Tectonic Shifts
Graeme Reid on the past half-century of Britain’s research and innovation journey
The story of Britain’s research and innovation ecosystem rarely moves in a single direction. Over decades, the relationships between academia, industry and government have shifted like tectonic plates – sometimes converging to create powerful collaborative peaks, at other times drifting apart and leaving fault lines in the landscape.
Yet these tectonic movements often grind against the same persistent challenges. Perhaps most striking is how the United Kingdom excels at diagnosing its challenges while struggling to implement lasting solutions. This pattern of analysis without action has become a defining feature of Britain’s approach to science and technology policy – one where the comfort of continued assessment often outweighs the risks of decisive intervention, leaving our innovation landscape in a state of constant diagnosis.
Graeme Reid, Professor of Science and Research Policy at University College London (UCL), has witnessed many of these developments firsthand, advising governments across changing political landscapes on science policy since the 1980s. Our conversation covers how research and innovation relationships evolved and where the ecosystem might be headed.
What we discussed
The evolution of university-business relationships since the 1980s.
The impact of the Research Assessment Exercise and the Research Excellence Framework on academic-business collaboration.
The rise and fall – and rise again – of government science.
The purpose and influence of Chief Scientific Advisers.
Government departments’ Areas of Research Interest and academic engagement in policy development.
Career mobility between academia and policy.
Regional dynamics of research and innovation funding.
Opportunities and risks of ‘natural selection’ in the university research system.
Challenges in Britain’s capital markets for scaling companies.
Lessons for strengthening the academia-industry-government triangle
Develop the marketplace for academia-government engagement: Develop models and arrangements for exchanges of experts and collaborative projects that don’t always require case-by-case negotiation.
Stabilise regional funding mechanisms: End the cycle of short-lived regional funding initiatives. Allow programmes to run for long enough to demonstrate effectiveness, rather than reinventing them every few years.
Explore co-investment models for regional innovation: Give regions more ownership by encouraging local funding contributions raised through local taxation, combined with central government support.
Expand civil service outreach: Consider ‘policy roadshows’, where departments hold town hall meetings across the country to encourage broader engagement with their work.
Reduce policy turbulence through longer planning cycles: Move from annual Spending Reviews to four-year cycles, reducing disruption and allowing for more strategic planning.
Improve support from capital markets for scaling companies, including – but not limited to – pension fund reforms.
Drive a cultural shift in investment by growing and supporting a generation of investment fund managers with expertise in early-stage technology companies.
Convene a forum of research funders: Bring together public, private and charitable funders to support government missions, industrial strategy and other priorities.
Full interview
I. Industry-academia relationships
How would you characterise the relationship between universities and businesses in the 1980s, when you began your career?
There were a few significant features that are no longer present today. For one, many companies had their own research laboratories. This made it very easy to know who to speak to within a company – you could simply approach the head of the laboratory. These labs weren’t limited to high-tech companies either – construction firms, some retailers, and many others had their own research laboratories.
A greater proportion of government-funded research was carried out in government laboratories and nationalised companies, with universities performing a smaller share than we see now.
What key policy changes or institutional developments have most significantly altered university-business relationships since then?
On the business side, we’ve seen most corporate research laboratories disappear, with research activities brought into business functions rather than managed through a centralised research department. So you no longer see so many centralised research labs with clearly defined leaders.
On the university side, in the mid-1980s, the introduction of the national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) – the precursor to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) – created a formal system for evaluating research performance in universities. This system recognised and rewarded research excellence, but not research impact.
There is a plausible argument that the RAE’s focus on research outputs, rather than impact, undermined quite a strong culture of academic-business collaboration and shifted the academic community towards producing peer-reviewed publications, rather than research that led to commercial or social impact.
From your perspective, what tells us that this was the turning point?
I don’t have quantitative evidence, nor am I aware of a way to gather it. But I’d point out that many universities – such as Birmingham, Manchester, and Newcastle – were founded to strengthen the relationship between scholarship and industry, which was indeed clearly evident in the decades after their creation. If you also look at UCL’s history during the 1800s and early 1900s, it includes examples of deep collaboration with industry.
What did collaboration look like at the time?
Well, even I wasn’t around in the 1800s, so I don’t have firsthand evidence. But there are historical accounts that describe close collaborations between business and universities, with people from the corporate world being involved in universities, and people from universities being involved in companies. This suggests quite a close relationship between academia and industry. For those who would like to go into more detail, they should read ‘The Universities and British Industry 1850-1970’ by Michael Sanderson.
