From Concept to Commercialisation of research

The original version of this post appeared on the British Ecological Society’s Ecology and Policy Blog.

The Biochemical Society, together with the British Ecological Society, hosted another successful Policy Lunchbox at Charles Darwin House yesterday. The guest speaker was Dr David Bott, Director of Innovation Programmes at the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), who delivered an engaging talk on the process of turning innovative ideas into real products and services. David identified a number of barriers to this progression and outlined how the TSB is working to address them. His presentation (MS Powerpoint) can be downloaded from the Policy Lunchbox listings page.

One of the biggest issues is the significant risk involved in pursuing innovative ideas, as well as a lack of long-term support for innovative projects due to a demand for immediate returns on investments. David highlighted that people need to be educated better about risk to help change these attitudes, and we also heard that there is also a lack of long-term political planning. The UK Government does not harness its considerable market influence, which has the potential to drive innovation in its suppliers through forward-thinking procurement and regulation, alongside tax breaks to encourage investment in certain technologies, he said. Since its creation, the TSB has developed a ‘toolbox’ of solutions to these barriers including providing coherent, long-term support to those involved in innovation and encouraging knowledge exchange, for example by hosting ‘Missions’ to introduce innovators to potential competitors, funders and collaborators. They have also created _connect, an online social network for innovators which aims to ‘match’ people with similar interests.

David set out how the TSB’s budget is worked out, highlighting sustainability as  a specific, dedicated programme which underpins all of the board’s work, despite a proportionally small allocation. The TSB works across a huge range of different areas – see slide 5 of David’s presentation, which shows the proportion of the budget spent in each – with the recently monikered Catapults being allocated around 20% of this. These include the new Cell Therapy Catapult, as the TSB looks to take advantage of an industry which they expect to be worth £3.1billion by 2014. Of around 160 employees at the TSB, the core are made up of individuals who trained as scientists but also have business and industrial experience. This experience is essential as each industry advances at different speeds, which needs to be understood.

Whilst healthcare and the biosciences are strategically important areas for the TSB, one area that represents a key theme throughout their work is the environment. The need to double food production by 2050 will require significant innovation in agriculture, whilst increasing energy production without worsening damage to the environment will require novel design and planning. In response to this energy challenge, one of the Catapults will focus on Offshore Renewable Energy, and the TSB is already contributing to innovative environmental projects elsewhere. A Demonstrator Project (designed to encourage further innovation in the sector) tested consumer responses to newly introduced electric cars; measuring their habits, attitudes and opinions of the vehicles when using them for a year. Another scheme – Retrofit for the Future – used innovative technologies to adapt 118 social houses to reduce their carbon emissions by 80% and found significant energy and money savings for the residents.

With the Business Secretary Vince Cable MP announcing a further Catapult Centre yesterday and a range of funding opportunities and events planned for the new year, the TSB’s valuable work in driving innovation is set to continue. Importantly though, David acknowleged that without investment in the research base, there wouldn’t be anything to commercialise.

David Bott’s presentation at the Policy Lunchbox was well received by all the attendees and led to some very interesting discussion afterwards. We would like to thank David Bott for his participation, and everyone who attended. The TSB report ‘Concept to Commercialisation’, which discusses the work of the TSB further is available online.

The next Policy Lunchbox event on 6th March will see Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, discuss ‘How can the Government incentivise private sector investment in research and development?’ This event is fully booked, but to join the waiting list you can contact me at the Biochemical Society.

Does the Forensic Science Service closure bring opportunity for stronger research in the field?

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

With discontent still surrounding the imminent transfer of all the Forensic Science Service’s (FSS) work to private providers and the police, one potential (emphasis on potential) silver lining is the extra attention research has been given in the inquiry.

The FSS previously spent £3-4 million per year on research and development, a significant hole which now needs to be filled for the sake of our justice system and competetiveness in this area. Furthermore, commercial forensic service providers have less incentive than the publicly funded FSS to conduct original research, particularly at a time when they need to rapidly expand their scientific services to shoulder the extra work they must now take on. To counter this, there are now growing calls for forensic science research to be incentivised within the public funding framework; by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB).

