The Council for Science and Technology
35. Realising Our Potential proposed the replacement
of the Government's Advisory Council on Science and Technology
(ACOST) by the Council for Science and Technology (CST).[86]
The White Paper envisaged that the new Council would draw on the
findings of the Foresight programme and help to ensure that the
Government benefited from outside, independent advice when deciding
its research spending priorities. It was also stated that information
generated by the Council would normally be made openly available.
The CST reports formally to the Prime Minister and since 1995
it has been nominally chaired by the Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry.
36. In its first few years, the CST does not appear
to have operated very effectively.[87]
In March 1998, the Council was re-established with clearer, more
comprehensive terms of reference, increased independent membership
and commitments to publish an annual report, its advice and information
about its work.[88]
Despite these changes, we still received evidence that ACOST was
more influential and active.[89]
37. In our Report on the implications of the Dearing
Report in 1998, we recommended that the changes to the CST be
widely disseminated so that the Council's work carried the confidence
of the wider research community.[90]
Although, since this time, the CST has launched a website which
includes information about its membership, work and meetings,
several of our witnesses were unaware of its activities.[91]
Although we realise that its primary role is to advise Government,
we consider that further efforts should be made to disseminate
the Council for Science and Technology's work more widely.
38. Since its re-launch the CST has produced three
substantive advisory reports: a Review of Science and Technology
Activity Across Government, July 1999; Technology Matters, February
2000; and Science Teachers, February 2000. Our evidence suggests
that these reports were highly regarded.[92]
We examined the work of the CST- which is described by OST as
the "Government's premier advisory body"- in our recent
Report on the Scientific Advisory System.[93]
In that Report we questioned the influence the CST's reports had
on Government policy. The Government has published an implementation
plan in response to the CST's S&T Review and an initial response
to the Science Teachers Report.[94]
Each of these responses took almost a year to produce and we still
await a published response to the Technology Matters report. As
we recommended in our Scientific Advisory System Report, the
Government should give more prominence to the activities of the
Council for Science and Technology and respond to its recommendations.[95]
Technology Transfer
39. At the time of Realising Our Potential,
the Government had in place a number of activities for promoting
the transfer of technology and knowledge between the science and
engineering base and industry. These included:
- the LINK scheme - which supports pre-competitive
research projects with 50% or more of the funding provided by
industry;[96]
- the Teaching Company Scheme - which facilitates
the transfer of knowledge from universities to industry though
the employment of an Associate who works in collaboration with
industry and academic staff;[97]
and
- Co-operative Awards in Science and Engineering
(CASE) studentships - where the student is funded in part by industry
and also conducts some research there.
40. Many of the policies outlined in Realising
Our Potential were designed to encourage closer contact and
exchange between the science and engineering base and industry.
The Government undertook to develop its schemes for technology
transfer "to re-emphasise the importance of the interchange
of ideas, skills, know-how and knowledge".[98]
A number of new technology transfer schemes were introduced, including:
- · Faraday Partnerships - which bring
together networks of organisations that share a common sector
or technology interest to promote improved interactions between
the UK science and engineering base and industry;
- the Higher Education Reach Out to Business and
the Community Fund (HEROBC) - which provides incentive funding
for institutions to build a sustainable and broadly based capability
to respond to the needs of industry and the community;
- the Science Enterprise Challenge - which aims
to raise awareness of the importance of business enterprise at
all levels within universities and foster understanding and co-operation
between academics and the business world to ensure the commercial
exploitation of technological innovation; and
- the University Challenge - which contributes
towards seedcorn funding for the development of new commercial
initiatives.
41. Excellence and Opportunity built on these
schemes, and included:
- the Higher Education Innovation Fund - (incorporating
HEROBC) to increase universities' capability to work with industry,
particularly small firms;
- Business Fellows - to lead their academic colleagues
in working with industry; and
- a further round of University Challenge and additional
Faraday Partnerships.[99]
42. Our evidence suggests that, since Realising
Our Potential, universities have improved their technology
transfer capabilities and links with industry.[100]
There are some notable centres of expertise but the full benefit
of technology transfer activities have yet to materialise across
the board; indeed perhaps it is too early to see clear returns.[101]
It is suggested that there are a number of barriers to effective
technology transfer. In some universities technology transfer
is not recognised as a high enough priority or is perceived to
be against the institution's culture. There is a shortage of relevant
expertise in some universities and little awareness of best practice.[102]
It is suggested that some of these barriers could be overcome
by stimulating greater collaboration and joint working between
academic technology transfer units.[103]
We recommend that the Government encourage greater collaboration
and joint working to develop best practice on technology transfer
across universities and to enhance the commercial exploitation
of research.