Given this history, could you walk us through how the university-business relationship arrived at where it is today?
I suspect that the introduction of the RAE weakened those relationships. Meanwhile, the Thatcher Government reduced the number of government laboratories and shifted the focus of government-funded R&D away from ‘near-market research’ (which, it argued, should be paid for by businesses themselves) to concentrate on the frontiers of knowledge. Jon Agar’s book ‘Science Policy Under Thatcher’ gives a detailed account of this shift in direction.
The early part of the 21st century saw a series of policy interventions that reversed this approach and promoted university-business collaboration. About 15 years after those relationships were weakened, the weakness was recognised and addressed through new funding mechanisms and a higher profile in the political narrative. The tipping point came in 2003, when the then Chancellor Gordon Brown commissioned a review of business-university collaboration by Richard Lambert (a former editor of the Financial Times who would go on to become Director General of the Confederation of British Industry). The findings of the Lambert Review were absorbed into a new ten-year framework for science and innovation that was published by the Treasury in 2004.
Momentum kept building. The Higher Education Innovation Fund grew in size, government support for business innovation was given more emphasis and coherence through the creation of Innovate UK. The National Centre for Universities and Business was created in 2013.
In 2014, the introduction of research impact into the REF supercharged the incentive for universities to demonstrate the contribution they make to the economy and society. By 2025, business collaboration has once again become a mainstream part of academic life. It’s no longer something that happens only at the margins – it is now a prominent feature of university life.
Despite this progress, what do you see as the remaining weak spots in the university-business collaboration ecosystem?
In the past ten or 15 years, this area has been heavily scrutinised, with many reviews and reports into university-business collaboration. It’s become quite a popular topic for government inquiry. There’s a kind of received wisdom that the UK is good at inventing things but not at commercialising them. But I just don’t think the evidence supports this. The evidence actually tells a different story – one of a vibrant relationship between universities and businesses. There is certainly room for improvement, but there is a lot to celebrate as well.
Interestingly, before entering the post, the current Executive Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Stian Westlake, published a marvellous series of statements pointing out that many countries tell themselves they’re good at inventing things, but someone else is always better at commercialisation.1
That said, it’s not that this country is perfect. There are some significant weak spots in the UK that we’re yet to strengthen.
II. Research commercialisation and business scaleup pathways
You mentioned weak spots that the UK is yet to strengthen. How should we structure the relationship between public and private support in our innovation pipeline?
I think we need greater clarity about the respective roles of the public and private sectors, where they should work together, ensuring that public spending isn’t used in areas best left to the private sector. The public sector simply doesn’t have the resources to do everything.
To me, the top priority for public funding should be supporting the discovery of new knowledge. This is the area furthest from private sector interests, but it forms the foundation for everything else. It’s also where highly talented researchers receive their training before moving on to roles in business, charities and public bodies – so it’s a vital source of talent for the wider economy.
That said, the public sector also has a role in supporting the commercialisation of research, particularly in the early stages of company formation. Startups often face the so-called “valley of death,” where they are not yet sufficiently attractive to private investors. Without some public funding at this stage, many promising ideas would never survive long enough to realise their commercial potential.
I’d like to see more incentives for the private sector to invest further into this “valley of death”, For example, there’s been ongoing debate for years about reforming pension fund regulations to allow a tiny portion of these very large funds to be invested in high-risk, high-reward university spinouts. I’m not suggesting that pension funds should be heavily invested in these ventures, but even a fraction of a percent could make a difference – provided the fund managers have the expertise to make this a sensible part of a wider portfolio of long-term investment.
We also have tax reliefs, such as the R&D tax relief, which provide significant incentives for companies. But there are still concerns about their effectiveness and reports of abuse, which suggest a lack of confidence in the system. Given the scale and importance of these tax incentives, it’s important to understand and address the underlying concerns – whether that means improving the tax instrument itself or changing perceptions around it.
You mentioned the “valley of death.” What would you say is the main barrier preventing these companies from scaling?
That’s a big question and I am wary of generalising. One is the capacity of our capital markets to provide a strong investment environment for early-stage, technology-based companies. While universities are doing a good job commercialising research, the pathway in the UK from private ownership to stock market listing is pretty bumpy.
We see a significant proportion of early-stage companies choosing to float on the NASDAQ in the US rather than on the London markets. I hear repeatedly that the NASDAQ offers higher valuations of newly listed companies and a more receptive community of investors.
