Tech innovation can affect nation's future

On Tuesday night, I was unable to get in front of a television to see the State of the Union address until it's conclusion-literally. All I heard was "Thank you, and may God Bless America."

Since I do not happen to have a VCR on campus, and I was curious as to the speech's contents, I did the next best thing-I found a transcript of the speech online.

Actually, this is probably better than watching it because there is no need to stop for (applause) every time, but I digress.

As an Economics major, I tend to pay particular attention to any part of a speech that is prefaced by some sort of blanket statement that notes, "Our economy is good." This year's version of that comment happened to be "Our economy is healthy and vigorous."

Of course, this is just a cue for a portion, which will explain what we must do to become healthier and more vigorous.

This year's portion started off with the usual suspects-tax cuts, Social Security, health insurance, open markets and immigration.

I could write a whole separate series of editorials on that laundry list, but it was the next part of the list that made me think particularly of Tech.

Innovation, math and science were at the heart of the discussion, and these are three areas where we happen to stand out as a school.

In this portion of his speech, President Bush proposes a doubling of the budget for research programs in the physical sciences over the next year.

He adds, "This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing and alternative energy sources."

It was just the other day that a friend told me that nanotechnology intrigued him because he believed it is where the next great innovations would be made. It seems almost surreal to be reading the State of the Union and seeing almost the exact same thing.

Plus, how can you hear the word "nanotechnology" and not think of Tech and its peer schools?

It is not exactly a common term tossed around in high school science class. In fact, the word processing program I'm using does not even recognize it as an actual word.

The logic behind this point is simple; our economy must improve through innovation, and the most logical place for innovation to occur is no longer in agricultural productivity or increasing industrial efficiency; we are a service-based economy looking for the next great technological breakthrough.

I do in fact have a point to this. This is a time of great opportunity for Tech with its resources and its direction; however, we must continue to actively pursue our goals of being on the cutting edge of innovation and not wait for "someone else to make the discovery."

The other side of the coin-what can happen when everyone knows that something should be pushed to the forefront, but nobody takes action-was also evident in the State of the Union.

"Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States."

"As you well know, I have been working with the Congress in a concentrated and persistent way over the past three years to meet this need. We have made progress together."

"But Congress must act promptly now to complete final action on this vital energy legislation. Our Nation will then have a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power, realistic pricing based on the true value of oil, strong incentives for the production of coal and other fossil fuels in the United States and our Nation's most massive peacetime investment in the development of synthetic fuels."

The previous quote sounds like it could have been part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, doesn't it? When I place it side by side with last night's speech, I have a tough time telling a significant difference.

So, who was the speaker concerned about energy policy and wanting to make sure that we conserve oil, develop solar power and create widely used synthetic fuels? It was Georgia's own President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union address in 1980.

Of course, there has been little doubt since 1980 that this issue is one of great importance, and it is one that must be solved by scientists, engineers and the like.

However, it is such an obvious problem that needs tackling, everyone has waited on someone else to tackle it.

I hope that 26 years from now, I will not see another President addressing the nation with these same issues.

I hope that some Tech engineer has solved the nation's oil dependency.

I believe that some team of Tech scientists can make great advances in nanotechnology. And I, the Tech economist, will be waiting, so I can draw a plethora of supply and demand curves to model these innovations that no one in their right mind will be able to understand.