Politicians have been misled by innovation myths
There is one simple science policy issue that has united the main political parties over the past three decades: how to squeeze more profit out of Britain's world-class science. Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown and the prime ministers in between have been passionate about the central role that science should play in a modern economy. So it comes as a surprise to see the chronic policy blunders identified by a recent report from the University of Cambridge.
This analysis by the New Scientist of a new report highlights that Cambridge is seen as a beacon of how to innovate and has spawned new sectors of industry in printing technology, semiconductors, wireless technology, software and scientific instruments, for example.
Exploding the Myths of UK Innovation Policy argues from the example of Cambridge that government thinking has been heavily influenced by three myths:
* University research is the key source of technology and innovation for new hi-tech firms;
* Venture capital is the primary source of finance;
* The best way for Government to support technology development in companies is by funding multi-partner research collaborations between universities and private sector firms.
What is most shocking of all is its suggestion that government policy seems to have overlooked the obvious - that UK government innovation policy should be focused on the needs of customers. "The business of carrying out R&D contracts to solve customer problems and develop new products has been highly tuned by leading Cambridge firms," says David Connell, who wrote the report with Jocelyn Probert. He adds: "Besides generating thousands of jobs in its own right, this kind of paid R&D often also leads on to ideas for standard, proprietary products that can be commercialized through subsidiaries or separate spin off companies. These are exactly the sorts of high wage rate, export intensive industries we need to rebuild the UK economy. But if we want to extend and repeat Cambridge's success elsewhere, we must put much more emphasis on policies that encourage these natural, demand-led innovation processes."
The report found little enthusiasm among successful high-tech firms for the kinds of multi-partner research grants (involving university-industry collaboration) that are favoured by UK policymakers and, in contrast to the US, a dearth of R&D contracts with public sector customers.
The report proposes new policies to encourage more R&D contracts between small companies and lead customers, including increased use of procurement to meet government innovation needs, and the establishment of "Intermediate R&D Institutes", similar in some ways to the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany, to develop and commercialize technologies with long lead times.
With many thanks to the New Scientist