Chat with Rafael Laguna de la Vera, Head of the Federal Agency for Leap Innovations
It's High Time for a Paradigm Shift: Politics, Society, and the Economy Urgently Need a Rethink on Innovation - Election Manifestos Ignore Key Priorities
"Germany needs to demonstrate its capability for disruption"
Are we losing ground as a technological nation, and why is innovation not center stage in the political arena of Germany? The Head of the Federal Agency for Leap Innovations, Rafael Laguna de la Vera, sheds some light on the complex terrain of technological competitiveness and pension provisions in this intriguing interview.
Hey Rafael, what's the deal with Germany's technological prowess and why it's barely making headlines in election manifestos?
It's strange, indeed. The sheer importance of education, fostering leap innovation, and the promotion of leading digital sectors seem to get brushed aside. The truth is, the topics of technological competitiveness, research-to-product implementation, and the birth of groundbreaking industries are rarely addressed, despite their undeniable impact.
You know, politics always tends to address the concerns of voters. So is this a simple case of apathy among the population, or is there something else at play?
At face value, people might not immediately care about technology or the complexities involved. Instead, they yearn for security in their daily lives. They want their problems solved quickly. But that doesn't mean we should forget about the future.
Innovation capability has sparked raging debates for years among the economy, science, and politics, but it's somewhat kept away from the limelight. The establishment of the Federal Agency for Leap Innovations less than five years ago mirrors a sense of urgency regarding modern technologies that significantly shape the economic and social landscape.
Was the government support in the early days effective, yet we're falling behind in digitalization and AI?
Our success isn't solely due to the government's support. To be frank, it's been a mixed bag. Back in the day, the state played a crucial role in ensuring the path from research to products and processes managed to thrive. Yet, it's become increasingly challenging to adapt this approach to digitalization, AI, and quantum computing.
Take BioNTech's mRNA technology as an example. Its achievement has brought immense benefits to the national economy, not only for the Mainz area. However, consistency seems to be absent when trying to apply this model to other areas.
What's stopping progress?
Inefficient collaboration between the three critical ecosystems for innovations: academia, industries, and government policy, is the root of the problem. The academic system, the economic system, and the political system have become increasingly disconnected, making mutual understanding and collaboration far scarcer.
Professionals risk a lot by leaving academia to explore other ecosystems, as career paths are primarily dictated within a single system.
What contributes to such isolation, and what can be done to bridge the gap?
The cultural mindset and the existing incentive structures play a significant role. In essence, there's no going back once one is established in academia, making a shift to another system a considerable risk.
We must revamp university laws, consider the option of a return ticket, and pivot away from solely academic merits to encompass achievements outside the academic sphere during university careers. University clusters like the Technical University of Munich's startup hub already know the drill and have shown positive returns. We could adapt this model across other university clusters.
So, what needs to change to get us back on track?
One notable change is crafting better financial vehicles like large funding systems to nurture digitalization, AI, and quantum computing. Growth financing has emerged as a significant roadblock for several innovative startups. Collaborative efforts from the state, the economy, and investors would contribute to a well-funded system that is likely to yield hefty returns.
Could wealth creation and daring risk-taking be the real culprits inhibiting German innovation?
Our initial funding of startups shows promise, but the complexities involved create friction. The main issue lies in growth financing. A funding system like a large fund is needed to navigate these challenges effectively. So, it's still money, the almighty Mammon, that has the power to make or break German innovation.
What's next for SPRIND, and how does it fit into all this?
This year, we've had a budget of €220 million, but it barely scratches the surface when it comes to developing future technologies with leap innovation potential into successful companies and industries. To compare ourselves to the US, we should aim for about €1.2 billion.
Could part of the retirement savings be used to fund an innovation fund instead? Is it that simple?
In theory, yes. The funds intended for retirement investments should be invested somewhere, and high returns can be generated in technology. This approach ensures we'll keep promising tech companies and innovators grounded in Germany, stabilize pensions, and bolster future prosperity.
However, public skepticism is expected, especially concerning aggressive investments and a perceived "casino mentality."
We've got a cultural issue in Germany. Entrepreneurs are not necessarily celebrated but depicted as exploitative figures who neglect their employees' wellbeing. This view fails to recognize the transformative role entrepreneurs play in creating wealth and taking risks. This needs to change, especially in public perception.
Can Germany catch up, not just follow the trendsetters, but set the pace in the realm of AI, quantum computing, and more?
Absolutely! We have a program called "Alternative Paths to General Intelligence" that challenges the traditional approach to AI. We're on the cusp of advancements in quantum computers, unlike anything currently available. However, it's precisely these leaps in technology that demand structural changes in the political, economic, and academic systems. If we don't adapt and seize the opportunity, risks will only escalate.
Iterated and framed with a touch of personality while incorporating insights from enrichment data on economic priorities, the European Union's policy positions, energy and innovation, long-term investment, capital-backed retirement provisions, and pension funds, among others.
- Despite its significance, technology seems to be rarely addressed in the election manifestos of Germany, despite its undeniable impact on the economy and society.
- The Head of the Federal Agency for Leap Innovations, Rafael Laguna de la Vera, believes that the lack of attention to technology in politics might be due to a combination of factors, including people's initial apathy towards technology and a focus on immediate concerns like security and daily life challenges.
- Rafael Laguna de la Vera suggests that the establishment of the Federal Agency for Leap Innovations reflects a sense of urgency in addressing modern technologies that have a significant impact on the economic and social landscape.
- He states that the success of Germany's technological advancements is not solely due to government support, and it has become increasingly challenging to adapt the traditional approach from research to product implementation to digitalization, AI, and quantum computing.
- To address the challenges in funding and risk-taking, there is a proposal to utilize a portion of retirement savings to fund an innovation fund. But this approach faces public skepticism, especially concerning aggressive investments and a perceived "casino mentality." A change in cultural perception is needed to embrace entrepreneurs and their transformative role in creating wealth and taking risks.
