Less is more
11 Oct 2010 by qwwqdccwwm.d qwwqdccwwm.d
We need to achieve more with less – that was the challenge issued by Vince Cable in his recent speech at Queen Mary, University of London.
We need to achieve more with less – that was the challenge issued by Vince Cable in his recent speech at Queen Mary, University of London.
With the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSP) due later this month, Vince Cable’s speech looked set to prepare the scientific community for the cuts that lie ahead. No figures were given, but the message was clear – although the contribution of the UK science base to the Government is highly valued, it’s got to do more with a lot less.
Dr Cable’s commitment to investing in science and research is clear, but even he knows that he can’t prejudice those making the decisions in the CSR and believes his department – the largest without a protected budget – will see cuts.
“There is a school of thought which says that the Government commitment to science and technology is measured by how much money we spend,” he said, “Money is important for both the quality and quantity. But it is an input, not and output measure. The question I have to address is can we achieve more with less?”
Cable – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and MP for science hotspot Twickenham – made it clear how this was to be achieved; transforming research into innovation and focusing on area where the UK is already world leader.
Cable said he is against the traditional way to make spending cuts by shaving a bit of everything – likening it to salami slicing – but believes a superficially attractive option would be to concentrate on certain branches of sciences that the country should and should not do.
“My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international quality – and screen out mediocrity – regardless of where they are and what they do,” Cable said, “There is no justification for taxpayers money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding.”
He did however point out that Treasury and BIS ministers should not be the ones making these decisions, and that it would be tough because all scientific disciplines interact.
“There is however a strong case for identifying broad problems,” he said, “The challenges thrown up by an aging population – the increase prevalence of Alzheimer’s for example – need people working across biology, medicine, biochemistry and the social sciences in order to better address needs.”
Dr Cable also suggested the scientific and business communities to come together and plan a future “that makes the most of this country’s competitive advantages in financially difficult circumstances for the benefit of us all.”
The key to this according to Cable is by finding ways to transform research into innovation. The UK already has a strong record but needs to do more by building stronger links between the science and research base and business communities. He hopes the level of economic interactions between the two – in the form of spin-out companies, licensing and commissioned research – will increase.
UK universities have an improving track record for commercialising knowledge from science and research, with 37 spin-outs floated in the stock exchange between 2003 and 2010 with a value of £1.7 billion. A further 24 were acquired by other businesses for a total of £2.4 billion – including Solexa from Cambridge University who was sold to a US-based company for $600 million in 2007.
The barriers to collaboration need to be broken he said, not just between institutions in the UK but between UK and overseas institutions and companies. “International collaboration is an important way for us to stay at the cutting edge of research whilst reducing the cost to the UK taxpayer,” he said.
Cable asked how it would be possible to encourage academics to collaborate with industry to maximise the benefits of research, suggesting a network of Technology and Innovation Centres based on international models like the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany.
“Both science minister David Willetts and I agree that it is a good way forward and I am looking closely at the recommendations in the [CBI survey] review and the value of investing in these in the context of the spending review,” he said, pointing out that international models should not just be copied.
The previous Government invested in over 60 of these centres, but largely failed because the funding was too thinly spread, said Cable, who believes few but better funded centres with a long-term focus would work better.
A 2010 OECD innovation report showed that innovation is a key source of future growth for emerging economies, and other countries like USA, Germany and France are all investing in their science and research base to help pull them out of the economic crisis. We will have to wait until the CSR to see what the UK will do.
