House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report

4 Research Council strategy

26. Since this inquiry aimed to examine the effectiveness of Research Council support for knowledge transfer, it was important that we determine how the Research Councils themselves define and view this area.

27. Knowledge transfer, and the processes involved in the transfer of knowledge are not well understood. There is no single, universally accepted, definition of 'knowledge transfer' and the term is often used interchangeably with 'technology transfer', 'knowledge exchange' and 'translation'. CaSE told us that "neither the political community nor the science and engineering community can agree on a terminology for the various activities that form the focus of the Committee's inquiry"[63] and we heard from the Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures that "the 'missing middle' in KT [knowledge transfer] is the expectations placed upon all stakeholders in research without a mutual understanding being developed".[64]

The Research Councils view of knowledge transfer

28. As acknowledged by Professor O'Nions, knowledge transfer "means somewhat different things to different people".[65] The lack of a common definition for knowledge transfer can be a problem since it may result in blurred understanding of the processes involved. We were therefore encouraged to see that, according to RCUK, the Councils have agreed a shared understanding of knowledge transfer: "The UK Research Councils seek to accelerate the two-way flow of people and ideas between the research environment and wider economy, and thereby contribute to national prosperity, the quality of life of UK citizens, and cultural enrichment of our society. Knowledge Transfer encompasses the systems and processes by which knowledge, expertise and skilled people transfer between the research environment (universities, centres and institutes) and its user communities in industry, commerce, public and service sectors".[66]

29. This view appears to be a wide understanding of knowledge transfer which includes areas not only relevant to exploitation for commercial benefit but also for cultural enrichment and the quality of life, including in the public and service sectors and which encompasses knowledge transfer in policy development. We were therefore, somewhat surprised to learn that the individual Research Councils exclude certain areas from this view of knowledge transfer. Professor Diamond told us that, in the view of ESRC, "the definition of knowledge transfer would not include the way we look at Science in Society".[67] Professor Diamond did, however, recognise that there is a distinct relationship between issues important to science and society and knowledge transfer".[68] We recognise that there are grey areas and that knowledge transfer may overlap and feed into many Research Council funding schemes. We consider however, that greater clarity is required since it was not initially apparent that the Councils exclude certain areas from their understanding of knowledge transfer or indeed, what they do consider relevant. We welcome efforts to develop a clear, cross-Council understanding of what the term 'knowledge transfer' should mean to the research community. We urge the Councils to clearly communicate what is and isn't included within their view of knowledge transfer.

TECHNOLOGY PUSH AND PULL

30. The Government's ten year Science and Innovation Investment Framework noted the importance of both "the measures being taken by Research Councils to improve the uptake of technology coming from the science base ('technology push') and the efforts by the DTI to promote demand for new technology in the business community ('technology pull')".[69] However, as pointed out by the Lambert Review, "innovation processes are complex and non-linear. It is not simply a question of researchers coming up with clever ideas which are passed down a production line"[70] and it is now widely accepted that, for beneficial knowledge transfer to occur, production of results must be appropriately coupled with what users actually require. We heard similar views expressed by the CBI who stated that "successful knowledge transfer activities are those that are rooted in, and reflect, user needs. This is not solely about technology push. It also requires customer pull - the market influencing the science base".[71]

31. The Institute of Physics was also concerned that "there is too much encouragement of technology push and not enough user pull at the start of research" telling us that "this leads to scattered and fragmented activity without significant and complete outcomes".[72] The External Challenge Panel took this view a step further saying that there is "a strong perception in the end-user community that the percentage of funding steered by end-user needs is far too small with beneficial impact too dependent on serendipity" and that "Research Council funding schemes are heavily biased to facilitating academic push rather than established business pull".[73]

32. In his evidence to us, Professor O'Reilly was reluctant to accept criticism that the Research Councils are too focused on 'technology push', explaining that there is "a chain right the way from the knowledge creation generation stage, identification stage, through to exploitation and that Research Councils rightly are focused more at the front end of that rather than at the back".[74]We have some sympathy with Professor O'Reilly's view since, as the main investors in public research, it seems natural that the Research Councils should focus primarily on front end of the research chain. Whilst we accept that the Research Councils may sit at the 'push' end of the research chain, we are concerned by the perception that they are not interested in the requirements of industry. We urge them to address this perception and to ensure that user requirements are fully considered when determining funding priorities.

