Select Committee on Science and Technology Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 46

Memorandum submitted by Dr R D Worswick, Government Chemist and Chief Executive, LGC

1.  INTRODUCTION

  LGC is the UK's largest independent analytical laboratory. It occupies a unique position between the regulator and regulated, providing advice, validation, consultancy and research services to customers in both the public and private sectors. The company has a unique structure, with its shares jointly owned by the management and staff, 3i plc and the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). The RSC advises the Government chemist and DTI on the discharge of the Government Chemist's duties and monitors LGC's independence and quality of science.

  With its headquarters in Teddington, and its North West base in Runcorn, LGC employs over 400 staff, including those in its subsidiary companies, University Diagnostics Ltd and Pipeline Developments Ltd. LGC also has European offices in France, Spain and Sweden.

  The Government Chemist is appointed at LGC by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to fulfil specific statutory duties as referee analyst in cases of dispute, and to provide advice for government and the wider analytical community on the implications of analytical science for matters of policy, standards and regulation.

2.  THE 2000 SCIENCE AND INNOVATION WHITE PAPER FOCUSES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON "SCIENCE PUSH" AND TAKES TOO LITTLE ACCOUNT OF THE INDUSTRIAL SITUATION AND DYNAMICS

  The origins of the White Paper in the Office of Science and Technology are all too clear in its emphasis upon the academic science base as the engine of innovation. The approach risks disproportionate emphasis on the supply side, and sails close to discredited linear models of innovation. It is disappointing that the strategy takes little evident account of the widely differing capacities of industry to respond to an increased drive from the science base. We have an innovation policy that addresses primarily the technically sophisticated companies, and even they are stretched to respond.

  More help for universities to become drivers of innovation will be effective only if their skills in identifying potential for wealth creation are improved and if the other players along the innovation chain are positioned, resourced and prepared to be driven. The White Paper does nothing to counter the damaging bias of knowledge transfer schemes towards the supply side, and their limited reach. Current innovation policy takes insufficient account of industry developments (restructuring, delayering, globalisation) that influence receptiveness of the knowledge transfer message. There is room for doubt whether the new "Reach Out" fund will enable universities to find many new industrialists ready to grasp the helping hand. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a receptive ear in delayered companies for a message about extramural innovation. Technically sophisticated SMEs with established relations with major companies and the science base are a soft target for innovation policy.

  Again, business incubators and science parks are clearly effective for technically-based spin-outs, but they do little to foster innovation in established companies. There is, moreover, room for doubt whether universities are well placed to provide local technical support for any significant span of industry. The culture of science base training, often part time, for local industrial staff and close contact with local industrial requirements departed with the polytechnics; it has been replaced by one that values liaison with more technically sophisticated companies, wherever they are to be found.

3.  INNOVATION IN MEASUREMENT SCIENCE MERITS GREATER ATTENTION FOR ITS CONTRIBUTION TO INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

  Few would dispute the priority for science policy of the greater pressure on material resources and the environment, for sustainable development, for sound science in responding to consumer and environmental concerns that threaten competitiveness, for priority accorded to biomolecular science and its underpinning disciplines. All these have clear implications for innovation in chemical and biochemical measurement. Science-based risk assessment is central in responding to consumer and environmental concerns within trade and competitiveness policy. Government's £38million annual expenditure on the National Measurement System was a striking omission from the 2000 Science and Innovation White Paper.

  No fewer than 75 per cent of companies across the pharmaceuticals/agrochemicals, chemicals/petroleum, medical/health and food/drink/tobacco sectors declare that chemical and biochemical analysis is an essential business function. The turnover of the UK analytical business exceeds £7billion. It follows that innovation in analysis is an important component of the national performance. The declaration by Foresight that UK analysis was "lagging behind" stimulated activity to raise the level of play, through the Royal Society of Chemistry, EPSRC and DTI. It is important for Government to sustain and extend this new drive for analytical excellence in parallel with using it to drive innovation within the new strategy.

  The requirement to secure wider innovation benefits from Government's R&D spending on defence has long been recognised, but there are opportunities too in departmental research programmes in health, food, safety and the environment. Risk assessment is commonly their focus and analytical science their cornerstone. It follows that the innovation most likely to be drawn from these programmes lies in analytical science, perhaps through novel operational approaches, instruments, test kits and sensors. The current pressure to keep regulatory science and advice clearly separated from industry could be seen as a barrier, but an initiative to improve the scientific support for risk assessment would be a valuable contribution to improving the public's perception of government's dealing with science. There is, similarly, significant potential for wider analytical innovation from Government's research into fighting crime. Drawing the Home Office meaningfully into a UK science and innovation strategy is a clear requirement.

4.  INNOVATION POLICY SHOULD TAKE GREATER ACCOUNT OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATIONS (RTOS) AS IMPORTANT INTERMEDIARY PLAYERS

  RTOs can drive innovation more effectively than universities and yet the White Paper is silent about them. A broader industrial audience could be reached through knowledge transfer schemes delivered through RTOs, who have a clearer understanding of—and closer connections with—industry sectors than the science base. The examples of Germany and Holland show how effective intermediary organisations can be in this mode.

  Intermediary organisations and consultants are more secure and credible sources of advice on technical processes and problem solving than universities. Independent market research commissioned by LGC shows that academic institutes were thought to provide added value to only 14 per cent of companies questioned. Knowledge transfer clubs seem to have fallen undeservedly from favour in innovation policy, but have much to offer with good management and the use of IT.

  The RTOs are also well placed to contribute to industrial training in technology, perhaps in collaboration with the science base. The Science and Innovation White Paper misses a trick in neither acknowledging nor seeking to capitalise upon their value.

20 December 2000





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 3 April 2001