Setting the stage for discussions at this National Conference was the observation that, in today’s increasingly heterogeneous world, innovation would seem to be an obligatory strategy for steering the major environmental, economic and social transformations that the world is facing. It was emphasized, however, that innovative processes are not spontaneous phenomena, and indeed have their own precise logic and conditions that enable them to thrive. It was felt that three challenges need to be addressed in order to foster such processes: the first concerns choosing the technologies to focus on, the second involves understanding what the impact and results of research in these fields will be, and the third relates to finding ways of developing ideas that are “outside the box”, which are key to producing change.
The first and second of these were deemed to be largely determined by the pressing sustainability concerns facing the planet. Rising population levels, together with the scarcity of resources, pose a huge challenge for science. It was argued that the overall aim of scientific research should therefore be to improve the living standards of all human beings, so as to eliminate the disparities that exist at a global level. From this springs the pursuit of two strands of innovation for the future: improvement of the living standards of those who will inhabit the planet, and improvement of the living standards – and also travel conditions – of those who will leave the Earth to explore the universe.
In contrast, the third challenge was seen as requiring that consideration be given to the divide that exists between innovation as a concept (which, by definition, is the practice of altering the established order of things to create new things), and how it actually comes about. Indeed, innovative processes bear little relation to the stereotype of the genius with a knack for sudden flashes of ground-breaking inspiration. Instead, they tend to be characterized by very long lead-times and require a concerted pooling of efforts. This was seen, first and foremost, as necessitating an overhaul of youth training and education, with a view to changing a deeply-rooted mindset in Europe that is averse to risk. In addition, it is essential to simplify the many bureaucratic requirements, which, in the various European countries, but especially in Italy, conceal a lack of willingness to support talent and competition.
Creating conditions conducive to producing innovation undoubtedly means placing enabling factors at people’s disposal. It was stressed, however, that this does not mean allowing institutions take an interventionist stance. Indeed, it is necessary to take care not to over plan research activities, because many innovations – and even more so the most ground-breaking ones – come about in a completely unpredictable manner.
Instead, it was suggested that the task which institutions are called upon to perform is that of transforming the innovation produced into a boon for the economy and society. In Italy, experimental ventures such as the Italian Institute of Technology (IIT) represent models that break with the previous ways of doing research, and have succeed in doing what academia has often failed to do, that is, attracting talent. The IIT was viewed as a model worth replicating not only to improve the level of academic output by facilitating innovation, but ultimately to also address the problem of youth unemployment, since young talent – along with courage, curiosity, and a desire for change – are crucial ingredients for triggering innovative processes.