Examination of Witnessess (Questions 240-259)
PROFESSOR JOHN
O'REILLY, PROFESSOR
IAN DIAMOND,
PROFESSOR KEITH
MASON AND
PROFESSOR PHILIP
ESLER
19 APRIL 2006
Q240 Dr Harris: All these pots of
money from the DTI are for knowledge transfer, okay, and there
is not any basic science-without-knowledge-transfer application
that will succeed in getting that money. It is biased in favour
of knowledge transfer. It is exclusive to that. Is it not appropriate
therefore that the research council stream, which is to do the
best science, not pure, not applied, but the best, should not
be subject to the temptation for you to sing this song as well
because there is earmarked funding for that and as soon as you
start going down this path people think that we are no longer
funding the best science?
Professor Diamond: I think we
have all made it very clear that the best science is the criterion
for funding from the research councils and that that will remain
so. What we would say is that the best science can sometimes be
informed at the earliest stage by interaction with potential stakeholders,
and again it is also appropriate that we work to identify those
areas of our portfolio where there is the opportunity to maximise
knowledge transfer, and I think John wants to add something.
Professor O'Reilly: Two things
if I might. First of all, when I was speaking previously we were
talking about pure research and applied research and then you
mentioned the distinction between pure research and knowledge
transfer. I do not like the pure research/applied research division,
but I like even less the equating of applied research, whatever
it means, to knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer is actually
about the process. So there is room for confusion there; just
to clarify that. But then specifically on this point I merely
wanted to say—and it is an approach thing—that for
over 10 years now on an EPSRC application form for a research
grant, that is a grant to engage in frontier research, a question
that has been asked is, "Please identify the beneficiaries
of this research". What that is doing is embedding it and
orientating people. In some cases they will say, "The beneficiaries
of this piece of mathematics are other mathematicians for the
more complete view we will have of mathematics in something obscure
like Ramsay theory". But in other cases they will say, "This
research on photonics has potential benefit eventually in telecommunications",
or whatever, and that I believe is what has stimulated applicants
to say, "I will go and talk to the companies to see whether
they wish to engage with us".
Q241 Dr Harris: I understand; I accept
that, and you have this paragraph or aspect because it stimulates
that thinking and that does advise the process, which is a good
thing. Should you not do the same for Science in Society issues
because there is a need for science to do that?
Professor Mason: We do.
Q242 Dr Harris: Should you not do
the same for career development issues, and I know Professor Mason
is interested in this, because there is a real problem, particularly
with the gender balance, in some of the research councils, including
two represented here? Why stop at knowledge transfer and, if you
do, it is in Science in Society? Why not look at this again and
say, "Right: if we want to change the thinking and put it
in grant applications we will do it for all the things that it
is necessary for", not just pick on one where you appear
to be under more pressure from the Government and industry to
do it?
Professor Diamond: If you take,
for example, ESRC, with our larger centres that we fund, the passage
of development and career development are absolutely critical
things that we ask our potential centre directors to highlight
how they will add to those, so where appropriate—and again
I absolutely deliberately use the words "where appropriate"—in
our funding schemes we do ask for a portfolio of activities, but
the fundamental point that I return to if I may is that the absolute
criterion for funding is the brilliance of the science.
Q243 Dr Harris: That was not the
point I was making. I was talking about using the grant application
as a way of catalysing. We can return to it at another point—
Professor O'Reilly: It exists
on our form for any applicant. We do not mandate it. It is encouraged
and the way it works in EPSRC is that anyone who receives a grant
from EPSRC can apply for additional top-up training in relation
to training in the engagement process in the Science in Society
arena. So where they have a post-doc and a grant and they see
an opportunity, it is an automatic thing and they are encouraged
to do it.
Q244 Dr Harris: My final question
is about the definitions of knowledge transfer. We are told on
the one hand where you can spot that there is a difference between
RCUK and the different research councils. The External Challenge
Panel seem to think that yes, that was a problem but it was probably
best that it was not made too narrow at this point. Does it matter?
Are you confident that everyone knows what we are talking about
and that the chase for a common definition is pointless, or do
you think there is merit in that now?
Professor Diamond: I think the
chase for a simple, one-line common definition is perhaps an academic
debate if you wish to have one. What there is is an important
breadth of knowledge transfer activity which this country, as
John earlier said, has to become as renowned for as it is renowned
for the knowledge creation, and the actual breadth of that definition
I think has already been highlighted by the responses that you
have had from four research councils here, so I think it better
personally that we identify all we are trying to achieve and we
make sure that we achieve it as effectively as possible.
Q245 Margaret Moran: We have heard
evidence from, amongst others, the CBI that the research councils
do not have sufficient in-house expertise to deal with knowledge
transfer. We have also heard suggestions in the previous sessions
that perhaps it is not just a question of training all staff in
research councils but that maybe there should be intermediaries
with business skills as between the research councils and those
organisations involved in knowledge transfer. What is your view
of that? If it is in the negative, what would you propose to do?