43. Many of our witnesses have argued that the number
of schemes to foster technology transfer is excessive, that they
need rationalisation and the bureaucracy of the application processes
is cumbersome.[104]
In the longer term Government should look to rationalise the
plethora of technology transfer schemes aiming to develop a simplified,
flexible unbureaucratic approach. However, new schemes should
be allowed to bed down: there is a long absorption period before
people get to know of their existence. All too often a scheme
is abolished or redesigned just as it is becoming well established.
Mr Byers candidly admitted the tendency for Secretaries of State
to announce bright new initiatives, and accepted that there was
a need to simplify, and focus, the schemes available.[105]
Ministers should resist the temptation to launch new schemes
when it would be better to strengthen existing ones.
44. The Wellcome Trust suggests that a clear strategy
or framework be developed which would set the variety of funding
schemes in context.[106]
This would also assist in comparative evaluation of technology
transfer schemes and show where gaps exist. We recommend that
the Government develop an overarching strategy for technology
transfer activities and publish a framework to be actively promoted
to all interested parties.
45. People are key in transferring knowledge between
academia and industry and vice versa. A number of schemes exist
to facilitate secondments, but it has been suggested that they
are not well used.[107]
One specific proposal is that there should be a route to transfer
senior scientists between academia and SMEs, in the life sciences.[108]
We recommend that Government promote secondment schemes more
actively and consider expanding those already in existence.
46. Intellectual property (IP) is a major area of
concern. On the one hand there is concern that academics lack
appreciation of IP and, on the other, that higher education institutionsS
focus too strongly on short term gain, seeing IP as an immediate
third source of income.[109]
In the US, by contrast, universities are said to perceive their
work in technology transfer as primarily a contribution to the
universities' public or civic role, though of course they are
much better funded.[110]
As we said in our January 2000 Report on innovation in engineering
and the physical sciences,[111]
universities must protect their intellectual property appropriately,
in the long term interest of both the university and the United
Kingdom as a whole. The funding regime may need to be changed
to allow the universities to take a longer term perspective.
47. Excellence and Opportunity outlined a
number of key measures to improve handling of IP. These include:
- changing the rules for Government funded research,
so that research bodies own their own IPR;
- issuing new guidelines on incentives and risk-taking
for staff in public sector research establishments; and
- a new fund (£10 million) for commercialising
research done in the public sector.[112]
The introduction of these new initiatives is timely.
The DTI's Competitiveness Indicators have shown that UK underperforms
nearly all its major competitors in terms of patents and needs
to improve commercial exploitation of university research.[113]
The management of Intellectual Property is critical if the
UK is to be competitive in the global knowledge driven economy.
