INTRODUCTION
3.1 "The science
base" is a loose expression often used to mean the nation's
common stock of scientific talent and resources. It embraces
publicly-funded science in universities and Research Council units;
depending on the context, it may be meant to include the resources
of Government research institutes, research charities (mainly
medical) and industrial research organisations; it is distinguished
from the research capabilities of individual commercial firms.
Much of the activity of the science base consists of "basic
science", i.e. research with no specific application in
mind; the two expressions are not synonymous but to avoid any
impression that they are synonymous the expression "science
and engineering base" is sometimes used. Many of the ideas
which lead to innovation originate in the science base, and, if
barriers to exploitation exist, they may be found within the science
base or at its interface with industry. In this chapter we examine
the factors which affect the ability of the science base to bring
forward ideas, the way the key issue of intellectual property
rights (IPR) are handled, mechanisms for handling technology-transfer
at the interface and the steps taken overall to reduce the barriers
to innovation.
BACKGROUND
3.2 In its report of
1991, the Committee considered the university-industry interface,
and said:
We welcome the closer relations between industry and the science base which
have been forged in recent years. We regret that British companies
are often slow to take advantage of improved technology transfer
from Research Councils and HEIs (higher education institutions,
which then included polytechnics as well as universities) and
urge them to improve their responsiveness. Greater interaction
in policy formation between industry and academia would be advantageous.
More staff of HEIs should be involved on the boards of companies.
Further improvements in the links between industry and academia
should not be perceived by Government as an excuse for reducing
support to HEIs and Research Councils" (paragraphs 10.20-23).
3.3 The Government
agreed with the Committee. Their response offered nothing new,
but drew attention to various existing policies: the expansion
of higher education and the ending of the "binary line"
between polytechnics and universities; money available to HEIs
at that time from the DTI "to strengthen the marketing and
commercial skills of their `Industrial Units'" and for "institution-wide
technology audits to identify research results for exploitation";
LINK and the Teaching Company Scheme (TCS); the new Interdisciplinary
Research Centres (IRCs); and new statutory provision to encourage
representation of industry in the governance of polytechnics.
This response referred approvingly to the rapid growth in the
number of United Kingdom science parks, from two in 1979 to 39
in 1991; and to the rise in the research grant and contract income
of universities from industry from £27 million in 1982-83
to £105 million in 1989-90. It said,
"The Government is committed to maintaining a healthy science base and will continue
to fund the Research Councils and HEIs accordingly ... the Government
stands by its commitment not to reduce public support in response
to institutions' continuing success in generating income from
other sources".
3.4 The milestone White
Paper "Realising our Potential", published by
the Government in May 1993, set out a series of reforms intended
to build on the country's existing strengths in science, engineering
and technology. It maintained the commitment to support the science
and engineering base and said Government schemes for technology
transfer would be developed to re-emphasise the importance of
the interchange of ideas, skills, know-how and knowledge between
the science and engineering base and industry. It also gave the
commitment to easier access, especially for small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs), to the innovation support programmes run by
the DTI and the equivalent offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
3.5 The Bank of England's
recent report notes the significance of the university-industry
interface without making it a major theme. It acknowledges that,
at the "seed stage", a technology-based firm often consists
of a full-time academic researcher developing an innovation either
at work, in his own or his employer's time, or at home.
"This situation,
although an advantage initially (since the innovator has an income
and access to facilities), can lead to important problems later
when the product is to be launched: technology-based firms which
spin-off from a university or other research establishment often
face difficulties involving intellectual property rights"
(paragraph 2.2 of BoE report).
3.6 The report repeats
the familiar refrain: strong in invention, weak in innovation.
It cites a study (by PRISM in 1996) of human genetic technology
patents: United Kingdom scientists wrote 6.5 per cent of papers
cited, but only 2.8 per cent of the patents were owned in the
United Kingdom; Japan produced only 4.8 per cent of the papers,
but owned 12.3 per cent of the patents. It notes that an increasing
number of universities have a technology transfer department,
some with their own venture funds; and that the Medical Research
Council (MRC) has set up spin-out firms, or fostered them by incubation,
and plans to set up its own seed investment fund.
"However, there are still cultural barriers to commercialisation. It is
generally believed that UK universities are not yet as commercially-minded
as their US counterparts" (paragraph 3.57 of BoE report).
To improve the culture, the report
recommends that universities use successful graduate innovators
as role models, and we endorse that recommendation.
