Research does not guarantee innovation

Earlier this week I attended the excellent Stevenson Science lecture at Royal Holloway University on “The Birth of Machine Cryptanalysis at Bletchley Park” given by Dr Joel Greenberg of the Bletchley Park Trust. When listening to any account of wartime code breaking one cannot fail to be impressed by the astounding level of innovation demonstrated by the early cryptographers. Such creativity is rarely encountered in today’s commercial environment which stamps out mavericks and encourages tick-box conformance, short-term action and widespread copying of other people’s practices.

The lecture was followed by a private dinner at which the Dean announced the University’s plans for a new Innovation Centre. There’s been a slight hitch in accommodation. (I’m told the earmarked site was sold to house builders.) But the concept must be applauded. Innovation is essential to help us escape from the damaging culture of conformance and compliance that has poisoned our cyber security efforts. And funding of fresh thinking is the key to finding the silver bullets to kill advanced persistent threats.  

Unfortunately it’s more likely to be more of same rather than anything new: one step forward and another back. The step forward is the creation of a bigger research effort and an incubator for new developments. That is certainly welcome though it might not necessarily create any new funding. The step back is that the research will still be under the direction of the usual suspects, i.e. the government and industry sponsors, supported by an advisory board of establishment figures. So don’t expect to see anything that is left-field, long term or high risk.

The problem is that government research bodies don’t like to fund anything that looks remotely like a product: the closer you get to anything practical the quicker the funding tails off. In contrast vendors and venture capitalists tend not to fund anything that takes more than 18 months to develop. They are only interested in money or new features for their products. That’s why we have so few innovative security technologies. New approaches tend to disappear down the gap between blue sky research and product development.

Fifteen years ago I sponsored the development of a model of the human immune system for fraud detection. It worked but needed further development. The concept died when the funding ran out. A similar fate killed another promising research project to detect human behaviour of security interest in digital networks. No less than a decade of funding is required to take a new technology from the drawing board to the market place. In the case of cryptography it can be even longer, as new approaches take many years to be accepted and implemented.   

Groundbreaking ideas rarely result from themed research. Creativity requires a high level of freedom coupled with a clear focus on a challenging problem – the more impossible-sounding the better. NASA research works because it focuses relentlessly on solving problems. MIT Media Lab works because it recruits students with creative ideas and gives them freedom to choose and direct their own work. MIT Media Lab researchers can develop a magic trick, design a new musical instrument or tackle a seemingly-unsolvable problem. Sponsors can visit and discuss their business requirements with researchers but they have to “charm” the researchers into cooperating. Promising projects will run for many years. That’s how to encourage and enable real innovation. Anything less is merely jobs for the research boys.  

Enhanced by Zemanta