Talk with Dr. Erick Jones Sr. about innovation and he’ll tell you something most people miss—brilliant tech ideas perish every day in what he describes as a significant gap between research and commercial application.
“I think that I have a unique perspective on how hypothesis-driven investigation feeds into applied sciences and engineering, and then how engineering research moves into commercialization and prototypes, and then from prototypes, how it gets mass produced,” Jones explains.
Nobody walks through these different worlds quite like Jones. His career zigzags between corporations, university research centers, and government policy rooms—giving him a rare perspective on why promising technologies vanish before reaching consumers.
The Invisible Graveyard of Brilliant Ideas
Countless technological breakthroughs never escape laboratories. They suffer quiet deaths because of communication breakdowns. When academics and executives argue over intellectual property, money, or process, nothing moves forward.
“My experiences leverage my industry background in running these types of centers. If we can get past how we talk about finances—sometimes we hear the word ‘indirect’ or ‘overhead,’ and it doesn’t translate between industry and academia. How these things get negotiated, who owns intellectual property and commercialization rights—these become barriers if we are not able to communicate effectively together.” Dr. Jones explains, drawing from decades watching potentially world-changing technologies fade into obscurity.
Language differences kill innovation before it stands a chance. When professors mention costs, business people hear something entirely different from what academics mean. University timelines measured in years clash with quarterly business cycles.
Jones saw these patterns repeat while running industry-university collaborations and later overseeing Engineering Research Centers at the National Science Foundation. What struck him wasn’t technical failures but human miscommunication preventing brilliant ideas from reaching people who needed them.
Massive Government Experiments Bridge The Divide
What would happen if someone coordinated industry-university partnerships that generated $160 million to address the problem? Engineering Research Centers attempt exactly that—decade-long funding for multi-university and industry teams attacking major challenges.
“Engineering Research Centers represent the largest investment in engineering in the country with $160 million over a 10-year period given to a consortium of universities—usually a minimum of three to five universities working together over a decade to move the needle in areas such as quantum computing, water quality, oil and gas, and energy pollution reduction.” Jones notes.
These centers demand what Jones calls innovation ecosystems where distinguished researchers collaborate with corporate partners while training future engineers.
“ERCs require you to have an innovation ecosystem, which means partnerships with industry. They require cutting-edge research, so usually you have a National Academy member or someone who’s a fellow of regarded associations like AAAS involved to ensure the research is recognized. Engineering education must have a component where we’re educating our best minds—our GRP fellows often come from the ERCs, as do undergraduate students aspiring to graduate school.” Jones explains.
Money flows differently inside these ecosystems. “The ERC attracts industry partners and donors at participating institutions. These donors frequently contribute millions of dollars for test beds to update the research capacity of institutions conducting the research. It brings an “all hands-on deck” approach and often attracts large-scale donations to the participating institutions.” Jones observes.
Today’s Engineering Students Face Shocking New Demands
Engineering graduate students lived simpler lives when Dr. Erick Jones began mentoring them. A journal article or multiple conference papers might satisfy part of the doctoral graduation requirements, with real-world skills developed through accompanying co-ops and internships (for undergraduates and Master’s students) or later on the job.
“I’m most proud of the multiple PhDs I’ve supervised—I believe 15 to 17 were successful, with only a couple that weren’t. Additionally, I’ve overseen over 30 successful master’s theses.” Jones shares.
Modern doctoral candidates face radically different expectations. “What makes me reflect on this is how technology has changed astronomically. At one point, we expected students to publish a single journal article or two or more conference papers before graduating. Now we almost want them to have three or more published papers—that’s more than some faculty produce.” Jones remarks after supervising numerous PhD students.
Graduate education now includes preparing students to secure funding—skills previously learned after graduation. “The expectations now include knowing how to teach and educate as a graduate teaching assistant in the classroom, plus publishing journal or peer-reviewed conference papers. Additionally, students must understand their research well enough to submit proposals to federal agencies and put together budgets. This preparation enables them to secure academic positions at other institutions and succeed as tenure-track professors.” Jones explains.
Students headed toward industry need broader skills than previous generations too. “A number of my students enter industry, yet they still face expectations to write grants and seek funding from various agencies as well as customers.” notes Jones.
“The bar keeps rising. Whether students want to go into academia or industry, they need to know how to fund their work, explain it clearly, and make it matter,” he explains.
Making Technologists Comprehensible to Politicians
One of Dr. Jones’ most eye-opening experiences came during his Jefferson Science Fellowship at the U.S. Department of State. There, he worked with policymakers on issues like supply chains, semiconductors, and energy security.
Jones learned hard lessons about connecting technical knowledge with government policy—another intersection where communication regularly fails.
“The integration between engineering technology, science, and public policy has been greatly debated. During my Jefferson fellowship, I discovered we were reaching a point where understanding manufacturing and supply chains became critical knowledge. A significant gap existed between policy and technical understanding.” Jones reflects.
Technical experts typically overwhelm policymakers with specifications and jargon. Jones recommends a different approach.
“I believe that as a technical person, communicating how public policy can enhance or support innovation must be the primary message rather than focusing solely on technological details. The focus should extend beyond the specifics of the technology to include how it will impact markets, drive innovation, and create jobs in different communities.” Jones stresses, pinpointing what policymakers actually care about.
Without effective translation between technical details and policy implications, Jones warns about potential problems: “I don’t really want to delve into discussions of tariffs and taxes, but the reality is tariffs and taxes are tools used by policymakers. Without technologists effectively communicating with policymakers, the conversation around tariffs and taxes becomes very difficult and potentially subject to misinterpretation.”
Final Thoughts
From Fortune 500 boardrooms to Capitol Hill, and from university classrooms to national and academic labs, Dr. Erick Jones has seen the full lifecycle of innovation. His message is clear: if we want great ideas to reach the people they’re meant to help, we need to fix how we talk about them—across sectors, roles, and priorities.