Science Minister Malcolm Wicks spoke on Science and Innovation policy to the Fabian Science and Technology Network on 19th March 2007.

Globalisation and increased competition from Asia mean that the UK is no longer a manufacturing nation; to compete we need to become a knowledge economy, with science and innovation at the heart of British industry. This seminar, held by the Fabian Science & Technology Network, investigates some of the challenges to making that transition.

It is widely acknowledged that the UK is faced with a skills challenge. Whilst traditionally the British are very good at scientific research there is a lack of individuals with the necessary STEM skills to exploit that resource and turn research into business success. More generally the population is not sufficiently scientifically literate to engage in the big scientific debates, such as the ethics of stem cell research. All this means there is a gap between science and the people, too often science is "happening somewhere else" rather in the midst of our industry and political debates.

Improving science education in our schools and universities is vital to bridging this gap. There is disagreement as to the success of new science GCSEs that look at science more broadly, dealing with many of the ethical issues that pertain to scientific developments. These serve to bring science and basic competency to a broader range of students but there are concerns that it has moved too far from technical skill and more detailed knowledge.

There is disagreement as to the reasons that our research does not translate into a higher innovation rate. A range of government policies have made the UK better at this; increased funding for universities and support for spin-out companies, an improvement in knowledge transfer, the R&D tax credit are all moving our economy in the right direction. Again though there is a gap, between those "doing business" and those "doing science". Often scientists lack the business acumen to make their research a business success and successful business people lack the scientific expertise to exploit new research.

However, some observed that the UK does not have a particularly low per capita start-up rate for companies; rather our problem lies in the life expectancy of those companies. This might suggest that the real problem is not with knowledge transfer but with investment and management. It was suggested that the UK has a more risk-averse culture with venture capitalists being less adventurous than they are in, say, the US. Participants also commented that smaller companies often fail to fully value the intellectual property they hold. A remodelled patenting office should do more to reach out to these new companies and encourage them to protect their IP. There should be an increased role for Trading Standards in enforcing intellectual property rights.

It's important not just to start up new companies but to grow existing ones. Here, all agreed that government procurement could play a much stronger role. Buying in a more innovation focussed way could be a major driver of a knowledge economy and help avoid smaller companies being taken over by their far larger international competitors. There is currently a strong focus on using NHS procurement more effectively in this respect. It was observed that science and innovation is the way to find the solutions to a range of modern challenges; climate change, social exclusion, genetic disorders. Government procurement will be vital not only in ensuring a strong knowledge based economy but in supporting scientists in making those broader discoveries. Science and innovation are vital, not only to our economy but to our society as a whole.

The current definitions of "innovation" are themselves controversial. Much activity in the UK's economy such as new ideas in retail, services and the finance industry make the UK economy stronger but do not register as "research" or "innovation" on traditional indices. For some industries innovation means adapting developments made in other spheres or organisations for their own purposes. The application of science in this way is often not recognised by the government, making these industries ineligible for vital government support. In a modern economy R&D may not look like it did in the past, with men in white coats and test tubes – government policy needs to adapt to recognise that.

There was discussion over where the boundaries of responsibility lie in bridging these gaps and moving science to the centre of the UK economy. There are opportunities for political leadership to really move this issue forward. For instance, The Olympic Games in 2012; hosting a green, secure and successful games will require innovative use of the solutions provided by science. The Games represent a chance to raise public enthusiasm and educate the business community about the importance of science to the UK. However, some argued that it is businesses themselves that must adapt and exploit all the resources at their disposal. Where an industry itself stands to benefit from the pursuit of a particular scientific development it may not be the government's responsibility to make it a success for them.

Bringing science to the centre of the UK economy will require a scientifically literate population able to engage in scientific debate and exploit our strong research base. A focus on education is vital to achieving that aim. The UK must also bridge the gap between the business and science communities. Progress has been made in these areas but there remain challenges for government procurement policy, intellectual property, tax credits, skills and our very definition of "innovation". The Fabian Science & Technology Network will pursue these issues throughout 2007/8 as we work through the debates we need to bring science to the heart of our economy.

Event report by Jemima Olchawski.

Back to Science and Innovation