A group of leading American and Japanese venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, academic experts, government officials, and leaders in business and related fields joined the "U.S. - Japan Dialogue to Promote Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Job Creation" symposium, organized by the Stanford Project on Japanese Entrepreneurship (STAJE), the largest U.S.-Japan event held at Stanford in many years, on February 23, 2011.

Representatives from both governments opened the event by underscoring the economic and strategic reasons for closer U.S.-Japan cooperation in promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. U.S. Ambassador to Japan John V. Roos emphasized how an economically vibrant Japan is critical to the security of the United States, and how it creates opportunities for U.S. trade, investment, and job creation. Moreover, innovation and collaboration are vital to addressing critical global issues, such as climate change. Under Secretary of State Robert D. Hormats noted how innovation and entrepreneurship, often involving young firms bringing new technology to market, are fundamental to ensuring sustainable growth and inclusive prosperity, both at home and across the globe. For Japan, Teruhiko Mashiko, a Ranking Member of the Diet's Committee on Economy and Industry and a former Senior Vice Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry, highlighted the potential for greater employment, development of green technology, and the circulation of human and other resources through innovation and entrepreneurship.

Several speakers pointed to ways government and the private sector can foster the creation of entrepreneurial ventures with a global outlook. Professor William F. Miller, co-director of the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE), focused attention on the need to support the full entrepreneurial habitat—including an active angel investor and venture community, entrepreneurial education, passionate entrepreneurs, and business services (legal, consulting, financial) that understand the needs of start-up companies. Additionally, several speakers suggested that mid-career hiring by large Japanese firms and greater willingness on their part to grow by acquisition would increase labor mobility and expand opportunities for entrepreneurial ventures. They expressed concern that, at present, a public offering of shares is practically the only option for startup firms to exit the venture stage in Japan. Others highlighted how greater English-language proficiency and changes in immigration law could expand the linkages between Japan and the global community of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.

Larry W. Sonsini, Chairman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, reflected on the waves of innovation that Silicon Valley has generated, both in terms of new technologies coming to market as well as the maturing of technology already out. Defining Silicon Valley as a culture rather than a place, he outlined the ingredients in the recipe for its success: an entrepreneurial culture, with such features as mobility of talent, diversity, and acceptance of failure as a type of learning; ready access to capital; sources of technology and technologists, particularly from universities and large forward-looking corporations; government support; developed laws and accounting systems; availability of exit options for ventures; and an infrastructure of lawyers, accountants, bankers, and consultants. He also offered his thoughts on key trends that will influence the position and direction of emerging technology companies, including: globalization, regulatory changes, development of capital markets, education, and the rule of law.

In the closing remarks of the day-long symposium, Robert Eberhart, a SPRIE researcher and the leader of the SPRIE-STAJE project, summarized the three potential roles for governments to play in promoting innovation and entrepreneurship: to establish rules to ensure fair dealing and access to the market; to rewrite (i.e., reform) the rules of a market thereby ensuring firms will address it in new ways; and to stimulate demand for advanced technology by purchasing it for its own reasons, thereby creating new opportunities for entrepreneurial technology ventures.

A team of researchers from Stanford University, the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Arizona State University has found that converting large swaths of land to bioenergy crops could have a wide range of effects on regional climate.

In an effort to help wean itself off fossil fuels, the U.S. has mandated significant increases in renewable fuels, with more than one-third of the domestic corn harvest to be used for conversion to ethanol by 2018. But concerns about effects of corn ethanol on food prices and deforestation had led to research suggesting that ethanol be derived from perennial crops, like the giant grasses Miscanthus and switchgrass. Nearly all of this research, though, has focused on the effects of ethanol on carbon dioxide emissions, which drive global warming.

"Almost all of the work performed to date has focused on the carbon effects," said Matei Georgescu, a climate modeler working in ASU's Center for Environmental Fluid Dynamics. "We've tried to expand our perspective to look at a more complete picture.  What we've shown is that it's not all about greenhouse gases, and that modifying the landscape can be just as important."

Georgescu and his colleagues report their findings in the current issue (Feb. 28, 2011) of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see Direct Climate Effects of Perennial Bioenergy Crops in the United States). Co-authors are David Lobell of Stanford University's Program on Food Security and the Environment and Christopher B. Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science, also located in Stanford, California.

In their study, the researchers simulated an entire growing season with a state-of-the-art regional climate model. They ran two sets of experiments - one with an annual crop representation over the central U.S. and one with an extended growing season to represent perennial grasses. In the model, the perennial plants pumped more water from the soil to the atmosphere, leading to large local cooling. 

"We've shown that planting perennial bioenergy crops can lower surface temperatures by about a degree Celsius locally, averaged over the entire growing season. That's a pretty big effect, enough to dominate any effects of carbon savings on the regional climate." said Lobell.

The primary physical process at work is based on greater evapotranspiration (combination of evaporated water from the soil surface and plant canopy and transpired water from within the soil) for perennial crops compared to annual crops. 

"More study is needed to understand the long-term implication for regional water balance." Georgescu said. "This study focused on temperature, but the more general point is that simply assessing the impacts on carbon and greenhouse gases overlooks important features that we cannot ignore if we want a bioenergy path that is sustainable over the long haul."

On February 15, Professor John Tasioulas of the Faculty of Law at University College London spoke during the sixth session of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Speaker Series hosted by the Program on Human Rights at Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. A former Reader of Moral and Legal Philosophy at Oxford, Tasioulas discussed the moral philosophy that underpins human rights.

In his presentation entitled "The Justification of Human Rights," Tasioulas argued that the contemporary notion of human rights cannot be seen solely as a political movement, but instead must be considered from a moral perspective. Tasioulas defined human rights as "natural rights," possessed by all humans by virtue of their humanity and discovered through ordinary moral reasoning.  

Because the philosophical core of human rights is derived from the very fact that one is human, he argued that there is universality to this doctrine. Tasioulas contested that moral philosophy behind human rights provides the language and understanding with which society can distinguish between the so-called "good guys" and human rights violators or "bad guys."

Tasioulas argued that this moral basis of human rights provides a better and clearer understanding of what are and what are not human rights. He highlighted the confusion between human rights and human interests often seen in policy-making and academic literature. For example, he underscored that there is a difference between the human right to water and the human interest, or desire, for freedom of speech. While allowing that this served as an exaggerated example, he highlighted the importance of differentiating between human interests - that which makes life better - and human rights - that which is guaranteed to all humans.

At their core, he claimed, human rights are the result of the moral understanding of right and wrong - an understanding that can improve the lives of many around the world.