VISION FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

33. If UK competitiveness is to be boosted through innovation then it is essential that a clear vision and strategy for improving the rate and success of knowledge transfer is firmly in place. Each of the Research Councils published Delivery Plans as part of the 2004 Spending Review (SR2004) allocation process, setting out funding priorities and outlining the activities that they intend to undertake over the period 2005-06 to 2007-08.[75] According to RCUK, the Delivery Plans were developed following consultations with a "broad range of stakeholders" and were "written in the context of an OST Strategy for the Science Base, which itself draws on the Government's Science & Innovation investment framework 2004-2014".[76] The Delivery Plans also take account of each Research Councils' own visions and strategic priorities. Within these plans the Councils have indicated their specific visions for knowledge transfer, for example, as demonstrated by the EPSRC Delivery Plan, section 9 "Delivering growth through innovation".[77]

34. In their report, the External Challenge Panel expressed "concerns about the apparent lack of long term vision (and goals) for KT at the highest strategic level".[78] When questioned further, Professor Brook explained that the Panel considered that their own "view of knowledge transfer [was] rather wider than the view which sometimes you find in Research Councils". Specifically, Professor Brook explained that they "felt there was a role for the informing of public policy and a range of other stakeholders as well as just business" but that the Research Councils were focused on "a conventional approach to technology transfer as opposed to knowledge transfer" and that "the community which is being addressed is probably still largely business".[79] We agree with this opinion since it is apparent that a number of the Research Councils Delivery Plans focus heavily on knowledge transfer for exploitation, directed at the business community, with little attention paid toward requirements for public policy and other stakeholders, for example, the Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and PPARC.

35. In their initial response to us on the content of the External Challenge report, we found RCUK reluctant to accept criticism, telling us that they found such comments "surprising, given that each Council has an explicit responsibility for knowledge transfer in their missions, and that all have clear, top-level objectives in their delivery plans".[80] However, during oral evidence, we found Professor Mason, Chief Executive of PPARC, slightly more forthcoming, acknowledging that "the whole point of the report was to learn from it and if the report concludes that there is no long term strategy [then] we have to take note of that".[81]. We have some sympathy with the Research Councils on this point since the External Challenge Panel did not indicate clearly what they had meant in the initial report. We actually consider that this issue results from a difference of opinion with respect to what knowledge transfer should encompass as opposed to lack of vision in this area. We welcome the effort made by the Research Councils to set out future knowledge transfer priorities within their Delivery Plans. We find that some of the Research Councils have taken a narrow approach and that consequently, their Delivery Plans do not reflect the wider view of knowledge transfer.

Engagement with stakeholders

36. Each Research Council has a diverse set of stakeholders and users. These range from large multinational companies to Small and Medium size Enterprises (SMEs) and from policy makers in Whitehall and the regions to the National Health Service (NHS), the Met Office and museums and galleries. According to RCUK, each Council has developed its knowledge transfer strategy and approach in consultation with its major business and research user groups, seeking input through a wide range of mechanisms including:

● business and user representation on each governing Council;

● business or user led high-level advisory groups e.g. EPSRC's User Panel or BBSRC's Bioscience for Industry Panel;

● business and user membership of Council peer review colleges and peer review panels;

● funders forums;

● concordats with Government Departments;

● regular dialogue with companies, CBI and trade associations; and

● seminars, workshops and conferences with user groups.[82]

IMPROVING LINKS

37. The Lambert Review commented on "a view in business that Research Councils taken as a group could do more to build collaborative links with business".[83]In the evidence submitted to this inquiry, we found a high level of agreement with Lambert's views and noted significant criticism of Research Council and RCUK efforts to engage stakeholders. For example, the CBI told us that "currently, engagement and communication with business users would appear to be patchy, with some Research Councils seemingly more focused and successful in their efforts to engage stakeholders".[84] QinetiQ told us that Research Council "communications are predominantly to inform rather than to listen or gather information" and they have relatively little consultation with users.[85] We also heard specific criticism of RCUK. For example, from GSK, who said that RCUK's "ability to interact with all of the Councils in a collective manner, through RCUK, for example on the promotion of good practice, is somewhat limited" and that "RCUK does not appear to be particularly proactive in seeking input from industry".[86] The External Challenge Panel took these claims a stage further, reporting that they found end-users 'marginalised' in the funding process, only engaged once funding decisions had been made.[87]

