more skeptical on the value of a college education- for instance, there are 4 million fewer students in college today than there were 10 years ago. Dixon ultimately noted that college is “hard, but worthwhile.”
Administratively, Dixon touched on how their internal barriers may be stifling worker and solution creativity. Specifically, she stated that the DNI “struggles with incentivizing risk,” which she believes is needed to elicit creativity from new hires. Beyond workers, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks commented on how it is easy for the DoD to work with contractors, but that “we’re really hard to work with”- despite tool improvements and cultural changes, she admitted that “we are still not where we need to be”. Ultimately, this limited collaboration stifles innovation as well.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also referenced her proposed National Cyber Academy as a method to improve and catalyze innovation in her U.S. Government Keynote Speech. The shortage of cybersecurity personnel for the U.S. government has left their defenses vulnerable, she argued in her January 2022 op-ed, and the Cyber Academy addresses the current issue that “the current tech workforce is neither large enough nor diverse enough to meet the nation’s critical needs.” She, with the assistance of members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, secured provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act to support this initiative.
One crucial component to innovation that panelists left untouched was the power of skilled immigration in strengthening the workforce. Even the SCSP report only briefly calls on Congress and the Executive Branch to “take bold action to advance effective education, immigration, and workforce development policies” (65). The Economic Innovation Group (EIG) notes that “our greatest advantage as a nation is that people from around the world see the United States as a beacon of opportunity” and that immigration policy is “one of the few options available to address seismic demographic changes and the socioeconomic problems they cause.”
EIG has proposed a Heartland Visa, which would bring skilled immigrants to struggling counties in the United States to support economic dynamism, a foundational component of economic strength and by result, technological dominance. EIG also supports an entrepreneurial “startup visa,” a version of which was drafted into a bill called the LIKE Act last year by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).
The value of immigrants must be remembered in this push for technological dominance. Future collaborations between stakeholders should touch on reforming the immigration process to support economic dynamism, innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological dominance.
Uniting Under a Common Interest: The Power of Collaboration
“The foundation of our relationships with nations is trust. Common interest and cooperation can help those in need, making our international community stronger”
Wu Tsung-Tsung, Minister of Science and Technology for Taiwan
The Future of Innovation Panel at the Summit produced some crucial reminders about collaboration. Andre Loesekrug-Pietri, Chairman of the Joint European Disruptive Initiative (JEDI), reminded the audience that “technology and innovation is the core of geopolitics, political opinions, and societal functions itself,” and stressed that “prioritizing the issues of tomorrow is a challenge in itself.” Chairman Loesekrug-Pietri also endorsed the idea of a transatlantic technology council. David van Weel, Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges at NATO, provided details on DIANA and its complementing Innovation Fund– these programs will broadly enable outreach to young innovators who can help make technology more approachable in the defense industry, according to van Weel.
Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, in her U.S. Government Keynote Speech, called for advocacy, collaboration, and information sharing across sectors. She asserted that the future of technology is not merely meant to be addressed by the public sector, but also by the private sector, civil society, technologists, human rights advocates, and more. Specifically, she noted that “it’s up to us, all of us, to build the future of cyberspace and technology that we want to see.”
Not only did Deputy Secretary Sherman encourage us all to look forward, but Deputy Secretary Hicks did as well. She constantly posed the following question for the audience: “how do we think about China today, in the mid term (2027-ish), and in the future?” This leads to the final focus of the SCSP report: creating a tangible plan for the mid term, or the years 2025-2030.
Sealing the Opportunity Window: Establishing Proactivity
“Our current challenge is how to deal with China over an extended period of time… how do we prevail with technology and coexist, without military intervention?”
Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Former Secretary of State
The SCSP report clearly articulates that the present day to 2030 is a “window of opportunity that will quickly close for China as its demographic and economic trends darken, unless technology provides an escape ramp” (24). China’s risk for appetite may increase before the end of the decade, the SCSP report indicates, since the PRC is aware of their limited time. Thus, the report urges the United States to develop a clear strategy for technology governance and competitive strategies for 2025-2030.
In the Summit panel on the Future of Technology Platforms, much of the conversation surrounded technology governance, specifically focusing on AI and the successful implementation of algorithms and platforms. Maithra Raghu, Co-Founder and CEO of Samaya AI, outlined how AI can support industries, from optimization capabilities for supply chain to predictive aspects for science. She emphasized that “neural networks have taken over AI by storm.” Reshma Shetty, Co-Founder of Ginkgo Bioworks, specifically elaborated on the benefits of AI for science, emphasizing in the panel that “biosafety and biosecurity need to be invested in alongside innovation, a point especially proven with the COVID-19 pandemic.” Shetty noted that President Biden recently acknowledged these two categories as crucial to fund, which is a step in the right direction.
In this same panel, Raghu also noted that “there is a tension in the AI community between access and safety.” Bob Mumgaard, CEO of Commonwealth Fusion Systems, argued that, regardless of supporting more access or safety, developing trust with the public is crucial to avoid setbacks. He claimed that “if you make technical decisions without consulting the people, especially if it goes wrong and people don’t understand it, this results in backlash” with detrimental consequences. Avoiding backlash, he continues, involves shifting the attitude on public inquiries of technology from “it’s safe, leave us alone” to “what are you worried about?” Jonathan Ross, Founder and CEO of Groq, also noted that “our frustrations won’t result in AI changing [because] we have to remember that AI is a tool, not a person”.
Ultimately, the U.S. is making progress in using algorithms and technological platforms to become innovators in key industries and to make a difference. Though there are still issues to iron out, this conversation indicated progress was being made in reinforcing the American advantages of open society, talent, national enthusiasm for technology, and unparalleled liquid capital markets (25-26).
Competition and Innovation: Concluding Thoughts
“The SCSP Summit successfully brought together public and private sector leaders from the United States, as well as our staunchest allies and partners, to ensure that emerging technologies help advance freedom, strengthen democracies, and protect the rules-based global order. It was a privilege to be a part of”
Karina Barao (MPP’23), Research Assistant at SCSP
As an attendee of SCSP’s Global Emerging Technologies Summit, I was impressed with how repetition was avoided, as I noticed that each point and conversation truly highlighted a new component of the complex issues being discussed. The three emerging themes from this Summit were competition, innovation, and action, and thankfully, the panels did more than summarize the present conditions of this crisis. They offered invaluable guidance on the next steps in actively changing the threatening circumstances which we are actively facing. Panelists were quick to showcase what they did know, but were also quick to admit what gaps remained in achieving full progress. This was a clear indicator that the centric forces were not ego and fame, but unification, collaboration, and resolution.
The SCSP has just started their important work with this inaugural report, and they made strides throughout the Summit in increasing transparency on cross-institutional work being done to: secure cyberspaces, promote innovation for the betterment of society, and prevent China from establishing technological dominance. In this next battle to maintain the world order, many of us will not be bystanders, but active participants in this resistance effort. This can support the closure of the opportunity window for China in the rest of this decade.
Though this rivalry with China is undeniably large, I contend that the biggest threat to failure is ourselves- should the United States manage to tap into our full American advantages and take the necessary steps for preparedness outlined in the SCSP report, we have a full potential to win this power struggle. The opportunity for success lies in arm’s reach- let’s grab it by the reins.
Alisha Saxena (she/her) is the Editor in Chief of the Georgetown Public Policy Review and a Master of Public Policy Candidate at the McCourt School of Public Policy. She currently interns with the Economic Innovation Group and the AARP, and previously worked as a Research Associate for RepresentWomen. Alisha is an avid reader, having read over 250 books in 2022.
