can you teach innovation

a recent panel discussion NSF discussed the need to empower the talented at a young age, K-12 to be precise.
Why are we all technically creative at a young age and then gradually become more focused and potentially less creative and innovative as we grow older. Can we blame standardised testing, the transition from "I want to know" to " you need to know", the point where a child has to pass tests to be deemed successful.
This is a topic that we're back tracking on now. If you've read any Christensen on the subject you'll observe that the standard way of teaching the youth came about because of the standard requirements from employers.
That's all changed now. Gone are the days when a company required droves of worker bees with identi-kit knowledge, come have the days when independent thoughts either concentrate your efforts up a corporate ladder or invoke the ability to create your own ladder with your own creativity - a spin off that whether it succeeds or fails, is bound to ultimately provide a positive experience.

So, bring us back to innovation, can it be taught?
Certainly sections of the Russian education movement form the 70's onwards thought so with the introduction of Genrich Altshuller's theories on inventive problem solving (TRIZ www.triz-journal.com)
My own thoughts on this are that innovation is as much a science as any type of learning can become a science. What is a science......a series of theories. Then what are theories - a series of observations that when interpreted begin to show a pattern. And observations - well, surely driven by our curiosity we make observations. So, if this is the case, the science of innovation can be a series of inquisitive observations.

Does anything exist that maps our creativity, or the creativity of mankind?
Intellectual property and the documentation of ideas, good or bad, are mapped as patents. In fact, patents are significantly easier to follow as citations within patents mean we can see why ideas have come to fruition. If the idea was poor, then it is unlikely to be cited, certainly not very far through the evolution of the innovative course.

So, we can now think about a Science of Innovation as a series of observations of the patents....can we identify trends or similarities in the thought process behind the ideas - can we formulate theories that might one day govern the approach to making a product better - or differentiated whether it is a service or gadget.

These are all questions that the NSF is thinking about fostering in the talent of today, for use in the economies of tomorrow.
I think it's going to be interesting, and I think it's going to be a race.