43 Cm 2250, paragraph 1.18. Back
44
Cm 2250, paragraph 2.27. Back
45
HC 466-iii, Session 1999-2000, Q 106. Back
46
HC 466-iv, Session 1999-2000, p 44, issue 11 OST. Back
47
HC 274-i, Q 37. Back
48
Evidence, p 148, paragraph 2.10; p 182, paragraph 2. Back
49
Evidence, p 190, paragraph 2. Back
50
Evidence, p 102, paragraph 11. Back
51
HC 274-i, Q 37. Back
52
Evidence, p 101, paragraph 3; p 91, paragraph 3; p 135, paragraph
1; p 113, paragraph 2. Back
53
Evidence, p 91, paragraph 3; p 102, paragraph 10; p 113, paragraph
2. Back
54
Evidence, p 113, paragraph 2. Back
55
Evidence, p 137, paragraph 5. Back
56
HC 196-I, paragraph 50. Back
57
HC 723, Appendix, recommendation (g). Back
58
Evidence, p 102, paragraph 10; p 147, paragraph 2.9; p 155,
paragraph 8; p 175, paragraph 7. Back
59
Evidence, p 164; p 168, paragraph 8; p 190, paragraph 2. Back
60
HC 723, Appendix, recommendation (g). Back
61
HC 466-iv, p 44, issue 13. Back
62
Cm 2250, paragraph 1.18. Back
63
Cm 2250, paragraph 3.26. Back
64
Cm 2250, paragraphs 3.26, 3.27. Back
65
Evidence, p 85, paragraph 14; p 133, paragraph 11; p 158, paragraph
32. Back
66
Evidence, p 157, paragraph 31. Back
67
HC 466-iv, p 40, issue 3. Back
68
Evidence, p 141. Back
69
HC 466-iii, Q 112. Back
70
HC 466-iv, Q 168. Back
71
HC 466-iv, p 42, issue 8. Back
72
Cm 2250, paragraph 1.18. Back
73
HC 466-iv, p 42, issue 8. Back
74
Evidence, p 85, paragraph 12; p 115, paragraphs 6-7; p 166;
p 170, paragraph 22; p 192, paragraph 6; p 213. Back
75
Evidence, p 72, paragraph 6; p 92, paragraph 15; p 182, paragraph
2. Back
76
HC 466-ii, Q 96; Evidence, p 92, paragraph 15. Back
77
HC 466-iii, Q 114. Back
78
HC 466-iv, Q 175. Back
79
Evidence, p 93, paragraph 17; p 138, paragraph 13. Back
80
Evidence, p 166; p 192, paragraph 6. Back
81
Evidence, p 85, paragraph 13; pp 125-126, paragraph 6; p 138,
paragraph 13; p 157, paragraph 23. Back
82
HC 466-iv, p 40, issue 10. Back
83
Evidence, p 126, paragraph 6. Back
84
HC 466-iv, p 40, issue 10. Back
85
See www.dti.gov.uk/ost . Back
86
Cm 2250, paragraph 1.18. Back
87
HC 466-iv, Q 214. Back
88
HC 466-iv, p 45, issue 14. Back
89
HC 466-iii, Q 131. Also Evidence, p 125, paragraph 3. Back
90
First Report, Session 1997-98, The Implications of the Dearing
Report for the Structure and Funding of University Research,
HC 303-I, paragraph 110. Back
91
Evidence, p 92, paragraph 5; p 98, paragraph 2.3; p 102, paragraph
12; p 138, paragraph 11. Back
92
Evidence, p 75, paragraph 6; p 169, paragraph 21; p 125, paragraph
3. Back
93
Fourth Report, Session 2000-01, The Scientific Advisory System,
HC 257, paragraph 14. See also paragraph 44. Back
94
See www.cst.gov.uk . Back
95
HC 257, paragraph 14. Back
96
Cm 2250, paragraph 3.35. Back
97
Cm 2250, paragraph 7.18. Back
98
Cm 2250, paragraph 1.18. Back
99
Cm 4814, chapter 1, paragraph 35. Back
100
HC 466-ii, p 12, paragraph 16. HC 466-v, page 53, paragraph
4. Evidence, p 206. Back
101
Evidence, p 191, paragraph 4. HC 466-ii, p 13, paragraph 17. Back
102
Evidence, p 206. Back
103
Evidence, p 118, paragraph 18. Back
104
Evidence, p 73, paragraph 4.3; p 115, paragraph 4; p 118, paragraph
18; p 192, paragraph 5. Back
105
HC 274-i, Q 17. Back
106
Evidence, p 118, paragraph 18. Back
107
HC 466-v, page 53, paragraph 4. Back
108
Evidence, p 92, paragraph 13. Back
109
Evidence, p 191, paragraph 4; p 206. Back
110
Professor Alan Windle, Foundation for Science and Engineering
(27 February 2001). Back
111
Second Report, Session 1999-2000, Engineering and Physical
Sciences Based Innovation, HC 195-I,
paragraph 72. Back
112
Cm 4814, chapter 3, paragraph 40. Back
113
UK Competitiveness Indicators: Second Edition, DTI, February
2001, pp 56, 59. Back
