Three Big Ideas #38
Catalysing the clout of founders, science with a seat, and cool cities
Welcome to our fortnightly Three Big Ideas roundup, in which we serve up a curated selection of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
🗣 Philip Salter, Founder
As one of the world's best journalists covering innovation and entrepreneurship, I have a lot of time for John Thornhill, Innovation Editor of the Financial Times and founder of Sifted.
Reporting on our inaugural survey of entrepreneurs, he shares our key finding that just 4% of founders thought the government understood their needs as entrepreneurs, and only 19% were optimistic about the prospects for the economy over the next 12 months.
Thornhill writes approvingly about our efforts to change this, though he offers a piece of advice I would quibble with. He thinks, “raging against the government may be rather like complaining about the weather: fun but futile. Britain’s startups may have to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass.”
While there is a lot of wasted breath, I think a better piece of advice for founders is learning how to channel their rage. I would say this (I guess), but we and other organisations offer a platform for their voices to be heard and amplified. Governments don’t listen to every gripe, but if we can make a strong case that entrepreneurs are actually aggrieved, that it will negatively impact the economy and, potentially, as a consequence, their election prospects, they’re all ears.
We are seeing this play out around the proposed Employment Rights Bill, but I could cite countless examples. Indeed, entrepreneurs have changed the course of history, most notably in the 19th century, when northern manufacturers and businessmen like Richard Cobden and John Bright formed the Anti–Corn Law League, leading to the repeal of the Corn Laws, which set Britain firmly on the path towards free trade.
Margaret Mead was right: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
🎛️ Anastasia Bektimirova, Head of Science and Technology
In Science and Politics by Ian Boyd (a former Chief Scientific Adviser at Defra), a comparison of science advice models caught my attention. Ian writes:
“...the British/American Model for a science advisory system…focusses on placing key scientists close to the seat of political power. It contrasts with what could be called the Continental Model of advice (because it is common in Europe). Advice, in that case, is most often delivered using a committee-based structure where scientists are asked questions from within the politics factory and they provide an answer often by consensus in the form of a committee report.”
Ian also suggests that legal systems may nudge countries towards one model or the other. In many civil-law jurisdictions, advisers can face personal liability if their guidance is judged negligent. For example, after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italian prosecutors initially charged government risk commission members for allegedly providing inadequate warnings to the public, though most were later acquitted on appeal. The case was still widely read as a warning to scientists everywhere. Such cases reinforce Europe’s tendency towards caution and collective, precautionary advice. Hence the EU’s long, committee-led deliberations on issues such as gene-edited crops, which are thorough and transparent, but often mired in regulatory limbo as member states disagree.
But while the binary is useful, reality proves messier and more interesting. Even the UK, often cited as the “scientist-in-the-room” model, has in practice stitched individual and collective channels together through a web of committees, the Council for Science and Technology (CST), SAGE for emergency response, and a network of Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs) – all of whom pull in outside experts. The CST surfaces long-range, cross-departmental issues, departmental CSAs bring discipline-specific depth, and crisis response panels like SAGE mobilise outside expertise quickly. The system might appear personal but is underpinned by networks and committees that distribute expertise and responsibility.
Systems of science advice rarely rely on one model, and that’s a good thing. History shows that flexibility matters. On one hand, Thatcher’s personal science aide in No. 10 managed to steer a policy shift by convincing her to prioritise funding for curiosity-driven basic research over near-market projects – a move pushed through despite the scepticism of the government’s science committees at the time. On the other hand, when faced with a sensitive issue of embryonic research, Thatcher opted for an external committee to handle the evidence gathering and moral deliberation, rather than relying on a single adviser’s judgement.
Effective science advising requires not picking sides but mixing tools. Individual advisers deliver swift, agile, context-aware input, while wider expert groups provide legitimacy, depth and political resilience. The most successful approach is to treat each model as complementary, using each when it plays to its strengths, so that sound science advice finds its way into policy.
🏙️ Jessie May Green, Events and APPG for Entrepreneurship Coordinator
Inauspiciously, London Climate Action Week 2025 was sweltering. Heatwaves in June were once expected to occur every fifty years, and yet we’ve just had two in a single month. It quickly became clear that Britain’s infrastructure is simply not built to cope with the increase in out-of-the-ordinary weather, almost certainly brought on by anthropogenic climate change.
Warnings were issued to hospitals and care homes regarding the risk of heat stress in vulnerable patients, and Tube and rail users were prepped to expect disruptions due to high track temperatures. Bedfordshire Council even sent out road gritters to prevent melting tarmac, and London’s fire chief cited the risk of wildfires as ‘severe’.
The consequences of out-of-date infrastructure were clear when the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine gave its prediction that the UK will experience the fifth-highest number of heat-related deaths out of all European countries between 30 June and 4 July 2025. Short-sightedness and underinvestment have fed this lack of preparedness in the UK for decades – but it’s not too late.
The good thing about London Climate Action Week co-occurring with this heatwave is that there were plenty of hopeful tales to cut through the disruption. Innovation is happening all over the country (and, indeed, the world) for the purpose of making UK towns and cities cleaner, greener, fairer, and cooler. For example, Fornax – finally making heat pumps affordable; NatureMetrics – enhancing nature monitoring using eDNA; and Glitch – a cyberbug bot that helps Londoners design their own biodiverse garden.
To support these innovators, we at The Entrepreneurs Network will continue to champion entrepreneurs to make the policy landscape as supportive as possible. If you are a climate tech founder and would like to discuss your experiences starting or scaling your business in the UK – please get in touch.