38. We found the Research Councils defensive and reluctant to acknowledge criticism from business. RCUK challenged the view of the External Challenge Panel telling us that "the Councils refute entirely the findings that end-users are marginalised in the funding process and only engaged once funding decisions are taken".[88] Professor O'Reilly said that for each company where we [this Committee] had received a negative comment, he would be able to go and find someone to say "I have got experience of really good engagement".[89] Professor Diamond took a more constructive approach telling us that the Research Councils "are always looking to develop and improve our activities in every area" and that one of these areas is communication. Professor Diamond followed on by saying that the Research Councils consider it important to take the responses that have come to this Committee, viewing them as an opportunity for reviewing their activities.[90] We are concerned by negative perceptions of Research Council communication and engagement with their stakeholders. We urge the Research Councils to take steps to engage business users more effectively. It is important that the Councils clearly consult and act upon the views of all stakeholders, addressing the perception that they are only interested in informing them.

SME ENGAGEMENT

39. In addition to general concerns with respect to stakeholder engagement, we became aware of specific problems associated with Small and Medium size Enterprise (SME) engagement in collaborative research projects. The Institute of Physics noted that "for small and medium sized companies it can be difficult to engage universities in collaborative high risk innovation projects. To this end there could be improved co-ordination of linked projects within the Research Councils together with better integration between the strategies of the Research Councils and Government departments".[91] However, when asked how aware the Research Councils are of the problems faced by SMEs, we were told in oral evidence by Dr Ian Ritchie that he does not "think they are very responsive at all" telling us that bodies, such as the Research Councils, rarely seem to ask SMEs what it is they want.[92] Professor Brook of the External Challenge Panel took a slightly more positive view telling us, when asked about how well the Research Councils engage with SMEs, that "the Research Councils are improving but they are still looking for ways of interacting with the SME community".[93]

40. Professor Diamond told us that "engaging with the SMEs is an important priority" and that "we have brought SMEs into the ESRC, into panels, and also researched on SMEs and the way in which they can work most effectively in this area".[94] We believe that there is a need to enhance SME-Research Council engagement considerably. We recommend that the Research Councils are more proactive in their engagement with SMEs, recognising that very distinct challenges must be overcome if SMEs are to be successfully involved in knowledge transfer, for example in collaborative work with universities.

Balancing priorities

41. Knowledge transfer is increasingly a priority for the Research Councils. During this inquiry we have noted concerns that focus on promotion of knowledge transfer could result in diversion of funds from other Research Council priorities and that there is the potential for the balance of funding within the Councils to be affected. In particular, we noted concerns with respect to balances between i) research funding and funding allocated toward specific knowledge transfer activities and ii) funding for basic and applied research.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

42. We became aware of a widespread perception in the scientific community that increased funding for knowledge transfer may result in reduction of funding in support of basic research. The Research Councils account for over 80 per cent of Science Budget expenditure (approximately £2.8 billion[95]) and award most of this money on the basis of scientific excellence, through peer review. The Research Councils, therefore, not only play a major role in supporting the UK research base financially, but act as a quality control mechanism ensuring that only research of the highest quality is supported. We were, therefore, concerned to hear apprehension from the scientific community that increased support for knowledge transfer may result in diminished funds for research. The 1994 Group of universities told us that "there remains an overriding concern that there will be no new money for knowledge transfer awarded to the Research Councils forcing them to divert sums away from basic research grants. Knowledge transfer cannot happen unless the basic research is being done in first place".[96] CaSE agreed with this point arguing that "without very substantial new money and a clear protection of [the Research Councils'] role in funding fundamental research, we should not even consider them as candidates for the role of co-ordinating knowledge transfer".[97] The University of Surrey is also concerned that the "Research Councils do not become too diluted from their primary mission of funding long-term research".[98]

43. Since the application of research is itself a knowledge transfer activity, there is significant overlap between funding for activities which may feature knowledge transfer (such as funding for research projects) and funding which has been specifically dedicated to knowledge transfer (such as the RCUK business plan competition). It is important to note that funding which has been specifically dedicated to knowledge transfer is, as Professor Mason, Chief Executive of PPARC, told us "still a very small fraction of the total budget" and that, as in the case of PPARC, only about one per cent of Research Councils budget is spent on "direct" knowledge transfer issues.[99] In contrast, Research Council spend on applied or collaborative research, which is consequently directly related to knowledge transfer, is at significantly higher levels, for example as stated by Professor O'Reilly who believes that "over 40 per cent of EPSRC grants have collaboration with business directly".[100]

44. We considered whether perceptions of risk to basic research funding could actually result from a lack of transparency with respect to Research Council expenditure or clear plans for future activities. AstraZeneca told us that they "find it difficult to obtain figures from each Research Council for its own spend on knowledge transfer".[101] We also heard from the Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures that "in terms of Research Councils, allocation of funding to knowledge transfer activities is often difficult to determine".[102] We have some sympathy with these views since we also have found it difficult to ascertain Research Councils' spend on knowledge transfer activities, despite looking through a number of Research Council annual accounts and reports.