In December, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee held an evidence session at which they questioned Professor Bernard Silverman, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Home Office, on this issue. Professor Silverman spoke positively and said that he was undertaking discussions with the three aforementioned funders. With the FSS gone, the Home Office may no longer be seen as the ‘home’ of forensic science research, creating an onus on these three, who receive their funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. And, as Professor Jim Fraser, Director of the Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Strathclyde, said in his submission to the original inquiry: “The research councils talk a great deal about the ‘impact of research’. What could be more impactive than criminal justice?”

Whilst the Research Councils will not make forensic science an immediate ‘strategic priority’, Professor Silverman was enthusiastic that they are taking steps to stress the importance of research in this area. Continued political pressure will help them “rise to the challenge” (Silverman) and encourage innovative research in universities, for which they can be rewarded through the Research Excellence Framework.

Whilst it would be foolish to expect all the FSS’ research and development practises to be continued, this may well provide an opportunity for new, innovative and collaborative research to fill this gap.

Also attending the Science and Technology Committee evidence session were James Brokenshire MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Prevention) and Andrew Rennison (Forensic Science Regulator). Other items under discussion included the FSS archive and the creation of a new strategic group, which is expected to meet for the first time in April. An uncorrected transcript can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/uc1698-i/uc169801.htm

Impact – “how to keep the public onside with science”

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

Professor Stephen Curry, Professor of Structural Biology at Imperial College London and past contributor to The Biochemist recently spoke at the Heads of University Biological Sciences (HUBS) Winter Meeting 2011 about impact within the Research Excellence Framework (REF 2014). He has now written up his thoughts for the Times Higher Education (THE) magazine and invites thoughts on his blog, Reciprocal Space.

In the THE article he writes:
“The problems of measuring impact – however widely it is defined – are real, particularly with respect to evidence gathering. As a community, we should be wary of the process becoming a tail that wags the scientific dog. But I think there is no alternative but to engage as constructively as we can with the REF. It will not suffice to bleat at its inevitable flaws. We need to be more sophisticated and realistic when dealing with our political masters, who are the representatives of the public into whose purses we are permitted to dip… If nothing else, it will help us to assemble a fresh pile of stories about the success of UK science. Rightfully, it will also expose us to national problems and priorities that the country expects scientists to address.”

What do you think?

David Willetts at the London Science Festival

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

Minister for Universities and Science, RH David Willetts MP, gave the third annual Gareth Roberts Memorial Lecture last night, held at the Royal Society of Medicine and organised by the Science Council. Here’s a brief storify of some of the key points.

The Minister, understandably, opened with positive statements, drawing on the encouraging messages from the days report on the International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base (http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-innovation-analysis/uk-research-base).

“	Willetts: UK science in great shape. We punch above our weight. #roberts2011
	MarkatSocBiol October 19, 2011

“	Willetts on UK research: excel by making the most of what we have eg intelligence, international connections + infrastructure #Roberts2011
	LouWoodley October 19, 2011

“	UK still efficient in terms of research outputs but our internationalism is a key attribute says Willetts at #roberts2011
	DianaGarnham October 19, 2011

He made some interesting points about open access.

Although @Richvn made an important point later…

“	more citations per $ (BIS report) needn’t mean UK is more efficient. Cld be we focus spend on academic, not industrial science. #Roberts2011
	Richvn October 19, 2011

“	UK success ‘depends on openness’ David Willetts #roberts2011
	RobertMasseyRAS October 19, 2011

“	“Research should not be hidden behind a paywall” #roberts2011
	RobertMasseyRAS October 19, 2011

On capital funding, Willetts noted that six of the eight high priority capital funding projects from the Research Councils were to be funded, despite concerns about falling capital funding levels. Diamond Light Source is one of the projects.

“	MT @kaythaney Maximise impact through transparency and access (no £ walls), says Willetts. #Roberts2011 #LSF11 #scipolicy
	LouWoodley October 19, 2011

“	Almost half of science research publications from 2006-2010 included a collaborator from outside the UK #Roberts2011
	LouWoodley October 19, 2011

But he did ackowledge (briefly) that all is not perfect.

“	Willetts says that @DiamondLightSou’s funding is safe. #Roberts2011
	Psythor October 19, 2011

On the subject of the REF, an ongoing bone of contention with researchers, the Minister sought to do some myth-busting.