This weakness has been diagnosed many times. We know the problem and don’t need another review to confirm it. What we need now is a solution, which will likely be a regulatory one in part, but, more importantly, also a cultural shift – which would be more difficult and will take longer to bring about.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by a cultural shift and how we might achieve it?
We need more investment funds with expertise in early-stage technology companies, and that means growing a generation of fund managers with those capabilities. This can’t be solved with regulation alone. We need to develop a larger population of people who plan to build a career out of investing in early-stage growth companies.
The fact that early-stage companies from the UK that float on NASDAQ often go on to succeed suggests that the quality of our companies is not the issue. That helps build my confidence that the problem, to a substantial degree, lies in the culture and behaviour of the capital markets, not in the investability of the companies themselves.
III. Science and expert advice for government policy and decision-making
How has the infrastructure for science advice for government evolved since you began your career?
One major difference was the prevalence of government laboratories. There were many more of them back then, and universities actually played a smaller role in research and innovation compared to what we see today. Overall, the landscape was quite different from what it is now.
Could you elaborate on what government laboratories looked like and what their purpose was?
A few decades ago, many government departments owned and operated their own research laboratories. These labs could provide evidence and analysis from inside government to support policymaking, as well as technical expertise to help deliver public services.
Many of these organisations continue to thrive – often serving clients around the world – but they are no longer inside government. The Transport Research Laboratory, the Building Research Establishment, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the National Engineering Laboratory are among the many organisations that were once part of the government. Government now reaches a wide range of expertise in universities and other organisations, often through its terrific network of Chief Scientific Advisers.
How exactly were these government laboratories feeding into decision-making processes, and how has the broader infrastructure for science advice evolved since then?
This story does not move in one direction. During the Second World War, there was a very close partnership between the scientific community and some parts of government, and there were scientific and technological achievements that had a transformational effect on the war effort and the country’s military capabilities. Some of these advances were made in government laboratories; some came from private companies.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, these institutions continued to exist, but their purpose attracted ever more debate. By the 1980s and early 1990s, when many government laboratories were privatised or disbanded, it was presumably because government departments decided that they were no longer essential parts of government. A smaller number of laboratories providing key facilities and essential expertise continue to operate within government, thriving in an environment where scientific expertise is valued so highly.
More generally, government has rediscovered the value of science in policymaking and public service delivery. We’ve seen the creation of a strong network of Chief Scientific Advisers across government, many of whom are supported by scientific advisory councils. This has helped build up the capacity of government to absorb and use scientific advice.
Now, with Chief Scientific Advisers embedded within departments, we have a model that is better suited to today’s needs. In my view, the network of Chief Scientific Advisers is one of the most effective networks within government.
Looking beyond the job description, what would you say is the principal purpose of Chief Scientific Advisers?
I would say that their primary role is to understand the challenges and opportunities inside their government departments and to help the departments recognise when and how scientific evidence and research can make contributions. Chief Scientific Advisers are an interface between their departments and the research community, rather than having the expertise to advise on every issue personally.
Most government departments have now published Areas of Research Interest, which define where they would welcome research input. This is a big step forward – even if they are imperfect or become outdated – because it allows departments to work out how to say: “Here are the things we want to know more about, and we think the research community can help us.” Sharing these priorities is immensely valuable for stimulating engagement with researchers.
Chief Scientific Advisers have played a crucial role in making this happen. While they are not the only authors of these statements of need – and nor should they be – they have been important in facilitating this process.
Publishing the Areas of Research Interest is an important first step. But the next step is ensuring that the academic community is actually aware of them and motivated to contribute. In your view, how effectively is this process set up at the moment?
There’s always room for more outreach, but it’s important to note that the Areas of Research Interest involved networks of academics in their creation. They weren’t just written within the four walls of a government department and then released to a startled world. Academics were involved in developing them and in helping government departments express their needs in language that would be recognisable to researchers. While some statements work better than others, they are a step forward in the relationship between government and the research community. I hope they will be refreshed from time to time, learning from experience and reflecting the ever-changing research needs of government.
On the academic side, there have also been several initiatives to promote engagement with policy with vital support from Research England and the ESRC. Just as government departments are reaching out to share their needs, academics are deep in discussion about how best to engage with policy. For example, UCL led a project called Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement, which worked with a network of five universities and several public bodies. I chaired the advisory board, while colleagues at UCL and Manchester led the project. The goal was to build academic capacity to engage with government, at the same time that government was working to engage with academics.