45. Although we accept that the Research Councils have been awarded dedicated funds through the science budget for knowledge transfer, and that the funds they give directly in support of knowledge transfer activities are actually relatively small, we are concerned by the perception that research funding is at risk. The Research Councils knowledge transfer agenda, whilst important, should not detract from their main priority, the funding of basic research. The Research Councils should challenge the perception that research funding is at risk by clarifying and clearly communicating future financial allocations and plans for knowledge transfer.

BASIC VERSUS APPLIED RESEARCH

46. In the past, the Research Councils have, in general, been responsible for funding basic research and industry has focused on supporting applied research. However, in the evolving research climate in which lines between research type and discipline are blurred, the division between blue skies and applied research is often unclear. Not surprisingly, evidence from industry shows support for Research Council funding of applied research. For example, GSK told us that "the Research Councils should support the whole spectrum of research which underpins the UK science base, from "blue skies research" through to more applied research".[103] We were also interested to hear from Professor Diana Green, of Universities UK, who told us that "it is entirely right and proper that the Research Councils should be concerned about the practical applications of the research that we are all being funded for". Professor Green went on to say that "the argument [in her view] is about where that balance lies, particularly if the core issue is not the balance within that budget but the amount of funding that is available in general terms. If there is not enough to go round, it becomes much more important to argue about where the cut-off point is".[104] QinetiQ, in active support of funding for applied research, took this view a step further telling us that "in promoting Knowledge Transfer, the RCs [Research Councils] should separate more clearly their funding streams for research which is truly original, leading edge and remote from immediate application, from research that is closer to exploitation" and that "they [the Research Councils] should ensure that applied projects have clear potential exploitation routes with proactive user involvement from the outset".[105]

47. When questioned on how the Research Councils view funding balances between basic and applied research, Professor Diamond told us that "we do not see a distinction across all the Research Councils between basic and applied, which is all, if you like, frontier research and all absolutely excellent, world-class research".[106] Professor O'Reilly clarified this point by further indicating that the Research Councils "are about frontier research" and that he does not divide this between whether they should be involved in pure research or something that is the business of business.[107] We remain convinced that the main role of the Research Councils is in the support of basic research. We accept that there is a blurred line between basic and applied research and we acknowledge Research Council use of the term 'frontier research' to describe the research they support. We still think there is value in use of the terms 'basic' and 'applied' research. The Research Councils need to take steps to ensure that they are recording sufficient information about the research they are supporting to enable them to rapidly respond to concerns about funding levels for basic and applied research.

Embedding a knowledge transfer culture

48. We believe that increasing knowledge transfer in the UK is more complicated than simply funding schemes to help researchers exploit results once they have been obtained. Promotion of a more output-orientated culture across the UK is almost certainly required and, for such a culture to be embedded in the UK, researchers must be encouraged to become more aware of the benefits, to both the economy and society, that their research could generate.

49. The Research Councils may be able to stimulate a more research-orientated culture through promotion of more stringent project management and monitoring of Research Council funded projects. The CBI told us that "there is a clear demand for project planning and post-project review on the part of the Research Councils as a foundation for a results-oriented culture. Such improvements are necessary to ensure the effective use of funding while at the same time ensuring that exploitable knowledge does not remain undeveloped".[108]AstraZeneca told us that "Research Council funded projects in universities require more stringent project planning and project management than is the situation today in order to ensure that money is not wasted and potentially exploitable ideas and discoveries are not left undeveloped".[109] Furthermore, AstraZeneca stated that "Evidence of robust timelines and clear success criteria for projects must be developed if we are to derive maximum economic benefit from the investment in research in the UK".[110]