“	Not all rosy. We don’t exploit science as well. #roberts2011
	MarkatSocBiol October 19, 2011

“	Willetts: wants to address fears about impact #roberts2011
	RobertMasseyRAS October 19, 2011

“	Willetts: “No desire to strangle curiosity-driven research” #roberts2011
	RobertMasseyRAS October 19, 2011

“	Do not support focus on pockets of excellence alone. Lone researcher still important. #roberts2011
	MarkatSocBiol October 19, 2011

“	Peer review not perfect. But of course important. REF is all about quality. Not which journal. #roberts2011
	MarkatSocBiol October 19, 2011

“	More to do to ensure REF and research councils can foster multi disciplinarity #roberts2011
	DianaGarnham October 19, 2011

“	Is impact assessment a way around the narrowness and restrictions arising from publications hierarchy? #roberts2011
	DianaGarnham October 19, 2011

“	“Important that impact assessment panels ensure cross-disciplinary research doesn’t slip thru the cracks – need breadth” #Roberts2011
	LouWoodley October 19, 2011

He also announced a new technicians register. @OliOHanlon got his wish, if a litle later than hoped.

“	#roberts2011 waiting for Willetts to mention technicians
	OliOHanlon October 19, 2011

“	RSciTech – Registered Science Technician. #Roberts2011
	franknorman October 19, 2011

“	RSciTech launched by Science Minister tonight. Time to recognise and applaud the key role technicians play #roberts2011
	DianaGarnham October 19, 2011

The Minister pointed out that those who leave the ‘academic pipeline’ are not necessarily lost to science, but did acknowledge a problem and referred to the recent Science is Vital report (http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2011/10/06/careering-out-of-control-a-crisis-in-the-uk-science-profession/).

“	#roberts2011 am waiting from Willetts to mention #scicareers report from @ScienceIsVital
	ShaneMcC October 19, 2011

“	Should a long term research career be the expectation of science undergrads? Willetts now discussing science career pyramid #Roberts2011
	LouWoodley October 19, 2011

“	Willetts asks whether we need to tweak the shape of the research careers pyramid #Roberts2011
	franknorman October 19, 2011

“	#roberts2011 those leaving academia might not be lost to science but are they fulfilling their ambitions? Is the lack of opportunity a prob?
	ShaneMcC October 19, 2011

And he didn’t get it all his own way with the last question either, as Imran Khan from the Campaign for Science and Engineering pinned him down with a question about long-term capital investment.

“	Interesting time at #roberts2011 lecture. Willetts paints rosy view of future for uk research. Apparently not shared by @sciencecampaign
	Clmharvey October 19, 2011

If you want more…

“	Thx to Science Council for the David Willetts evnt at the Royal Society of Medicine last night… follow #ROBERTS2011 to catch up on tweets!
	LondonSciFest October 20, 2011

“	We’ll have a full podcast available of the Willetts #Roberts2011 lecture available in the next few days. Assuming no tech problems.
	poddelusion October 19, 2011

Update: Here’s the Pod delusion link – http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/10/20/david-willetts-on-science-policy-the-roberts-lecture-2011/

And a write-up at Nature blogs – http://blogs.nature.com/london/2011/10/20/london-science-festival-roberts-science-policy-lecture-with-david-willetts-mp

Update 2: And now the full text of the lecture – http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-gareth-roberts-science-policy-lecture-2011

David Willetts meets Cambridge University Science Society

This post was written by Michelle Brook, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.

Last night David Willetts MP Minister for Universities and Science spoke at Cambridge University Science Society on the subject of “The Coalition’s Vision for Science and Technology”.  Being an alumnus of the university and a life long member of the society, I thought I’d take the opportunity to listen to him speak to an almost exclusively academic audience – a very different one to that I typically hear him addressing.

Opening with an admission that the audience knows more about science than him, some of what Willetts had to say was expected: Cambridge was congratulated on being world class, and he emphasised that the university is deeply respected world wide.  The world class nature of Cambridge (as well as a number of other English Universities) and the requirement to protect these academic institutes was stated as the reason increased tuition fees were being introduced.  Once again the claim was made that the science budget has been protected in cash terms and ring-fenced – as opposed to the more accurate statement that the science resource budget has been protected in cash terms and ring – fenced, but that capital funding has not.   The issue around immigration and visas was raised and Willetts stated that he is trying to negotiate with the Home Office on Tier 4 (or student) visas, and that he is optimistic that they will “reach a satisfactory outcome”.  He said that he wanted to ensure properly qualified students will be able to enter the UK to attend British Universities, but also emphasised that there are abuses of the Tier 4 visa system at present which must be addressed .