This is part of a longer process of improving the connection between academia and the policy sphere, including some forthcoming work on a Universities Policy Engagement Network.
With government expressing interest in receiving input from the academic community, and academics prepared to engage, someone still needs to bridge the gap and connect the two. Whose responsibility do you think that is?
I don’t think the solution is to have a master plan or appoint some kind of ‘academic-policy collaboration czar’ to coordinate everything across the country – that idea horrifies me.
What I would much prefer is the evolution of a marketplace where both sides – government and academia – can find each other in the most effective way. Both have made efforts to prepare for engagement, but the actual point of interface is still weak. We lack any mass-market mechanisms for interchange. What we have are hundreds of individual relationships, many of which are negotiated on their own terms.
We’re dealing with a finite number of government departments and a subset of academics interested in policy engagement, so it seems like at least some parts of these relationships would be susceptible to a more standardised, mass-market approach. For example, one way of really building up the relationship is by making it easier to exchange people between academia and government on short placements. Too many of these exchanges still tend to be negotiated one by one or in small batches.
Surely, there must be a way to create an arrangement that enough people could agree on – something that would streamline the negotiation so that, with the press of a button, contract and financial arrangements would fall into place. We don’t have that kind of system yet. I don’t think it would work everywhere, but having it available more of the time would be an improvement over what we have now. UKRI are among the organisations now offering financial support for short exchanges, so there is clearly progress being made in this area.
I think the exchanges you’ve mentioned are so important for both sides. When someone from government spends time in academia, the academic community becomes more informed about what evidence policymakers value. At the same time, the government official gains a better understanding of the academic community, and can share that knowledge back in government. The same applies in reverse when academics spend time in government.
I agree entirely. I’d also add that, 30 years ago, it was relatively unusual for people to build careers that moved between academia and the policy world.
Today, while it’s not yet commonplace, it’s not nearly as unusual to see people moving between academia and policy throughout their careers. At UCL, for example, I see a significant number of colleagues who previously had civil service careers like mine, and I know of civil servants who have come from academic backgrounds. Chief Scientific Advisers are obvious examples, but they’re not the only ones.
This movement tends to be easiest at the beginning and end of a career, while the bit in the middle remains difficult.
What other channels do you find effective for bringing expert input into government decisions? And do you see any misconceptions about how expert advice feeds into policy?
I would resist the idea that there are some ‘real’ experts who are qualified to advise government and those without certain credentials shouldn’t contribute. There are many different types of expertise, and I’m really pleased that a range of experts can have a say.
There are institutionalised and ad hoc mechanisms for gathering advice. The institutionalised mechanisms mainly involve advisory committees, some of which are set up for specific projects – like reviewing a policy or developing a strategy – while others are standing committees that, for example, support the Chief Scientific Adviser.
In addition, many government reviews include a phase where they call for evidence, and anyone is free to submit evidence or analysis. It’s then up to those running the review to decide how much weight to give each contribution. I believe it’s important for government to filter evidence submissions to find the ones that are most helpful on the day, but not to restrict who can submit. Everyone should have the opportunity to contribute, and government should be transparent about why it adopts particular policy positions.
To me, this is how a healthy democracy should function: everyone has the ability to have their say, and government acts not just because it has the power, but because it has the consent of the population.
How inclusive do you find the current input mechanisms in practice? Are there factors that might be inadvertently limiting wider participation?
In principle, consultation processes are open to all. In reality, participation is somewhat restricted because only a certain group of people tend to be aware of these consultations, and only some feel confident enough to take part. There’s nothing preventing wider participation, but there isn’t really a culture that encourages it.
There’s still work to be done to encourage wider communities to have their say, while also making it clear that their say doesn’t automatically guarantee direct influence. Individuals need to understand that many voices are being heard, and the final policy might not go in the direction they want.
Sometimes, when people engage with government, they quickly shift to advocating for a specific outcome. Ideally, I’d like to see more people contributing to help government better understand policy options – offering perspectives to inform, rather than only to influence government. That ideal is some way off.
What might help broaden participation beyond those who currently feel confident contributing?
I know government is extremely busy and resource-constrained, but I sometimes fantasise about a world where departments could do roadshows across the country – holding town hall meetings to encourage more people to engage with their work. While I realise this isn’t realistic given current resources, it would be wonderful if Ministers and senior civil servants could do more of this when developing major policy initiatives. Some of it happens already, but expanding it would be fantastic.
Beyond policy development, there’s also the important function of scrutiny. What role does it play in a broader ecosystem of public input into policy?
