Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Written evidence submitted by Don Braben, Honorary Professor, Office of the Vice-Provost (Research), UCL (ARIAB02)

ARIA Bill

Summary

1. What do the following have in common: the laser and myriad spin-offs, countless components of the electronic and telecommunications revolutions, nuclear power, biotechnology, and medical diagnostics galore? They are all the fruit of free, unplanned, unconstrained, disinterested research by exceptional people leading to huge economic growth at a time when almost all scientists were free to choose their own research. 

2. Today, the enormous rise in the number of academics means such laissez faire is forbidden and all research is now constrained by priorities set by governments and funding-agencies. 

3. However, this serious problem must be solved if humanity is to have a viable future. Possible low-cost solutions are outlined.

                             ____________________________

4. The UK government is proposing a new £800 million initiative, the Advanced Research Invention Agency (ARIA) based on the US’ Defence Advanced Research Initiative. It is "tasked with funding high-risk research that offers the chance of high rewards" to solve clearly defined problems with a minimum of bureaucracy. But is that what’s needed?

5. Over the past few decades academics have had to adjust to radical change. Before about 1970, most academics were not required to prepare research proposals. Provided their requirements were modest they could simply press on without consulting anyone. The harvest from this unconstrained freedom was spectacular. The new sciences were created by members of what I have dubbed the 20-century Planck Club, comprising Max Planck in 1900 (quantisation) and Albert Einstein in 1905 (relativity and photo-electric effect) and followed by some 500 scientists later in the century.  Their brilliant work inspired such unpredicted technologies as the the laser and myriad spin-offs, countless components of the electronic and telecommunications revolutions, nuclear power, biotechnology, and medical diagnostics galore, all of which are now indispensable parts of everyday life.

6. Since about 1970, the rapidly increasing number of academics meant that laissez faire could not continue and proposals had to be prepared. Today, proposals must be within the funding agencies’ priority areas, show that they will be the best value for money, result in national benefit and have impact, in the jargon, explaining how the research will result in the benefits outlined. Agency committees are guided by reports from referees they select but largely anonymous to the researchers. Committees on average have funds to support only some 25% of proposals received: many excellent proposals are lost.

7. Peer review of proposals nowadays dominates every aspect of academic life. Funding agencies’ deliberations can take many months and academics tolerate them because there is no alternative. Spontaneity has been lost. For scientists concentrating on extending existing knowledge, which is the overwhelming majority, peer review of proposals is defendable. But for those few whose research would radically challenge that knowledge the policy is maximally wrong. Thus, for the first time since the Renaissance, academics are faced with severe constraints on what they can do.

8. If current policies had applied at the beginning of the 20th century the world today would be a very much harsher place as few Planck Club studies would be approved and the huge economic growth they stimulated would probably be lost. Ways must be found, therefore, of supporting the very few scientists who have a reasonable chance of creating the new sciences that will lead to radical change. However, governments and funding agencies today are focussing increasingly on technology and well-defined problems that urgently need solution. ARIA is a typical example. Research that may lead to these benefits must be supported, of course. But few members of the Planck Club concerned themselves initially with humanity’s problems. They concentrated on the creation of new and unspecified scientific capital that could be used by others to develop their ideas into highly profitable enterprise. 

9. My experience with Venture Research, an initiative that ran from 1980 to 1990 and sponsored by BP, is highly relevant. It was dedicated to providing a few scientists with similar freedom to that enjoyed by Planck Club members. We received some 10,000 proposals from European and North American scientists and supported some 40 without using peer review: the total cost was some £20 million (money of the day) over the decade.  We developed selection methods based on extended face-to-face discussions and looked for research that might radically change the way we think about something important. We also fostered mutual trust and gave feedback in real time.

10. Many might comment that when we say we do not use peer review we seem to forget that we are peers ourselves. But we are not in competition with applicants as real peers almost invariably are and we do not speak the same disciplinary language: applicant’s languages need to be explained. 

11. This low-cost initiative was very successful and has so far led to some 14 breakthroughs. Several have won major prizes and honours. They include Steve Davies, University of Oxford, whose Venture Research was entitled "Understanding Molecular Architecture". He subsequently discovered small artificial enzymes for efficient chiral selection and set up a company in 1990, Oxford Asymmetry, to exploit them, a company that was sold for £316 million in 2000. Others include Martyn Poliakoff, University of Nottingham, and Ken Seddon, Queen’s University of Belfast, whose research based on the supercritical behaviour of materials independently led to the transformation of Green Chemistry, the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous substances.  

12. This experience led in 2009 to UCL setting up its own Venture Research initiative which so far has identified one scientist from about 50 applicants, again without using peer review. Nick Lane proposed a theoretical study of the role of mitochondria in cells costing some £150,000 over three years. It has since been considerably expanded to study the origin of life and its growing potential has attracted over £5 million in external funding, more than 20 times UCL’s initial outlay. Details of BP and UCL successes are given in my Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilisation published by Stripe Press last year.

13. This serious problem could be partially solved if some universities would follow UCL’s lead and set up Venture Research activities initially supported from their own resources. Based on 20th-century experience, some ~500 scientists might be needed to restore 21st-century global academic creativity to its former levels.  Each university should appoint its own very small team to make the selections. They should set exceptionally high standards not for lack of funds but because the standards set will necessarily be exceptionally high. Initial costs would be low. Wise selections and the new sciences they would precipitate would quickly attract substantial funding from the usual sources.

14. My experiences, which focussed on the creation of new scientific capital, could be described as low-risk, high-reward. Today, governments and funding agencies, recognising that their selections might be too risk-averse, are searching for ways that might lead to unpredicted discoveries. 

15. In its presently proposed form, ARIA may give its directors more authority to select research themselves but if their focusses are on specific tecnologies it may not help. History teaches us that radical research must be not be constrained by third-party input as no one knows which direction they should go.

16. University Venture Research activities will be exceptional investments and will not be easy to set up. Universities are relatively small centres of excellence (maybe with international reputations) and many may not be impressed by initiatives whose average annual spend is close to zero! But these discoveries, if confirmed, will be the focus of tomorrow’s unpredictable technologies and imply large spends by those organisations responsible for translational initiatives. But by acting together, they will provide the world a vital service. Big companies might also consider Venture Research based on the BP experience as a possible investment in the future.

April 2021