Despite much of the content not being new – there were a number of points I considered worthy of note.  Whilst emphasising the importance of evidence in policy, Willetts said that politicians often had to make judgements based upon incomplete evidence.  He also emphasised that whilst the scientific evidence provided by physical and natural scientists is very important, that these subjects don’t provide the complete picture – and other disciplines are also vital.

I found it  encouraging to hear Willetts explicitly aligning himself with the science community – stating that innovation was crucial, as was generation of the “economic impact that we need to convince the Treasury of the argument” for  future financial support of UK science.

Clusters

Willetts provided an economic definition of a cluster: “a low risk environment for high risk activities”, stating that the Cambridge area certainly constituted such a cluster.  He added that whilst the government cannot create clusters, they can and should support them when they arise or have arisen, pointing out that clusters are infrastructure intensive – requiring, amongst other things good transport links.  Although the presently closed Oxford-Cambridge railway line was not mentioned, given that Willetts said that it could be argued that Oxford, Cambridge and London are part of a larger cluster, an argument can be seen for the importance of re-opening this railway line to complete the triangle in this larger cluster.

Careers

Willetts referred to some research on STEM graduates and careers that is expected today (4^th March 2011) – apparently we were the first audience to hear of the conclusions.  Whilst businesses often complain there is a shortage of STEM graduates, the UK produces a significant number of STEM graduates – above the European average. However, less than half of these STEM graduates go on to STEM related employment.  The research is expected to show that half way through their final year, 25% of undergraduates have not completed any job applications, and that there are high levels of uncertainty amongst these students as to what to do with their STEM qualification.

Willetts stated that this made these STEM graduates susceptible to recruit ment from other professions, such as consultancy, and that this was exacerbated by a very modest recruitment effort from SMEs.  As such, large numbers of STEM graduates are lost from the scientific career pipeline. Whilst Willetts views it as desirable to be spreading scientific understanding into the wider populations, to his mind, this leaky STEM pipeline does cause problems for science.

Part of this “leaky pipeline” comes back to the oft stated incomplete careers advice, and I presume there will be encouragement from the government towards SME’s and universities to improve their attempts to retain science graduates as active researchers.

Diversity

When I asked if he could give a ball park figure for how much the UKRC 2011- 2012 transitional funding would be (Annette Williams announced earlier this week that the UKRC had succeeded in wining some transitional funding from BIS), he said that “if he remembered correctly the figure was about £500,000”.  He went on to state that when this money ended he hoped to see a continuation and strengthening of women networks such as STEM ambassadors and STEMNET.

One thing that really struck me during the question and answer session was that many of the questions being asked were those that people working within science policy had already asked of Government – many of the answers to which are in the public domain.  There were many questions about immigration – such as the issues surrounding Tier 1 and Tier 2 visas, questions about the ACMD and why the government is trying to remove  requirements for specific science based knowledge from the ACMD  advisory panel.  These are all excellent questions – but they are questions that have been asked many times before – in a variety of forums, including but not limited to Select Committees evidence sessions.

This made me think that as a community, the science policy world isn’t as good as it could and should be at disseminating information into the scientific community and wider public – scientific academics and students at Cambridge are a cohort that could and should know more about these issues which directly affect them.  Whilst there appears to be increasing coverage of science policy issues in the media, somehow the information received by people working within policy isn’t being fed back effectively enough into the science community.  As a Learned Society who relies on the opinion and expertise held within its membership, this is an issue we are working to address.

A more informed audience might have been able to ask more subtle and searching questions of David Willetts, rather than asking questions that have previously been raised.

They may also feel more reassured  that some of the issues facing science, research and universities – such as immigration –  are being addressed and that the opportunity has been provided by Government for significant input from the scientific community (particularly through those working in science policy) on many of these issues.

Surely an increased confidence of the science community that the government isn’t trying to destroy British science can only be a good thing?