Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-191)
SIR JOHN
CHISHOLM, DR
MALCOLM SKINGLE,
TONY MCBRIDE
AND DR
IAN RITCHIE
29 MARCH 2006
Q180 Dr Iddon: Tony, have you anything
to add to that?
Mr McBride: Only to supplement
both those views. I think that there is a good track research
across the Research Councils of engagement with large R&D
intensive businesses. These organisations are very good at putting
their views forward as well so they seem to be candidates with
whom to communicate. There are other hard to reach communities
and the Research Councils have to do a better job of getting out
and meeting those people, particularly in the SME community to
fill in those gaps. I do not think the Research Councils can rely
on the usual suspects all the time, important though they are,
they need to broaden their engagement.
Dr Iddon: That is very clear, thank you.
Q181 Bob Spink: Does anyone think
that PPARC's requirement to consider knowledge transfer as part
of the standard grant process should be ceded as good practice
into the other Research Councils?
Dr Ritchie: I was on PPARC when
that was introduced and it seemed like an appropriate thing to
do and to ask. My question about that at the time was, is this
the right thing to do for the kind of science we are doing? If
you have something like gravitational waves, what is the exploitation
for that? Maybe we will have weightless machines in 50 years'
time or 100 years' time, who knows, but we are not going to have
that today. I think it is an appropriate question to ask but I
absolutely do not think you should make the scientific decisions
on whether there is a realistic answer to that question or not.
You should be making the decision dependant solely on the science.
Dr Skingle: I would endorse that
view. I think it is good that there is a reminder that people
should think about potential outcome, potential exploitation of
what they are doing. They should not necessarily be forced, you
need that portfolio, that basic and applied research mix for it
to be fruitful. Certainly one of my successes personally has come
from PPARC in the last 18 months or so where we have taken algorithms
that were used to look at the stars and we are now using them
in biomedical imaging. It is because PPARC were actively encouraging
the technology transfer through their PIPSS scheme.
Q182 Bob Spink: Does anyone think
that this requirement could impede blue skies fundamental research
in any way?
Sir John Chisholm: Can I express
a different view from my colleagues? Ian said earlier on that
exploitation came from serendipity which as a matter of fact is
true but I do not believe it is necessarily true. Certainly in
the field of defence research that is exactly how it used to be
done. When it became very much more focused the volume of exploitation
increased enormously, so I believe that even in funding research
you can be more focused upon the areas in which you are investing.
Those areas which are more likely to have a transfer are discernible
in advance and a considered research programme built around that
as an objective is more likely to be successful than simply serendipity.
Having said that, brilliant science inventions have a role and
I believe there should always be a component of any research programme
which is entirely unlimited and purely blue sky for the purpose
of civilisation. I think that is entirely legitimate. I think
one should just be very explicit about what one is doing and when
one wants to be blue sky, and purely focused on science for its
own sake, that is an entirely legitimate thing for a country like
the United Kingdom to do but you should be explicit if that is
what you are doing.
Q183 Bob Spink: As a potter specialising
in raku I understand serendipity.
Mr McBride: Specifically on that
question, in preparation I read the comments from Professor Mason
to this Committee when he talked about the PIPSS proposals being
accompanied by the knowledge transfer plan and I think it is a
good idea. It reminds me somewhat of the National Science Foundation
in America's criteria which includes a specification for the indication
of impact. I agree also that there might be concerns somewhere
in the Research Councils about how this would impede blue skies
research but I think it is clearly applicable more at the applied
end of the spectrum. I do not think it will necessarily over-burden
researchers.
Q184 Bob Spink: Could I start with
Tony and go along all of you, very quickly, it is a very short
answer. Do you think Research Councils should be involved in business
training, passing on commercialisation skills, entrepreneurial
skills, and if they should be involved do they do it well at the
moment?
Mr McBride: I think there is a
need for that. Our members have made this clear. I am aware that
they are doing some of that sort of training already. To my knowledge
they are doing this quite well with the engagement of some companies
as well.
Sir John Chisholm: There is a
need, as I have said before, for improvement of skills.
Dr Skingle: Yes, and they are
doing reasonably well.
Q185 Bob Spink: I thought EDA would
say that.
Dr Ritchie: I think it is worth
doing. My question would be whether the Research Councils should
be doing it or the regional development agencies should do that.
In Scotland Scottish Enterprise works with the Royal Society of
Edinburgh and they have got Enterprise Fellowships. We have about
15 of those a year. These are bright post-docs who basically get
support for a year. They get their salary paid for a year and
they get enterprise training for a year.
Bob Spink: I get the feeling there is
some sort of question on the inter-relationship between RDAs and
the Research Councils, would be an interesting line for us to
explore.
Q186 Margaret Moran: On intellectual
property rights, as you will have heard in the last session, and
we have heard in evidence, industry is sometimes very sceptical
of the way in which IPR is valued and used within university.
