by Rob White
City of Davis staff are meeting today with representatives from the Netherlands Office of Science and Technology, based at the Dutch Consulate General in San Francisco. The topic of discussion is the similarities between the City of Davis and the Dutch city of Wageningen. More specifically, the Dutch officials are interested in exploring “what role local governments can play in the golden triangle between research institute-government-industry, especially when it comes to supporting knowledge economies.”
This made me think back to my time in Livermore while building the innovation ecosystem and the idea of what many are coming to call the “Triple Helix.” The idea is meant to describe the interaction and exchange that happens between the sectors of government, industry and research/academia. The Dutch are calling it a golden triangle, but the ideas are comparable.
The Triple Helix concept has grown into an international brand that (according to the website) “is an undergraduate, student-run organization dedicated to the promotion of interdisciplinary discussion.”
The website goes on to say, “we encourage critical analysis of legally and socially important issues in science and promote the exchange of ideas. Our [publications] provide research-based perspectives on pertinent scientific issues facing society today.”
“With over twenty chapters at some of the most renowned universities in the world, our students form a diverse, intellectual, and global society. We hope to inspire scientific curiosity and discovery, encouraging undergraduates to explore interdisciplinary careers that push traditional boundaries. In doing so, we hope to create global citizen scientists with an interdisciplinary perspective on the translation of forum-generated ideas into the solving of real-world problems.”
The website explains that “the name ‘The Triple Helix’ is a reference to the molecular structure of the protein collagen. Collagen is a connective tissue that plays an integral part in maintaining the structural integrity of individual organs and between organ systems. This interconnecting characteristic of collagen is analogous to the interdisciplinary focus of our organization, as we work to bridge scientific development with its greater role in science policy and society.”
“More than ever, the world is moving toward a globalized mindset that integrates ideas stemming from various cultural and intellectual backgrounds. In its young history, the Triple Helix, Inc., has inspired thousands of students around the world to look beyond the intellectual appeal of science and make critical connections between science and its relevance to other disciplines that shape our society.”
These concepts struck me as particularly relevant considering our community is wrestling with many idea and demands that sometimes seem in conflict, when in reality they may just be different strands of the same structure. And in fact, at the Innovation Park Community Forum held on Tuesday night, we began to see additional evidence that many of our ideas and conversations that seem to be at odds are really just the other side of a complex discussion. An alternative view… and these ideas are most certainly wound together in a very intricate structure that relies on each individual strand to support the rest of the structure.
What is even more apparent to me, as someone who is focused on the outcomes that derive from a robust ecosystem of innovation, is that the three strands (government, industry and research/academia) must work in concert together for the betterment of society. Not just the neighborhood or community we live in, but as Bob Medearis put it at the Forum on Tuesday night, the “improvement of the human condition.”
It is with this concept in mind that City staff will be working in the coming months to help identify ways for the community to both benefit and be enriched through the potential of an innovation park. As was stated several ways by individuals during the Forum, it is more important to come to agreement on what an innovation park should be in our community than on where it should be built or who will build the park. It appears we have an opportunity to embrace our future through support of our culture of sustainability and conservation. And like no time in our past, the Davis community is on the verge of once again demonstrating how things should be done in a manner that embraces our values.
Please contact me at rwhite@cityofdavis.org if you have ideas or comments.
Robb
Maybe I am just feeling a little excluded, or maybe I have a legitimate point that really is being left out of the model. I see the “Triple Helix” concept as an elegant construct. However, if the goal is really “improvement of the human condition” then it would seem that there is no room in your triad of government, industry,research/
academia for that most basic of human conditions, our health. Where at this discussion table is room being made for those whose primary concern is the health, well being and safety of our society.
There are many examples of situations in which those whose primary goal was “economic advancement” or
“technologic progress” have led to marked deterioration of the human condition. I will just site a couple. I know you all could generate a much more comprehensive list.
