Written evidence submitted by the University
of Leeds (TIC 05)
1. What is the Fraunhofer model and would
it be applicable to the UK?
1.1 The German Fraunhofer Society is a research
organisation with 59 institutes; each focusing on different areas
of applied science (for example, applied polymer research, digital
media technology, applied solid state physics, inter alia).
Around 17,000 scientists and engineers are employed in total.
The annual research budget is €1.6 billion, which at an institute
level comprises elements of core state funding (one third), publicly
funded (national or EU) competitive research contracts (one third)
and private sector research contracts (one third), as well as
Intellectual Property (IP) licensing revenue.
1.2 It should also be recognised that other countries
have analogous Technology and Innovation Centres (TICs), eg the
Carnot Institutes in France, and ETRI in South Korea (the latter
establishing the country as a major international semiconductor
producer), although the funding and business models vary according
to the local innovation system and the economic/social landscape.
1.3 It is common for Fraunhofer institutes to
be focused on sectors or technologies that capitalise on local
and national strengths, rather than having a wide spread of institutes
targeting many fields, and have a workforce recruited from the
academic and private sector possessing research, technology development
and commercialisation skills. Most benefit from long-term, sustained
and predictable flows of public funding, which is supplemented
by winning additional income from public and private sector contract
research, and through the commercialisation of IP. Strong governance
structures are in place in many to provide strategic direction
and ensure the quality of services provided to business, but almost
all operate with a high degree of autonomy. International collaborations
are widely undertaken, with many in the EU leveraging significant
funding from the Framework Programme.
1.4 The UK research and innovation landscape
is very different from that in Germany. In the UK, world-class
research-intensive universities undertake a much broader range
of research activities than in Germany, including basic research,
applied R&D, research translation and innovation as well as
technology development services. Complementary R&D activities
are undertaken in independent research institutes which often
partner with universities to further their research and innovation
activities. These include the Research Council Institutes, Government
laboratories, technology intermediaries, R&D consultancies
and in company R&D laboratories.
1.5 The research and innovation funding landscapes,
composition of research intensive businesses, and nature of university-business
relationships also differ significantly between the UK and Germany.
In the UK, world-class universities have strong and established
relationships with business, whereas in Germany it is the Fraunhofer
institutes which have strong links to business. Indeed the Fraunhofer
institutes could be seen as a barrier to university research making
an impact in Germany
1.6 By 2015 research in most Universities will
become more differentiated and more focused in specific areas.
National funding bodies will focus on national centres of excellence
in specific research areas, (shaping capability and greater selectivity)
and larger programmes will result from "best with best"
collaborations (often in form of complementary groups of world
leading excellence). Each University will develop its own distinctive
and more highly differentiated research strategy, with collaborative
ventures nationally and internationally in a global market place.
In this new environment, the creation of Technology and Innovation
Centres provides a significant opportunity to further enhance
the capability and capacity of world-leading innovation groups
within the universities to support the commercial development
of new technologies that will underpin GDP growth in the UK. However
to do this there has to be strong alignment between TICs and substantial
investment in existing centres of excellence in research and innovation
in Universities
1.7 Given the differences between the research
landscapes in the UK and Germany it is unlikely that replicating
the Fraunhofer model as it operates in Germany is likely to meet
the innovation needs of the UK. Successful innovation requires
taking into account the context and environment within which research
is undertaken, generated, and exploited.
1.8 The Government has announced that a network
of Technology and Innovation Centres to enable industry to exploit
new and emerging technologies, by closing this gap through the
provision of a business-focussed capability that bridges research
and technology commercialisation. Successful implementation of
this programme will require integrating the new TICs with existing
infrastructure that currently supports the commercial exploitation
of new knowledge and capability in key sectors.
1.9 The Hauser review[3]
identified that TICs should focus on platform technologies only
where: there are large global markets; where the UK has technical
leadership; there is a defensible technology position; and, there
is a capacity to anchor a significant part of the value chain
from research to manufacturing in the UK. Key sectors that offer
potential under these criteria included regenerative medicine,
plastic electronics, renewable technologies and advanced manufacturing.
2. Are there existing Fraunhofer-type research
centres within the UK, and if so, are they effective?
2.1 Research-intensive universities in the UK
host a number of research centres which have attributes of the
Fraunhofer institutes. These centres typically undertake applied
and collaborative research with companies, support the commercial
exploitation of knowledge and capability and also provide incubation
and professional support for new business star ups companies.
2.2 The most similar parallel at the University
of Leeds is the nationally funded Innovation and Knowledge Centre
in Regenerative Therapies and Devices - IKCRTD (www.ikcrtd.leeds.ac.uk).
This creates a significant research and innovation platform for
the exploitation of new medical technologies and regenerative
therapies in partnership with companies and clinical partners.
The IKC also benefits from close alignment with significant underpinning
research activity (currently valued at £100 million over
the next five years) that helps sustain and refresh the knowledge
base for further exploitation.