Professor Diamond: If I might
speak for ESRC, you will have seen in the Challenge Report that
we have been praised for our use of retired business professionals
to act as intermediaries. It has been very helpful there with
ESRC in starting to engage some of the conversations that I think
are essential. Certainly we would not claim within house to have
all the expertise to do that, so the use of research brokers for
ESRC has been extremely effective and will continue to be part
of our strategy.
Q246 Adam Afriyie: John, you were
talking a bit earlier about the need to communicate with business
and to interact with business, and I note that many of the staff
recruited in research councils are from outside the academic sector,
which obviously must be a right move. Was this a carefully considered
strategic decision, and if so, what do you consider the advantages
but also the disadvantages of recruiting from outside the academic
sector and so on?
Professor O'Reilly: I think the
strategic decision was to say that we needed to have a breadth
of expertise within our staff. We can do that partly at the recruitment
stage—so recruiting from a spectrum. That was one of the
ways in which we were addressing that. The other is to do it through
training and experience. In addition, we have had people engaged
in secondments as part of our on-going process to develop this
rich spectrum of expertise. Indeed, we view it as valuable that
this is both ways. You will find that we have taken secondments
from industry into the research councils for a short period for
them to gain greater understanding of where we are and then send
some of our people back into that company to learn the other side.
I do think that is really important. This transfer thing sounds
too much one-way if we are not careful! It is about a shared understanding
of something quite complex that is what we are trying to achieve.
Q247 Adam Afriyie: In the same way,
it strikes me that you do not appear to have a team that is dedicated
to knowledge transfer, so is that another strategic decision?
Professor O'Reilly: Yes.
Q248 Adam Afriyie: Again, what are
the benefits and also the disadvantages of not having a dedicated
knowledge transfer team?
Professor O'Reilly: That is a
strategic decision. We are evolving, but what we feel is important
is that we embed it solidly within the bulk of what we do. To
be blunt, if we were to have a team the risk would be that it
was small; over here and ghettoised, if you see what I mean. It
is far more important than that—and far more effective to
embed this solidly in what we do. You will find that a lot of
my staff, who you would not say are primarily there for knowledge
transfer, are engaged in our knowledge transfer activities—particularly
in our business sector work. We have a whole raft of things that
we do with industry sectors. Just recently—and it is stimulated
again by the ten-year framework and the things that came from
that (I previously mentioned the two key output targets, essentially
the research and the better exploitation)—what we have just
done in a reorganisation following consideration is to set up
two very senior level co-ordinated roles within EPSRC. One is
to focus on the core research and the other to focus on the business
of better exploitation. I am giving them teams of people, not
100% of a person but a set of people, where a significant fraction
of their time will be to work with that co-ordinator to make sure
that it is strongly embedded right across the councils and in
what we do. That is the approach we are taking and it was, as
you say, Adam, a conscious strategic decision to do it that way.
Q249 Chairman: Can I quickly say,
John, that Bob and I were in Israel a couple of weeks ago at the
Weizmann Institute and what was an interesting concept there was
that they had a separate company which dealt with the knowledge
that was coming out of their basic research, a delegated company
whose job it was to broker all that information. Clearly that
is an idea which has been taken up elsewhere. Is that something
you feel should become standard practice across the research councils?
Professor O'Reilly: Chairman,
I do not think it is. You will find that exists in some research
councils—for example essentially that is what MRC have with
MRC Ventures. That is appropriate for the intellectual property
(IP) which is created by their own scientists in their own institutes.
Part of their funds also go into universities, then the IPs is
in the universities, and you will find that universities themselves
have those entities. That is where we are at. If you now look
at EPSRC as not having institutes, and consciously and deliberately
operating with the universities, we are very keen to enable the
universities to make the best use of the intellectual property
that is created by their scientists and engineers with the funds
that they win through the excellence competition.
Q250 Bob Spink: I want to look at
the schemes for knowledge transfer and the co-ordination between
the different research councils on this. John already explained
that the research councils are quite different and a varied set
of bodies, so it is not surprising that there will be a few different
schemes or even several different schemes. There are very many
schemes, and the Campaign for Science and Engineering found from
the BBSRC website that there were 14 different schemes. They talked
about fragmentation and confusion. Do you think there is fragmentation
and confusion?
Professor Diamond: I do not think
there is. It is not only the nature of the heterogeneity between
research councils but the nature of the heterogeneity of need
at different stages of the research life course for different
schemes, so that if we did not have a wide variety of schemes
then one would need to serve you one pot and say, "Well,
come in with whatever". I think by having a wide variety
of schemes what one is able to do is to identify areas which we
know have been seen to work in the past and which are useful in
moving forward. It also enables research councils, where there
is the opportunity, to work together, and RCUK's knowledge transfer
group identifies areas for working together, for example, the
business plan competition.
Q251 Bob Spink: I will come on to
the knowledge transfer group in a moment. I think it is rather
novel that you are arguing somehow, or you seem to be arguing,
this macho demand that each one will have a different scheme in
different circumstances, that there is this massive variety of
schemes which is enabling people to work together it seems rather
a novel argument.
