Co-ordination of UK support for
knowledge transfer
20. Although there are many sources of funding for
knowledge transfer across the UK, the co-ordination between them
has been questioned. Professor Snowden, Vice Chancellor of the
University of Surrey, told us of "a high degree of disconnect
between the very many different groups involved [in knowledge
transfer]"[45] and
we heard from the Institute of Physics of the importance that
"all publicly-funded research reflects a coherent national
strategy, rather than the fragmented set of strategies that we
have at present".[46]
The Confederation for British Industry (CBI) also told us of "concerns
over the nature of the UK's approach to public support for science,
R&D and innovation, particularly the fact that it is characterised
by this high number of small schemes each distributing a small
portion of the pot".[47]
It believes that the Government should "investigate opportunities
for merging funding schemes operated by the major funders of the
research base (including the Research Councils) around agreed
national priorities".[48]
Criticism of UK co-ordination in Research and Development is not
new. The House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee
previously recommended that "the Government should establish
a forum for the Office of Science and Technology (including the
Research Councils), Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and other
key players, that meets regularly to address the impact of and
synergy between national and regional SET [Science, Engineering
and Technology] investments and, as far as possible, harmonise
them".[49]
21. There were specific complaints with regard to
co-ordination between RDAs and Research Councils. The Lambert
review emphasised that regional links between business and academia
were important for promoting innovation".[50]
RDAs are therefore increasing their support of business innovation
as part of their Regional Economic Strategies, and have received
significant levels of funding toward their science and technology
activities (£360 million over 2005-06).[51]
Within the Research Councils there is good understanding of UK
research strengths, whilst RDAs have expertise in regional business
strengths and requirements. We agree with Professor Diana Green,
Vice Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, that "there
is a great opportunity for some joined up thinking".[52]
22. Professor Murphy, from BAe Systems and Chair
of the External Challenge Panel, claimed that there is a general
lack of expertise in knowledge transfer within RDAs. He told us
that "for historical reasons, the Research Councils have
evolved a very strong knowledge base, which the RDAs do not have".[53]
The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) agreed, telling
us that "some of the Regional Development Agencies […]
have clearly not yet fully understood their role in supporting
the process of generating wealth from research"[54]
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) took this view a step further, saying that
"current arrangements for the promotion of knowledge transfer
by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are not satisfactory"
and that "there are real opportunities for the Research Councils
to take a lead here".[55]
Criticism of RDA expertise is not new to this inquiry. Indeed,
we also have previously commented upon the "patchy
nature of scientific expertise in RDAs".[56]
23. The Research Councils were not concerned about
their levels of engagement with RDAs, displaying a general acceptance
of the situation. During his evidence, Professor O'Nions told
us that "RDAs come in different shapes and sizes [and that]
they have different amounts of money to invest".[57]
Professor Ian Diamond, Chief Executive of ESRC and current chair
of the RCUK executive group, told us that because there is "a
rich diversity amongst the RDAs"[58]
one might "expect the degree of interaction with RDAs to
be quite variable".[59]
Professor Diamond did, however, acknowledge the "enormous
scope for a lot more to be done in the regions"[60]
and that the Research Councils "really have to identify
improved ways of working with the RDAs in this area".[61]
24. We agree that there is variation in RDA capacity
and expertise. However, we were disappointed not to obtain a clear
view of how the Research Councils intend to enhance co-ordination
with the RDAs or how they might benefit from each others knowledge
or experience. Momenta, a division of the innovation business
AEA Technology plc, told us of "the very low awareness in
industry […] of what knowledge is being generated by the
research base and how it might be exploited to competitive advantage
of companies".[62].
Since the Research Councils possess good understanding of the
research base and of the knowledge created, they could consider
sharing this information to help RDAs to build a knowledge base
of the expertise within their regions. For example, this could
follow a similar line to Yorkshire
Forward who, in attempts to increase knowledge transfer within
the Yorkshire and Humber region, recently launched KnowledgeRICH,
an online and telephone service designed to
bring businesses requiring input into products or problems and
academia together.
25. We are not
convinced that measures put in place to facilitate national co-ordination
of knowledge transfer are sufficient and we believe that there
is a need for co-ordination between all UK funders of knowledge
transfer to be enhanced. We recommend that the Government takes
the necessary steps to ensure a co-ordinated knowledge transfer
strategy. We recommend that the Research Councils lead the development
of a strategy through which engagement between all organisations
currently involved in support of knowledge transfer can be enhanced.
We consider that there is a particular need for increased engagement
between RDAs and the Research Councils. We call on the Research
Councils to develop effective working relationships with all RDAs,
strengthening links where necessary, disseminating good practice
and supporting RDAs in building up their expertise.
25 