1) The private automobile – smog, need for oil production regardless of environmental harm, sedentary
lifestyle
2) Processed foods – put forward as a boon to us in the form of convenience and time. In reality, many are
comprised of essentially no nutrients, especially “snack” foods and candy cereals and do us enormous harm
in the form of diabetes and obesity.
Is there space at your discussion table for anyone from the health care or public health community ? If so, that’s great. If not, I would suggest pulling up another chair.
medwoman- though not my model, just one I am aware of, I would absolutely say public health is at the heart of this idea. Had the three sectors worked more robustly together, the roll out of the ACA website may have been less traumatic. To me, the words used to describe each group are less relevant than the idea that it takes all of us working in concert to make great things happen. Some would say NGOs are missing from the model or financial institutions… Both true technically, but I think the terms are meant to be very large buckets that encompass all sectors. So yes, in our application of the model, public health is most certainly at the table!! Pull up a chair!
[i]Then it would seem that there is no room in your triad of government, industry,research/academia for that most basic of human conditions, our health[/i]
There are two domains for human health consideration.
The first is environmental contributors to a person’s health.
The second is economic contributors to a person’s health.
Both are important, and as Rob point out, both are often in conflict.
My perspective is that, in this town, we are out of balance from focusing on almost exclusively on the first, and largely at the expense the second.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about this issue over the years, I have developed an explanation that helps me sleep at night and motivates me to do the job I do and to try and help move us to more balance.
My explanation, in a nutshell, is as follows:
Personal health is a ubiquitous issue and pursuit. Environmental factors are also generally ubiquitous and easy to comprehend. A champion of environmental causes has the power of emotive arguments that are in a primary space. For example, medwoman can make the case that auto exhaust is bad for a person’s health and everyone nods their head and applauds her for taking a stand against it.
Economic factors are also ubiquitous, but they are much less easily understood by a segment of the population. Also, the cause and effects are more abstract, and the arguments are in a secondary and tertiary space. For example, me explaining the health-improving effects of a career that offers a gradual but steady rise in prosperity through the accumulation of marketable job skills and labor value… well it is a long-term development project for many people.
That project is made more difficult with each increase in government redistribution policy. It is made more difficult because humans are infinitely trainable, and they are generally wired from evolution to seek a path of least resistance.
And it is also made more difficult with extremism demanding environmental perfection in conflict with economic health.
That is where we are today in Davis.
We have invested heavily to achieve celebratory progress on environmental health. We have done so in many cases at the expense of our economic health. But instead of patting ourselves on the back and taking a breather, we have those that seem obsessed with manufactured outrage and fear-based emotive campaigns to ensure we continue on some quest for environmental perfection… again, at the expense of our economic health.
The analogy is that we continue to run, bike and swim to achieve some perfect heart rate while we stop tending to our business that provides our income, and so we eventually starve to death.
We live a life, despite whether you like it our not, that is dependent on a well-functioning economic ecosystem. We do not hunt and gather to survive. We have evolved to a market system where we have to acquire money by some means to acquire the things we need and want. We have bills to pay… including our healthcare costs.
We have a natural ecosystem that is in relatively good shape. We should be happy and proud of that accomplishment.
We have an economic ecosystem that is in very bad shape. We should be alarmed and troubled about the situation and working together to get it back to healthy.
There will be trade-offs. There are always trade-offs. But we have earned chips that we can spend without having to fold or go all-in.
Improving the health of the human condition at this point in time is going to require that we give primary attention to the economic health of every single citizen… but focusing on those that are growing the most economically disadvantaged. And right now that demographic is our young people.
Despite what the federal government would have us all believe, money really does not grow on trees. It has to be produced from the value exchange of labor employed by business. It starts with business. Business is like a garden that has to be tended. We need land to plant them, and then we need to tend to them. Their crop will be jobs and tax revenue and residents growing more prosperous and able to acquire the things they need to make them healthier. And we can rest a bit easier today that our regulatory book is robust enough to mitigate most of the risks that our environment will suffer.