Ian, particularly, you have put forward an interesting quite specific
proposal on IPR. Do you think that the Research Councils should
be directly involved in proposals of that sort or is that something,
as they would say, that they need to create the climate rather
than direct the IPR proposal?
Dr Ritchie: I think there is an
argument that says the Research Councils should perhaps be more
directly involved. The UK used to have the British Technology
Group that did this stuff , and then a number of years ago it
was transferred and now the commercialisation rights to all research
is with the individual universities. The universities vary enormously
in quality here. The Lambert Report highlighted this. You have
the small universities who do not come across much of this stuff
and do it very badly. You have got the big universities who do
a lot better, Imperial College does a lot and is very good at
it. You have a whole range in between. It is very much a postcode
lottery basically depending on which university you are with whether
you can get a reasonable discussion with a commercialisation officer.
In general, and this was highlighted also in the Lambert Report,
universities have got an unrealistic recognition of the value
of the IPR. In the vast majority of cases, particularly in the
world I am in, where you are talking about start-up businesses
the things which happen in the lab is a proof of concept, it is
an idea, it has to be developed into a pilot, it has to be developed
into a prototype, it has to be marketed, and you have to bring
commercial and management people in and marketing people before
you can start running a business—a process which might take
three or four years. When the business is finally running the
ideas that are behind that business are only loosely connected
with the things which were in the lab and yet we have this problem,
and we have it perennially—I am a mentor to enterprise fellows
and so forth and I have this every year—the university commercialisation
people trying to assert ownership. In one case recently, they
wanted 35% of the equity. Until a year and a half ago Edinburgh
University had a thing called the non-dilutable 10% which was
a concept only known to universities, the real world does not
have non-dilutable anything but they had this non-dilutable 10%,
we take 10% of your company and after further investment, when
it is successful, we still have 10%. Extraordinary! That has gone,
thank goodness. We have all this variety of things. Actually just
professionalism into that whole process would help, I think. Far
be it from me to reinvent the old British Technology Group but
at least it was an outfit which knew what they were doing. I think
the Lambert Report suggested that there might be regional co-ordination
of this type of thing so perhaps a region could have a commercialisation
department and that might be a solution to it or it could be RCUK
could do it. I think we need a way of getting more professionalism
into it.
Sir John Chisholm: There has been
a burgeoning of technology transfer people in universities—a
vast burgeoning—most of whom, of course, come without a
big skill base of their own so they are learning on the job, and
of course they are largely funded by HEFCE and the Research Councils.
There has been this big burgeoning of people and, as Ian has said,
their first action quite often is to get in the way because they
are new to it. As Ian has also said, it is a characteristic of
all researchers to over-estimate the value of their particular
idea. That is true absolutely across the board. A tremendous amount
of the value gets created through the later process. Getting that
message through to this new growing core of technology development
people in universities is often a hard thing to do.
Q187 Margaret Moran: Is there a particular
model. we have been told about MRC, that could be applied and
who would apply it? Could it be RDAs or Research Councils?
Sir John Chisholm: The MRC has
a different place because, as I said earlier on, in the life sciences
actually there is more value in the original invention. I think
from our limited perspective the MRC are better organised than
the other Research Councils, possibly because they have a clearer
job to do there.
Dr Skingle: I think the Research
Councils should not be prescriptive in respect of forcing the
issue. They each have very different mechanisms. I think the rule
should be that whoever has the ability to protect intellectual
property adequately should be the one to do it as long as there
is some clear exploitation path. We usually look to own IPRs arising
from work that we fund but there is always a reward clause in
those agreements which I sign off on to ensure that there is remuneration
to the university if the exploitation is successful. We are going
to be fair and reasonable because obviously we want to go back
to those people and we want the universities to work with us.
Q188 Chairman: Can I thank you all
very much indeed. I think we have found it a fascinating journey
looking at knowledge transfer and it has become in vogue with
the Chancellor mentioning it a number of times in his Budget statement
this year. We are anxious to bring in Research Councils which
offer us really good practice and with the exception of PPARC,
that you all seem to think has got exceptionally good practice,
would you recommend anyone else? Is there any other Research Council
we should have in?
Dr Ritchie: I do not know quite
the scope. Are you looking also at the Funding Councils?
Q189 Chairman: No, we are just looking
at the Research Councils.
Dr Ritchie: The Funding Councils
have got this knowledge transfer category they are investing in
as well.
Q190 Chairman: We might come to that
in the future. In terms of the research, is there another good
example? We have mentioned the Medical Research Council for obvious
reasons, I take your point, John, but PPARC?
Dr Skingle: They each have different
things to offer. I do not think by picking on one you will see
a true effect. You have already had Keith O'Nions in, he sits
across the piece.
Q191 Chairman: What you are saying
is apart from PPARC and MRC you have misgivings?
Dr Skingle: I think each of them
do good things in different ways.
Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed.
We have enjoyed our session with you.
| 