2.3 Experience at Leeds has shown that successful
exploitation of knowledge and capability requires close interaction
with and support from the University's Commercialisation Services
team alongside professional innovation support. This integrated
support structure enables companies to develop new partnerships
with academic research that are established and cemented through
robust contractual frameworks and support to ensure delivery to
time and to budget. This is further reinforced through the Commercialisation
Services team where businesses wish to exploit the IP generated
from research through licence arrangements. This requires robust
support for commercial negotiation and contract support to ensure
the business partner receives a satisfactory outcome that meets
the true commercial value of the IP to be exploited outside of
the university.
2.4 Furthermore, the University has an excellent
relationship with a Venture Capital partner, the IP Group that
jointly develop IP and commercial opportunities with the University
through investment and professional support to enable new companies
to be generated from academic IP. The University has good facilities
available for business incubation, both in the form of office
accommodation and state-of-the-art laboratory accommodation to
house new university start up businesses as well as external companies
that wish to co-locate alongside research capability. (www.leedsinnovationcentre.co.uk).
2.5 A portfolio analysis of investment profile in
research technology innovation and commercialisation in the medical
technology sector shows a substantial gap in investment in technology
readiness levels 3 and 4, which has deepened and widened since
2008. It is important that this gap is addressed through the TIC
agenda, which means integrating with existing investment in research
in universities and investment in commercial development in industry.
3. What other models are there for research
centres oriented toward applications and results?
3.1 Impact and innovation will have to address
specific sectors and sub sectors. Generic innovation capability
which crosses many sectors is unlikely to be effective, as each
sector has specific and differentiated needs. While the innovation
funding will predominantly move nationally, there will be a regional
focus for specific industry sectors and sub sectors. Indeed regional
industry clusters are well recognised vehicles for emerging industry
sub sectors. However, the regional infrastructure to support this
has now disappeared with the demise of the Regional Development
Agencies. In the new more highly differentiated market, innovation
in a specific sector will need to draw upon research excellence
from more than one university, and in addition specialist capabilities
to translate technology will need to be developed. This may be
delivered by a group of universities or alternatively a single
university may act as a hub to provide support for innovation
in a specific sector to enable access to a cluster of universities.
3.2 Innovation is to be funded nationally and
programmes will involve portfolios of individual projects. There
will be constraints on management resources and delivery mechanisms
nationally. National networks such as KTNs may remain, but they
will not drive innovation, only support innovation driven by others.
TICs are likely to be targeted to support specific sub sectors
and emerging industries. Universities have a role to play in these
centres, as suppliers of knowledge, technology and capability,
and in providing infrastructure for effective translation. This
will be an important collaborative function and requires universities
to work more effectively right across the innovation pathway.
The progress of a new product or service along this pathway is
typically described through Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)
that indicate the progression from initial ideas and knowledge
creation (TRL 1-2) to providing the commercial and technical concept
(TRL 3-4) to a business having the confidence to make commercial
investment in further progressing the product or service (TRL
5) through to regulation, clinical trials and finally product
launch (TRL 6-9). This model is being actively developed through
the Innovation and knowledge centre at Leeds, which integrates
technology and innovation in industry, universities and NHS in
medical technologies.
3.3 The UK is recognised as a world leader in
life sciences and the sector offers significant potential for
high technology-led growth that will contribute to building a
stronger Britain for the future, driving growth and prosperity
as well as stimulating improvements in healthcare delivery and
meeting future challenges such as an aging population and obesity.[4]
The medical technology sector of life sciences is growing rapidly
in the UK with around 2,800 companies, the majority of which are
small and medium enterprises (SMEs), employing 52,000 people and
generating around £10.6 billion of turnover. In addition,
around 25% of all European medical technology companies are based
in the UK.
3.4 Regenerative medicine is a maturing scientific
area, but remains an immature technology which has not yet demonstrated
effective exploitation or commercialisation. There are significant
barriers to translation and overcoming these remains the primary
focus for developing a vibrant regenerative therapy commercial
base across the UK and beyond. Regenerative medicine remains on
the TSB priority area list, however, it needs to be recognised
that regenerative medicine remains a high risk technology area
and does not yet have sufficient critical mass or markets to sustain
large scale investment in innovation. However it has significant
potential to grow from a world leading base in medical technologies
and medical biotechnology.
3.5 At the University of Leeds we have significant
national and global capability in medical technologies innovation
which provides an excellent platform to grow an emerging market
in regenerative therapies and devices. This capability is currently
housed within the IKCRTD. It also leads the N8 centre for translational
regenerative medicine, RegeNer8, a collaboration across 8 universities,
with a supply chain of 100 companies
3.6 Therapies and devices which facilitate the
regeneration of body tissues offer
the potential to revolutionise healthcare
across all sectors and patient groups and be a catalyst for economic
growth, creating a new business sector within healthcare technology.