50. An additional mechanism for promoting a broader, results-orientated UK research community may be through encouraging consideration of the applicability of research at its initial stages, for example, within evaluation criteria on grant applications. QinetiQ told us that "funding criteria need to be adjusted to incentivise applied science"[111]and the 1994 Group, who agree with this view, stated that "KT [knowledge transfer] needs to be made an integral part of grant approval, monitoring and review process […] we would support Research Council policies that required the anticipated or hoped-for knowledge transfer routes to be explored and articulated as an essential part of the funding application process".[112]

51. Some of the Research Councils have already utilized grant applications as a mechanism for promoting consideration of knowledge transfer. PPARC for example, now requires people applying for grants to include a knowledge transfer plan within their proposal.[113] However, we were told that there are no intentions to make this a universal approach across the Councils. Professor O'Nions informed us that there are no concrete plans for each Research Council to include knowledge transfer within peer review evaluation criteria and that "it is up to the peer review panels and the peer review process to look at that and make their judgments".[114]

52. Whilst we were interested to hear of suggestions to include knowledge transfer within evaluation criteria, we are also concerned about the impact this may have. In particular, there appears to be a perception within the scientific community of bias towards proposals with good exploitation potential. This may, consequently, inhibit researchers from writing proposals which are, fundamentally, blue skies research with little or no obvious applicability. Dr Ian Ritchie told us "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 [the applicability of research or knowledge transfer potential]. You should be making the decision dependant solely on the science".[115] We were also interested to hear from Sir John Chisholm that there "should always be a component of any research programme which is entirely unlimited and purely blue sky for the purpose of civilisation" and that "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".[116] Finally, we were particularly concerned to hear from QinetiQ of a danger that "many industrial partners are 'attached' to proposals without sufficient commitment, involvement or expectation. The RCs [Research Councils] could therefore be misled into believing that their connection with exploitation of technology is greater than in practice it is".[117]

53. Professor Mason was able to assure us that applications would still be awarded on the basis of excellence and that "you are not going to get anything funded on the back of a good knowledge transfer plan unless the science is great".[118] Professor Mason went on to explain that the aim of PPARC was actually "to embed the thinking about knowledge transfer right from the beginning"[119] with additional value in that it could help "maximise the economic benefit by alerting [PPARC] to the potential for knowledge transfer in a particular programme" and thus enable PPARC to focus resources on the programmes likely to deliver the most economic benefit.[120]We commend PPARC for its efforts to promote the importance of applicability and knowledge use to researchers. We urge PPARC to actively communicate its intentions where knowledge transfer is included within grant proposal evaluation criteria and to clearly convey the message that knowledge transfer will not determine the success of a grant application. We recommend that the other Research Councils consider this approach as a mechanism for embedding a more result-orientated culture.

Performance measurement

54. If the Research Councils are to be successful in supporting knowledge transfer, then it is important that regular performance evaluation is undertaken to determine areas of accomplishment and for improvement. The publication, by Research Councils, of assessment metrics frameworks[121] alongside their Delivery Plans is, therefore, strongly welcomed by the Committee. The assessment metrics are developed from the "Outputs Framework" contained within the Public Service Agreement Targets set down by the DTI alongside the Science Budget.[122] The Research Council assessment metrics are a series of targets and milestones arising from the activities set out in each Councils Delivery Plan. According to RCUK, it is intended that data relating to the Outputs Framework will be published at the end of each financial year, commencing with 2005/06 (the first reports should be made available in June 2006) and that progress against each Research Councils' Scorecard will be updated quarterly.[123] The assessment framework consists of Output 1 in which metrics for development of 'A healthy UK science and engineering base' are detailed and Output 2 which details factors required for 'Better exploitation'.[124] The objectives listed within the Output 2 framework vary between the Councils since, Professor Diamond told us, it was "agreed that there should be a matrix of metrics which reflected different aspects of the knowledge transfer agenda and that each Research Council would have individual metrics within that matrix which reflected their own activities and that recognised the breadth of activity".[125] We were particularly interested to determine how the Councils intended to use data from the metrics and were encouraged to hear from Professor Diamond that "we will be using this to monitor the directions that we are going in a set of activities, we will be using that to fine-tune and change some of our funding areas in terms of knowledge transfer".[126]