This is a highly developed system in Parliament. Each select committee inquiry includes a phase where anyone can submit evidence, usually in response to published questions or topics.
If you know where to look on the Parliament website, there’s good advice on preparing evidence.2 Even though Parliament does a wonderful outreach job, it’s still typically a small subset of the population who feel comfortable submitting evidence. From my experience, particularly with the Science and Technology Committees in both Houses of Parliament, they are very eager to broaden participation and are always looking for ways to involve a wider range of people.
Scrutiny of policy is one of the real strengths of policymaking in the UK, and exposing policies to this level of scrutiny makes policy stronger. When policymakers know their work will be closely examined, they work even harder to get it right. Over time, this process – policy being scrutinised, improved, and then scrutinised again – continually strengthens the final outcome. Parliamentary scrutiny is transparent; everyone can see the scrutiny at work, which is a fantastic feature of the process.
IV. Science funding mechanisms and sustainability
How has the diversity and balance of funding sources for UK science changed throughout your career?
The overall trend has been a decline in funding from government departments and an increase in funding from Research Councils and Research England. Overlaying this, there’s been a long, gradual decline in defence spending, which is now being reversed. These trends have played out over several decades.
There have also been far too many short-lived attempts at regional funding, none of which have been allowed to run long enough to prove whether they work or not. Typically, a new scheme is introduced, and just as it begins to show promise – five or seven years later – it’s replaced by something similar but with slightly different terms or people, essentially starting over from scratch.
My colleagues and I have written about this issue. There’s a real gap when it comes to stable, regionally-focused research and innovation funding. For many years, Scotland benefited from consistent funding and saw good results, while Wales, with inadequate funding, lagged behind – a straightforward comparison.
In the English regions, however, there’s been too much turbulence. I would love to see stable regional funding in England, but it’s only worthwhile if the government recognises that these initiatives take a long time to mature and deliver results. Trying to achieve quick results within one parliamentary term is part of the problem, not the solution.
How would you envision successful regional funding mechanisms working in practice?
One of the problems is the turbulence in regional funding, and the other is that it’s central government that is designing research and innovation funding for regions, treating them all the same and trying to specify from Whitehall how it works in different parts of the country.
If I can be adventurous for a moment, I wonder if the answer lies in co-investment between regions and central government, with more regional leadership, and regions contributing funds raised through local taxation. I can almost hear the screams of protest as I say that, but it would allow regions that really prioritise research and innovation to invest more money and then attract more from the centre. When funding simply flows into regions from central government, regions actually have little ownership of that funding.
If I can challenge you on this point a bit, you mentioned that simply sending money from London to the regions isn’t as effective because that doesn’t fully address regional contexts. But when it comes to research, isn’t scientific merit location-agnostic? If research excellence is there, wouldn’t funding be used effectively regardless of where it is sent from and where it arrives?
I agree with you – when it comes to academic research focused on discovering new knowledge, the quality of the science should dominate decisions. But for research that is at the interface with the local economy and society, location becomes important. It’s much easier to recruit or collaborate with people who are within walking distance than with people who are a train ride away.
You can see this in places like Cambridge, which is like a telephone directory of global companies flocking to be near such a strong university, or here at UCL, where the King’s Cross Knowledge Quarter has attracted so many organisations within walking distance of the university.
These large clusters work well at the interface of research and the economy, but they are the exception, not the rule. We won’t see clusters like Cambridge in every part of the country – or even every part of a region. For example, the research strength around Cambridge doesn’t necessarily benefit people in other parts of the East of England, like Lowestoft or Clacton.
The idea that we can create such large clusters across the country simply isn’t realistic – the research base in the UK isn’t large enough to support that. These large clusters deliver significant benefits both nationally and regionally, but they will always be few in number.
Instead, I wonder if individual regions should decide on and invest in their own models, attracting central government funding alongside what they raise locally. Not every region needs to pursue this, and that would allow more resources to support those that do. I realise this approach may not win universal approval, but I believe it is worth exploring rather than expecting every region to replicate the characteristics of Cambridge or Camden.
Could you point to examples where this has worked well, and what made those cases successful?
Glasgow and Manchester are great examples of places where strong engagement from local and regional authorities has made a visible impact. If you visit central Glasgow or Manchester, you can clearly see the effect of this – both have chosen to prioritise innovation, and it’s been a local or regional choice that has won support from national government.
Is there anything you think is being overlooked or underappreciated in our current science funding landscape?