The forces driving the growth of the regenerative medicine market
are compelling. This shift will potentially disrupt the entire
healthcare value chain affecting pharmaceutical and medical devices
industries as well as routine medical practice. This rapidly growing
multidisciplinary area requires innovative scientists and engineers
who can cross discipline boundaries, work in broader systems based
projects and work flexibly and collaboratively with industry and
clinicians at different stages of the innovation pathway.
3.7 IKCRTD is founded around Europe's largest
integrated multi-disciplinary and internationally leading medical
engineering centre based at the University of Leeds. This provides
an integrated academic research base that includes 50 academic
staff and over 200 researchers working across 10 Departments.
The centre hosts national capability, expertise and intellectual
assets for innovation in medical technologies that will grow UK
and global companies within this high growth sector and also in
supply chain companies that can also contribute to the development
of this sector. The capability is determined by a core platform
of over £100m research and innovation investment over the
next five years (2010-15). This centre is unique in that it operates
across the medical technology spectrum from implantable devices
through to regenerative therapies which can be enhanced with autologous
stem cells. This means that the centre focuses upon developing
new technologies and devices that have viable and feasible routes
to commercialisation that reduce late failure and cost. This integrated
research and innovation centre aims to improve the quality of
life of the population who expect 50 active years after 50.
3.8 IKCRTD focuses upon early validation of technical
concept and commercial feasibility to reduce late failure and
cost and accelerate innovation opportunities with a higher probability
of commercial success. Through this approach it is possible to
integrate the medical and regenerative technologies business base,
address emerging markets and challenges, deliver improved patient
well being and significant economic growth.
3.9 The successful launch of a new medical technology
product or service depends on successful progression through an
innovation pathway - from identifying a need through to product
launch. Our experience has shown that companies are focussing
on projects with shorter term returns at higher TRLs. As such
the gulf between fundamental research and industrial investment
is widening. Within the IKCRTD we aim to bridge that gap by:
3.9.1 Identify needs and collaborate to develop
solutions.
3.9.2 Validate concepts (technical, commercial,
clinical and market).
3.9.3 Undertake preclinical testing and simulation.
3.9.4 Design and deliver robust, effective clinical
trials.
3.9.5 Evaluate the health economics of a new
product or service.
3.10 IKCRTD seeks to work in partnership with
companies to accelerate the commercial development of their technologies
by helping them access knowledge, capability and
people resources alongside close clinical collaboration.
4. Whose role should it be to coordinate research
in a UK-wide network of innovation centres?
4.1 The Government has announced that the Technology
Strategy Board (TSB) will establish and oversee the network of
TICs. The TSB is well placed to take on this role, given their
established relationships with business and universities. Furthermore,
the TSB has played a strong role in supporting the Innovation
and Knowledge Centres that have helped better connect companies
to national innovation and research strengths within the universities.
4.2 In coordinating the network of TICs it will
be essential that opportunities are seized to support the TICs
to work together and share good practice for the benefit of UK
companies and other organisations that can benefit from the outcomes
from TIC activity.
4.3 The strategic leadership and development
of the TICs over time will need careful management to ensure that
they continue to align with current and future national strengths
and opportunities and continue to be founded around clear platform
technologies with potential for further development.
4.4 The Government has also announced that that
individual TICs will have a high degree of autonomy so they can
respond to business needs. The ability to respond flexibly and
rapidly will be a significant factor in the success of a TIC.
However, it is evident that TICs will also need to respond to
emerging developments in research and innovation as well as business
needs. As such they should be closely aligned with and connected
to world-leading academic researchers who can help the TIC develop
and adapt to meet changes in the research and innovation landscape.
4.5 As TICs need to be founded on integrated
research and innovation activity it is likely that the governance
and management of individual TICs should be through a Board with
members from both business and academia.
5. 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?
5.1 There are a number of existing centres that
are working on aspects relating to regenerative medicine, plastic
electronics and high value manufacturing. These centres are partially
funded or sponsored by Government. As such it is imperative that
the TICs work with relevant existing centres and public sector
research establishments to avoid duplication and ensure synergies
can be optimised. This approach will also maximise the commercial
exploitation of nationally funded research to effect translation
and utilisation by users.
5.2 In the current changing public sector funded
landscape it is important that TICs are able to build upon established
relationships with businesses and other partners and do not displace
existing and productive relationships.
DECLARATION OF
INTEREST
The author of this response is Professor of Mechanical
Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering, who is active in research
and dependent on Research Council and other sources of Government
funding. He has drawn on the views of colleagues across the University,
many of whom serve on Research Council and funding body committees
and panels.
Professor John Fisher
Director of the Institute of Medical and
Biological Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
The University of Leeds
November 2010
3 The Current and future role of Technology and Innovation
Centres in the UK, a report by Hermann Hauser for the Department
for Business Innovation and Skills, 2010. Back
4
Life Sciences Blue Print, a Statement of the Office of Life Sciences,
July 2009. Back
| 