Professor Diamond: If I may, it
is not a novel argument. What I am saying is that in research
councils we have appropriate schemes for appropriate parts of
individual research councils. Where appropriate we work together
across research councils. There are a number of examples where
groups of research councils are working together on one scheme
and that is a good thing. You would not expect that to happen
across the entire piece.
Q252 Bob Spink: Is there anywhere
within the whole range of research councils someone who has looked
at all these different schemes, all the different models and the
environments in which they are operated and come up with some
sort of report on whether there is a need for all these different
schemes or whether there is some good practice to be seen, some
commonality and some co-ordination that could be gained?
Professor Diamond: That is precisely
what the knowledge transfer group does.
Professor O'Reilly: The answer
is yes, they do that. What I would say, Mr Spink, is, first of
all, let me put my position to you. My ideal research council
has only one scheme, so I am with you on that, but it is a scheme
which is infinitely flexible. Let me underscore that last word;
flexibility is the issue. Lincoln said something like, "Important
principles may and should be flexible". He was right, and
in this that is where we are. I have found that whilst my ideal
is one scheme and getting people to use the flexibility within
it, it is often very, very helpful to have something specific
that people can relate to in order to stimulate change. That is
often where an individual scheme has come about. It is about stimulating
the change. We introduced co-operative awards in science and engineering
as a form of studentship and then evolved that into Industrial
CASE where we have allocated these to the industry to evolve the
change and so on. Over time these things come and then go and
it is a changing landscape. Let me go back to "flexible".
That is what is important for working together. It does not matter
that we have different schemes so long as we have the recognition
of the value of coming together and the willingness to be flexible
to do it. And then the different schemes are ways of stimulating
people to realise what they can do. This is an area, I am afraid,
where so easily people—and I am talking about our colleagues
out there in the university system—operate on the basis
of—if we are not careful—and "obviously if it
is not specifically allowed then it is forbidden". We have
to send the message that it really is allowed: it is the other
way round as far as we are concerned.
Professor Mason: In PPARC we operate
exactly such a thing, a single fund with infinite flexibility.
Coming back to the point which Dr Harris made on the knowledge
transfer plan, that is part of the purpose of the knowledge transfer
plan, so we can identify exactly what the needs of particular
programmes are and steer them in the right part of this flexible
space and into the right funding mechanism for that particular
activity.
Q253 Bob Spink: We have got to play
devil's advocate, and we have got to ask these questions and test
you on these things. Clearly, Ian, you feel that the knowledge
transfer group is useful, effective and performing a decent purpose
at the moment. What are its current goals?
Professor Diamond: The knowledge
transfer group is one of a set of RCUK groups which brings together
the leads on this particular area of knowledge transfer to share
best practice, to identify areas where there is the opportunity
to work together and where those opportunities have been identified,
to take them forward and maximise the effectiveness of them. I
think it is doing pretty well in those areas. It is a group which
has been going for a couple of years and which is on an upward
trajectory. I hope, Mr Spink, that as we meet over time we will
agree that it is really working effectively to become a focal
point for RCUK activity.
Q254 Bob Spink: I am sure it will.
You have not given us specific goals and I would not expect you
to have them off the cuff, of course.
Professor Diamond: I would be
very happy to send you the terms of reference.
Q255 Bob Spink: But it will presumably
have a set of objectives that it is working to. If you can let
us have it, that would be great.
Professor Diamond: I will send
those to you.
Q256 Bob Spink: How does RCUK help
research councils to achieve knowledge transfer? Would anybody
like to speak up on that?
Professor O'Reilly: With RCUK
it is important to recognise what it is. RCUK is the research
councils working together. The question is, "How do research
councils working together help us to achieve our objectives in
knowledge transfer?" I have rephrased it because that is
what RCUK is. Then it is blindingly obvious, is it not?—which
is the sharing of best practice between research councils.
Q257 Bob Spink: Do not do an Evan
Harris on me!
Professor O'Reilly: You see where
I am at, Mr Spink. Once you realise that is what RCUK is, then
the rest follows.
Professor Diamond: Mr Spink, we
do work together and we do talk at all levels together. The knowledge
transfer group is an example of RCUK because it is eight research
councils working together and identifying best practice together.
We as chief executives meet again and work together as research
councils. This is an area where we have identified that it would
not be appropriate to have one unit trying to do a one-size fits
all model because of the wide variety that I hope we have enriched
you with today, but it is an area where we do believe it is important
that we do meet and work together. As John has said, the RCUK
is research councils working together and this is an area in which
we do work together.
Q258 Chairman: How do you know you
achieve anything? Why is it not just a glorified talking shop
where you have a nice luncheon?
Professor Diamond: Chairman, you
could very, very easily look at a long list of activities which
have been achieved by getting together, identifying potential
opportunities for partnership, identifying best practice and then
taking them forward.
Q259 Chairman: Tell me one outstanding
achievement?
Professor Diamond: If we take
the business plan competition, research councils are working together
to deliver this. As we said to you there is one example of something
that came out of the competition which has now gone into production
and is being taken forward. The business plan competition is an
example of research councils working together, crossing boundaries
and showing an opportunity for the community to work. There are
other areas where it would not be appropriate for research councils
to—
| 