55. Whilst we welcome the publication of measures to evaluate success in knowledge transfer, we are concerned about the appropriateness of the actual metrics used. Momenta told us that "what is being measured is largely activity rather than outcomes"[127] and we were also heard from Professor Snowden that he does "not think the metrics today are transparent enough to us all, as a starting point" and that they seem to be "relatively short term".[128] We were also concerned to receive views from QinetiQ that "those [metrics] considered, such as numbers of industry collaborations, patents and start-up companies, do not reflect accurately the value of interactions to users and may distort adversely the behavior of some research teams".[129] In response to apprehension regarding the effectiveness of the metrics for evaluating performance in knowledge transfer, Professor O'Reilly acknowledged that development of Output 2 metrics had been difficult since it "is new to try and get metrics on this".[130] Professor O' Reilly also indicated that the Councils had sought to "get things that were measurable in the qualitative as well as the quantitative sense".[131] There is always a danger that metrics affect behaviour in unpredictable ways and that they may become a driver of activity rather than a measurement of success. This has been a recognised criticism of the Research Assessment Exercise, which has not adequately considered industrial collaboration and hence discouraged knowledge transfer.[132] We welcome the publication of Research Council performance assessment metrics but consider that refinement is required. We are particularly concerned that the Output 2 metrics, as they stand at present, measure activity rather than output and that they may influence the activities of the research community. We recommend that the Research Councils and RCUK regularly review the assessment metrics and the impact they are having, reporting back periodically.

Cross-Council co-ordination

56. Within their Delivery Plan, RCUK state that they will "co-ordinate and harmonise increased engagement in innovation and knowledge transfer by the Research Councils".[133] RCUK also told us that "whilst having varied academic and user bases, the eight Research Councils work together where appropriate across a range of knowledge transfer activities, through the RCUK Knowledge Transfer Group (KTG)" an assembly which "provides a focal point for sharing information and good practice on knowledge transfer and a hub for collective dialogue with external organisations".[134]

57. Despite interaction of the Research Councils through the KTG, there has been much criticism with respect to how well the Councils co-ordinate their knowledge transfer activities, for example by the 1994 Group who told us "Knowledge transfer is an area of increasing interest and activity on the part of the Research Councils, but there is considerable variation between them in effort, approach and success".[135] We also heard calls for a stronger role for RCUK in this area, for example, from the CBI who stated that "there is a very strong need for RCUK to identify and disseminate best practice across the Research Councils to ensure that they are operating with optimum efficiency and having the greatest possible impact, collectively and individually".[136] We also heard that, currently, there appears to be little added value from RCUK. For example, AstraZeneca told us that "whilst the mission statement of RCUK is commendable, it is not clear to us what additional value RCUK has delivered to the effectiveness of the research, training and KT activities of the eight RCs [Research Councils]"[137] and QinetiQ commented that there is "an obvious need for co-ordination amongst the various funding bodies but [that] the role of the RCUK umbrella body is not particularly visible".[138]

58. The Research Councils were unwilling to accept that there is a need for increased effort toward sharing of best practice and general co-ordination of their knowledge transfer activities. Professor Diamond said that this "is precisely what the knowledge transfer group does" and that it is on an "upward trajectory".[139] However, with the exception of forming the BBSRC Business Plan Competition into a cross-Council scheme, we have found little evidence for activity by the KTG and we were disappointed that the Research Councils seemed unable to provide us with examples of benefits gained through either the KTG or RCUK in respect of co-ordination for knowledge transfer.[140]

59. Whilst the RCUK view that different schemes are required to benefit individual Councils' respective communities may be valid,[141] there are clearly overlapping areas and advantage could be gained from more effective sharing of best practice and co-ordination where appropriate. For example, perhaps a cross-Council approach toward the employment of external brokers to help identify and develop potential knowledge transfer opportunities could be taken. We have found little evidence of Research Council co-ordination or sharing of best practice in the context of their knowledge transfer activities and we have not been persuaded that the Knowledge Transfer Group has achieved much in the two years since its formation. Also, despite their clear remit to co-ordinate and harmonise, we have not seen any added value from RCUK in this area. We urge the Research Councils and RCUK to take the necessary steps to enhance the effectiveness of their co-ordination in knowledge transfer.

63 Ev 121 Back

64 Ev 111 Back

65 Q 1 Back

66 Ev 55 Back

67 Q 201 Back

68 Q 201 Back

69 HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for Education and Skills, Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014, July 2005, chapter 5, para 5.35 Back

70 Richard Lambert, Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, December 2003, chapter 1, para 1,24 Back

71 Ev 130 Back

72 Ev 125 Back

73 External Challenge Panel, Independent External Challenge Report to Research Councils UK, "Knowledge Transfer in the Eight Research Councils", April 2006, pp 2-3 (overarching finding) Back

74 Q 272 Back