With respect to environmental health concerns, we all need to take a chill pill and the activist should take a holiday.
Sorry – for some reason Rob’s articles always make me put up a long-winded post.
[i]”With over twenty chapters at some of the most renowned universities in the world, our students form a diverse, intellectual, and global society. We hope to inspire scientific curiosity and discovery, encouraging undergraduates to explore interdisciplinary careers that push traditional boundaries. In doing so, we hope to create global citizen scientists with an interdisciplinary perspective on the translation of forum-generated ideas into the solving of real-world problems.”[/i]
“Buzzword Bingo” anyone!?!
it is heavy with the buzz-words and light with the content. but i do like the idea of the triple helix.
SH – They’re students, so buzz-wordy is to be expected. But the concepts are good, wouldn’t you agree?
medwoman – Another thought related to your point on healthy food and enough food. UCD is a leader in research and development of new farming and food production technology and techniques that improve yields and enhance nutritional values. No matter where you stand on GMO fright, you would have to agree that with respect to food and health, UCD is a big asset.
You should also ready on the UCD World Food Center. And the Sacrament region’s farm to fork initiative. These are strategic endeavors that are meant to serve three primary improvement goals:
1. Leverage our regional assets of ag and food production to attract more economic activity that provides more local tax revenue.
2. Improve the human condition by producing more food, wasting less food (the US wastes 40% of our food production) and producing healthier and fresher foods.
3. Improve the human condition by producing more jobs.
Farm land alone does not get the job done. We need ag related R&D and other food production to make it all work.
“They’re students, so buzz-wordy is to be expected. “
makes sense.
Frankly
“We have invested heavily to achieve celebratory progress on environmental health. We have done so in many cases at the expense of our economic health. But instead of patting ourselves on the back and taking a breather, we have those that seem obsessed with manufactured outrage and fear-based emotive campaigns to ensure we continue on some quest for environmental perfection… again, at the expense of our economic health.”
I disagree that we have invested heavily to achieve celebratory progress on environmental health. That maybe in part because I have no idea what definitions you are using or what goals you see as being met. Perhaps if you were to do what you requested of me and specify what you are talking about in material terms instead of sweeping generalizations, I could better determine on what points we agree and disagree.
As it is, I will tell you why I am not in agreement.
We are living in an area with a toxic waste clean up site, Hardly stellar long term environmental protection.
The projected auto emissions associated with The Cannery project do not meet the city’s long term previously defined goals. So do we demand
That the developer change the project to meet those goals? no, we talk about monetary mitigation. Unless we specify how these monies are going to be used so as to improve the environment specifically, this is an environmental loss.
Some of what passes for environmentalism is far from it. For example, Target’s agreement to go green by planting a few more trees in the parking lot of land that they have paved over when the obvious “green”solution would have been not to build Target number nine within a 30 minute radius of Davis.I see that as a triumph of the economic over the ecological. And as I recall it has not paid off in terms of projected revenues for the city.
We live in an area of widespread pesticide use without, in my opinion adequate assessment of the potential short and long term health and environment.
We were willing to consider moving forward with The Cannery without a mention (that I could find) in the EIR of the contents of the north – south trains that pass directly along the west side of the property or the ability of council members to state what is in those cars.
We live in a city divided by an ever more congested freeway. Not a huge environmental success story.
But the specific examples are not the entire point. It seems to me that you and I have the most basic of value differences. This may be because of my childhood or possibly because of my two years working on the Tohono Ottam reservation. For whatever reason, per your own previous post, you seem to see the land as belonging to us for our use. I see us as belonging to the land as a part of the entire ecological system. I see the economic system as designed by people and for people frequently with the environmental system which is necessary to sustain us all treated as an after thought if at all.
I would welcome your thought expressed specifically and materially if you do not agree.