APPENDIX 23
Supplementary memorandum from Research
Councils UK
EXTERNAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH COUNCIL KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER PLANS AND GOALS
I am pleased to provide the House of Commons
Science and Technology Select Committee with an advance copy of
the draft report of the "External Review of Research Council
Knowledge Transfer Plans and Goals" (not printed). The draft
report was circulated to the members of the panel engaged in the
review and to the Research Councils on 23 March, and as such is
provided "in confidence" whilst panel members provide
their final comments and sign off. As such, you will note that
the report contains a number of tracked changes—these are
factual points which the Councils have requested are amended in
the final version.
We are undertaking a detailed consideration
of the findings and recommendations and anticipate publishing
both the report and our response in due course.
BACKGROUND
This independent report was commissioned by
RCUK to assist the Research Councils in refining their innovation
activities, by providing critique of individual Councils' current
and planned knowledge transfer activities. In particular, the
aim was to identify examples of good practice and areas for further
development, taking account of the breadth of research undertaken
by each Council, the characteristics of their user communities
and the resources available. The terms of reference, details of
the scrutiny process and panel membership are given in the report.
INITIAL RESEARCH
COUNCILS' VIEWS
ON THE
EXTERNAL REVIEW
REPORT
The report has been seen by Research Council
Chief Executives and their knowledge transfer teams. The Research
Councils are grateful for the time, commitment and effort of the
panel members in voluntarily undertaking this review of Councils'
knowledge transfer activities. The resulting report contains much
for the Research Councils to consider, both individually and collectively.
This is the first time that such a review has
been undertaken and lessons have been learned for future exercises.
Designed as a relatively simple and light touch activity, the
Councils agree with the review panel that the process had its
practical limitations, not least in terms of the time available
to provide additional evidence and to weigh this evidence in forming
conclusions.
The initial views of the research councils on
the report are as follows:
(i) The primary purpose of this exercise
was to provide the Research Councils with constructive feedback
on their knowledge transfer plans and goals. By focusing instead
on the wider economic agenda and the role of HEIs in knowledge
transfer, the resulting report conveys a less comprehensive assessment
of Councils' activities than anticipated. Councils would have
valued more feedback on current activities and the planned utilisation
of additional funding made available from April 2006. The wider
issue of the impact of the Science Base on innovation and productivity
is being addressed through a specific working group on economic
impact, which will report to the DGRC.
(ii) Notwithstanding intellectual arguments
about the scope of "knowledge transfer", the Councils
believe that their common definition of knowledge transfer provided
a clear framework within which the review should have been conducted.
Science in Society activities, such as engagement with the general
public and with schools, were explicitly out-with the scope of
this review and it should be noted that any commentary on this
area of activity is made without the benefit of evidence from
the Councils.
(iii) The report comments on an apparent
lack of long term vision and goals for knowledge transfer at the
highest strategic level. We find this statement 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—agreed by their Councils—including
specific metrics for measuring progress towards "better exploitation".
This information was provided to the panel.
(iv) The Research Councils believe that
research and knowledge transfer are integrated activities. The
engagement of potential end users in setting overall strategic
direction, in shaping research priorities and programmes, and
in co-funding or collaborating on research is as important a means
of knowledge transfer as mechanisms aimed at exploiting research
outputs. We believe that there is insufficient recognition of
this throughout the report.
(v) The Councils refute entirely the findings
that end-users are "marginalised in the funding process and
only engaged once funding decisions are taken" and that "most
Council investments fit with the needs of industry by serendipity".
All of the Research Councils have strong user representation on
their Councils and advisory bodies, and most have specific industry
or user advisory panels. All work with potential end users in
developing programme activities, all employ end-users on their
peer review colleges and panels, and all support research in partnership
with users as joint funders or collaborators. The written evidence
provided to the Committee on 16 February provides comprehensive
information on user engagement and successful exploitation by
industry.
(vi) In a number of places, the report states
that that balance between academic push and industry pull is far
too much towards "push" and recommends that the solution
is to transfer funding from basic, blue skies research into end-user
managed programmes. The Research Councils believe that these statements
reflect the personal views of several panel members, and have
been unable to ascertain on what evidence such comments are based.
The Research Councils have extensive advice from the business
members of their advisory groups that what industrial users want
is for the Councils to maintain a broad, healthy research base
through investment in world-class blue skies research and training
highly skilled people, which in turn, underpins their own business
R&D activities.
(vii) The breadth and diversity of Research
Council's user communities mirror their research portfolios. End
users of research include policy makers in Whitehall, the regions,
Europe and internationally, and those in many other parts of the
public sector such as the NHS, Met Office and museums and galleries,
as well as business in all of its guises from SMEs to global companies.
The transfer of knowledge to all of these users, directly or indirectly,
delivers economic benefit. As such, the Councils are disappointed
that the report focuses extensively on technology transfer and
commercialisation and does not explore sufficiently knowledge
transfer to other primary users.
(viii) The report recommends that as funders,
the Research Councils should take a more direct role in ensuring
that universities manage and exploit their research to meet the
needs of industry. Whilst the Councils do have a responsibility
for helping to create the climate and culture in HEIs to enable
this to happen (eg by providing specific funding or pressing for
the RAE to give due weight to this type of activity), we believe
that direct intervention is undesirable. This view is supported
by the Funding Councils, UUK and the universities themselves,
who believe that these responsibilities, particularly the exploitation
of intellectual property, should reside with the university in
question. Ultimately, the Research Councils, HEIs, DTI and users
need to work together in a coordinated way to achieve successful
knowledge transfer and exploitation.
May 2006
| 