It has puzzled me for a long time why there’s no wider recognition for the value of the UK’s dual support system for university funding – particularly QR (quality-related) funding, which is performance-driven and allocated based on REF assessments. This system combines project funding based on future promise with institutional funding based on past performance, creating both long-term incentives and the agility for universities to pursue new opportunities. It’s a powerful combination, and I wish more ministers would publicly celebrate the impact of QR funding, as it’s a distinctive strength of our system.
Despite only average levels of overall research investment, the UK performs very well indeed in research performance. I believe this is largely thanks to the dual support system, which allows universities the flexibility and stability to excel.
Today’s science landscape is not without vulnerabilities. What risks worry you most?
I am concerned about the financial sustainability of universities. My worry isn’t about preserving the current system for its own sake, but about the risk that some universities may have to withdraw from or scale back research simply because grant income doesn’t cover the full costs. Research in universities is only viable if the university itself invests alongside funding agencies. This is difficult for universities that are financially stressed. As far as I can see, there’s little oversight of how these pressures might lead to gaps in our research and innovation landscape. We might see universities withdrawing from research in geographic areas or academic disciplines that we actually don’t want to see hollowed out – simply because of financial pressures rather than strategic need.
I’m not suggesting everything should be preserved exactly as it is. We may need to have a smaller volume and a different distribution of research in the country. If that is the case then some oversight would help ensure that changes serve the national interest, rather than just financial imperatives.
What you’re describing almost sounds like a form of natural selection within the research system.
There’s certainly much to be said for natural selection and a market-based approach – I’m a fan of both in many respects. But if we let the system run completely unchecked, the market will respond only to the incentives in front of it, which are often short-term and not always aligned with the country’s long-term needs.
I’m absolutely not advocating for centralised national planning or for someone to micromanage the entire research system. But right now, we risk going too far in the other direction, with too little moderation or strategic oversight.
Our institutional landscape is becoming more and more diverse. Looking into the future, what opportunities does it add?
Indeed, we’re now seeing the emergence of new government institutions designed to serve the needs of the future. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is an example. It’s a new type of funding agency that’s experimenting with innovative approaches to research and innovation funding. We don’t yet know if these experiments will work, and there are questions about how the work ARIA supports will be followed through. With established bodies like the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England, there is experience of what happens after research is completed. ARIA has not yet had time to build that experience – but that’s part of the discovery process.
Looking across everything we’ve discussed, what changes could deliver quick wins to the UK’s science and technology ecosystem?
Actually, I think some of the most promising opportunities would come from simply stopping doing a few things. The first one I would stop is annual Spending Reviews. The opportunity cost of conducting them every year is substantial, and the resulting instability undermines investor confidence – especially when budgets are uncertain beyond a single year. This instability works against the very goals the government is trying to achieve.
In practice, too many people end up spending their time preparing for a Spending Review instead of focusing on their actual work. Often, these reviews result in little change, and then people say they can’t move forward until the next review. This creates a sense of paralysis in the system, with innovation and progress stalled because everyone is preoccupied with the review process. It’s really quite counterproductive.
Moving to a four-year spending review cycle – perhaps aligned with the middle of a parliamentary term – and resisting the urge to make changes in between would be liberating and energising. At one point, the government even floated the idea of ten-year budgets for some research and innovation activities. I wouldn’t advocate ten-year budgets as a general rule, but there are specific cases – such as large research infrastructure projects – where longer-term commitments make sense. Once a decision is made to fund such a project, there’s no need to keep reviewing it every year.
If you were advising the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what practical step would you advise him to take right now?
Convene a forum of research investors from the private, public, and charitable sectors to work together to support the Government’s missions, industrial strategy, and the new science and technology framework. This group would include government departments, research councils, major businesses, research charities, and international organisations. Peter Kyle could take the lead in building a community of funders and help them work together on shared challenges, such as financial sustainability.
If the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology can’t lead this kind of forum, I’m not sure who can.
We ask all our guests the same closing question: what’s one interesting thing you’ve read or listened to recently that you’d like to share with our readers?
A few months ago, I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at the cinema again. This film was first released in 1968 and explores the relationship between technology and the evolution of the human species. That sounds a bit deep, but it is a thoroughly enjoyable sci-fi thriller.
An X thread from 2018 which has since been deleted.
In addition to general guidance, individual committees produce their own guidance related to specific Calls for Evidence. See, for example, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into Financing and Scaling UK Science and Technology.
As always Graeme provides some really useful insights.
An excellent read - thank you.