1 Introduction
Background
1. On 9 March 2010, James Dyson published a report,
Ingenious Britain, commissioned by the Conservative Party.
The Dyson Report set out a number of proposals to make
Britain the leading high tech exporter in Europe. The report had
five themes:
i. Culture: developing high esteem for science
and engineering
ii. Education: getting young people excited about
science and engineering
iii. Exploiting knowledge: collaboration, not
competition between universities, companies and not-for-profits
iv. Financing high tech start-ups: turning good
ideas into world beating products
v. Supporting high tech companies: creating the
right conditions for R&D [research and development] investment.[1]
Within the "exploiting knowledge" theme,
the Dyson Report included the proposal that "new university/industry
research institutions capable of becoming centres of excellence
in a particular research field should be given Government sponsorship".[2]
2. A few weeks later, Dr Hermann Hauser published
a report, The Current and Future Role of Technology and Innovation
Centres in the UK, commissioned by the then Labour Government.
The Hauser Report looked in greater detail at how the UK
could learn from other countries' innovation networks. It proposed
that the UK develop "an elite group of Technology and Innovation
Centres […] that aim to exploit the most promising new technologies,
where there is genuine UK potential to gain competitive advantage".[3]
3. Both reports acknowledged the strength of the
UK's science base as second only to the United States whilst highlighting
that there was a need to do more to capitalise on research by
the commercialisation of ideas. The Hauser Report, in particular,
argued that closing the gap between universities and industry
was integral to creating a "knowledge-economy" and that
"other countries benefit greatly from a translational infrastructure
that bridges this gap".[4]
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
4. The Hauser Report explored the role of
Technology and Innovation Centres (TICs) in 12 countries: Germany,
South Korea, Sweden, France, China, Denmark, USA, Japan, Singapore,
Israel, Belgium and the Netherlands. It summarised its findings:
The specific role of TICs varies according to the
innovation system and economic and social landscape of the countries
they operate in.
However a shared rationale exists for developing
TICs that bridge the gap between academic discovery and commercial
exploitation.
It is common for TICs to be focused on sectors or
technologies which capitalise on local and national strengths
rather than have a wider spread of institutes in many technology
or sectoral fields.
Most [TICs] benefit from long-term, sustained and
predictable flows of public funding, although the level and type
of funding varies significantly.
The workforce is recruited from the academic and
private sector and possesses research, technology development
and commercialisation skills.
The TICs are expected to supplement core funding
by winning additional income from public and private sector contract
research, and through the commercialisation of IP [intellectual
property].
Strong governance structures are in place in many
[TICs] to provide strategic direction and ensure the quality of
services provided to business.
Almost all operate with a high degree of autonomy
to manage the achievement of their objectives.
A strong brand has been found to reinforce a TIC
or network of TICs by making them a more attractive partner to
the private sector and for international collaborations.
International collaborations are widely undertaken
with many within the EU, leveraging significant funding from the
Framework Programme.[5]
5. The German model of Fraunhofer Institutes is often
referred to as one of the most successful examples of a national
network of TICs. From our inquiry we established that it had many
of the characteristics summarised in the Hauser Report.
The Minister of State for Universities and Science, Rt Hon David
Willetts MP, took the view in his first appearance before our
Committee on 22 July 2010 that Fraunhofer Institutes "have
been a key part of Germany's success in advanced manufacturing
and high grade engineering".[6]
Our inquiry
6. On 20 October 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
announced in the Spending Review that the Government would provide
support for manufacturing and business development, including
funding for "an elite network of research and development
intensive technology and innovation centres".[7]
That same day, our Committee announced an inquiry into TICs, issuing
a call for evidence on the following questions:
- What is the Fraunhofer model
and would it be applicable to the UK?
- Are there existing Fraunhofer-type research centres
within the UK, and if so, are they effective?
- What other models are there for research centres
oriented toward applications and results?
- Whose role should it be to coordinate research
in a UK-wide network of innovation centres?
- What effect would the introduction of Fraunhofer-type
institutes have on the work of Public Sector Research Establishments
and other existing research centres that undertake Government
sponsored research?
7. We received 85 submissions in response to our
call. We would like to thank all those who submitted written memoranda.
8. During December 2010 and January 2011, we took
oral evidence from four panels of witnesses, to whom we are grateful:
i. Dr Tim Bradshaw, Head of Enterprise and Innovation,
Confederation of British Industry (CBI); Professor Ric Parker,
Director of Research and Technology, Rolls-Royce Group; Dr David
Bembo, on behalf of the Association for University Research and
Industry Links (AURIL) and Universities UK; and Patrick Reeve,
Chair of the Venture Capital Public Policy Committee, British
Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (BVCA);
ii. Pam Alexander, Chief Executive of the South-East
England Development Agency (SEEDA), for the Regional Development
Agencies (RDAs); Professor Richard Brook, President, Association
of Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO);
Professor Nigel Perry, Chief Executive, Centre for Process Innovation
Ltd (CPI); and Professor Keith Ridgway, Research Director, Advanced
Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC);
iii. Iain Gray, Chief Executive, Technology Strategy
Board (TSB); and
iv. Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State
for Universities and Science.
9. We also supplemented our evidence with a short
visit to Berlin, Germany (7-8 December 2010) in order to: explore
the German research and technology and innovation institutions,
including Fraunhofer, Helmholtz and Leibniz centres; identify
best practice for fostering innovation and the commercialisation
of research; and learn about the funding and coordination of applied
research in Germany. We would like to thank all those individuals
and organisations that took the time to meet with us during our
visit.
1 James Dyson, Ingenious Britain: Making the UK
the leading high tech exporter in Europe, March 2010, p 4-5
Back
2
Dyson Report, p 38 Back
3
Department for Business, Innovations and Skills, The Current
and Future Role of Technology and Innovation Centres in the UK:
A report by Dr Hermann Hauser, March 2010, p 1 Back
4
Hauser Report, p 1 Back
5
Hauser Report, p 8 Back
6
Science and Technology Committee, Session 2010-11, Setting
the scene, HC 369, Q 54 Back
7
HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, October 2010, Cm 7942,
p 52 Back
| 
