This snapshot, taken on 04/06/2007, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleScience and Innovation |
 |
|
| (Click picture for biography) | |
| Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here in Canada at this time and indeed I am grateful to the University of Toronto for providing me with this opportunity to talk to you today about Science and Innovation. Also, I am delighted to be here when you are celebrating 175 years of "Great Minds", as the rate of innovation is closely linked with high quality research.
My job title is Minister of Science and Innovation. I think this is as it should be because I believe that the quality of the UK's science and technology is a national asset at a time of major scientific and technological advances, and because also I believe that a high rate of innovation, often based on those advances, is vital if we are to raise our level of productivity in the UK. Innovation is, of course, more than simply the exploitation of science and technology. Innovation also involves new ways of working such as lean manufacturing and new product and service concepts. A new service concept such as fixed-rate internet access is just as much a part of innovation as a DVD player or a new medical product. It is also important to make clear that innovation is not an orderly or simple process. It is not a pipeline, where at one end public money can be crammed into basic research in universities and national laboratories in the certain knowledge that new technology and commercial applications will pop out of the other. It is a complex process with numerous players and a network of feedback connections. Today I would like to tell you what the UK Government is doing to strengthen our science and engineering base, to encourage innovation and the transfer of knowledge from our universities, and to create a regulatory framework which doesn't stifle innovation but which enables people to be confident about the new products which science can deliver, confident about the way that risks are assessed and managed, and confident that scientific progress takes account of their views and values. Obviously here in Canada, with your new innovation plan, you are confronting many of the same issues as us. In promoting innovation there are two fundamental issues that Governments have to get right. These are macroeconomic stability and competition policy. Macroeconomic stability is essential if companies are to invest in R and D and new capital equipment, and competition also has a key role to play in innovation. Firms may be reluctant to change their products and modes of operation, but innovation by competitors and the activities of newly created firms will either compel them to innovate or force them out of business. Competition is the best way of ensuring that only those businesses prepared to innovate, exploit new technology, move into new markets and grasp new opportunities are the ones which survive and grow. In both these areas - macroeconomic stability and competition policy - the British Government has taken major steps in recent years to create the right conditions for innovation. By any measure the UK's record in science and innovation is outstanding. With 1% of the world's population, we fund 4.5% of the world's science, produce 8% of the world's scientific papers, and receive 9% of the citations of those papers. In 1998, the UK's high-tech exports per capita were the highest of the G7 countries, and had grown by 9% per annum since 1992; and, of the 20 top selling drugs in the world, 5 were designed in the UK. That creative science base has enabled us to be strong in key science industries such as opto-electronics, pharmaceuticals, aerospace and now biotechnology. But the science base is also relevant to many more industries. A first priority for the present government, however, was to increase the funding for basic research to make certain that we maintain and enhance this record. In the 1998 Spending Review we increased the Science Budget by 15%, the biggest increase in any area of Government expenditure, and in the 2000 Spending Review we put in another 725 million pounds so that today the science budget is increasing by 7 per cent a year in real terms. Part of this increase is a highly valuable partnership with the Wellcome Trust which has produced a 1.75 billion pound investment in the renewal of science research infrastructure. Of course, scientific excellence of this sort is only part of the picture. At the same time, therefore, that we enhance the excellence of our science and engineering research, we have also been seeking to encourage science to flow throughout our society. We need to strengthen the links in the innovation cycle, bringing universities and business closer together and providing researchers with the skills and incentives to take their ideas to market. We believe that universities must be at the heart of any effort to maximize the benefits of a move to a knowledge economy. They must be seen to be at the heart of the productive economy, and not a burden on it as has sometimes been the case in our country in the past. To their traditional roles of generating new knowledge, and training young minds, we believe they need to take on a new role of transferring knowledge into society. In the Science and Innovation White Paper, "Opportunity and Excellence", published in 2000, the British Government set out a range of policies to speed up and support the rate of innovation. Nearly 300 million pounds has been allocated for programmes aimed at driving up the rate of innovation and change. We have established a Higher Education Innovation Fund of 140 million pounds over 3 years which provides funding to universities to encourage knowledge transfer, which is of course fundamental to our vision of them being at the centre of the new knowledge economy. This additional funding will sit alongside the funds they receive for research and teaching. We have also set up the University Challenge Fund to enable universities to provide seed corn funding to projects to take them forward to the point where they are of interest to venture capitalists, and we have established Science Enterprise Centres to enable science and engineering undergraduates to acquire entrepreneurial skills. These Science and Enterprise Centres have been enormously successful and very popular with undergraduates and graduates. These are already beginning to show impressive results. In 1999-2000 there were 199 spin-off firms created to develop university research - compared with an average of 70 new spin-offs a year in the previous five years. In that same year a survey of UK universities showed that they identified one spin-off firm for every 8.6 million pounds of research expenditure. The comparable figure for Canadian universities was one firm for every 13.9 million pounds, and in the US, interestingly, it was one for every 53.1 million. These figures show that a transformation is taking place across the UK, and not just in Cambridge. Scientists, researchers and Vice-Chancellors are beginning to exploit their wealth of academic excellence as never before. New businesses, jobs and technologies are springing up around our established seats of learning. There has been a sharp increase in the number of patents filed, up 22% between 1998/99 and 1999/2000, and the proportion of research income provided by the private sector in the UK is also up and is now at a higher level than even the USA. A third role which Government has to carry out efficiently and effectively if it is to encourage innovation is regulation. Science does not take place in a vacuum. It is part of the fabric of modern society. And it is the nature of science constantly to raise questions which present a challenge to society's values and produce innovations which affect people's lives. So another key role for Government must be to help the consumer by offering a sensible regulatory framework and by keeping them informed of latest developments. We need to make certain we have confident consumers in order to maximize the potential of scientific progress. Of course part of what we are seeking to communicate is also the enormous potential benefits that will come from this scientific investment. As part of this process, the UK Government has established the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which are all actively involved in encouraging debate. We are also committed to improving the way we obtain advice and communicate developments in science and science policy. The UK Office of Science and Technology promotes Guidelines 2000 as best practice for government departments' use of scientific advice in policy-making, and has published a Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees. We want to move towards a more inclusive dialogue between Government, scientists and the public about science and the issues it raises for society. In the case of embryonic stem cells, we had a very careful approach. First, we had two major reports, the second from the Chief Medical Officer. They considered whether there would be major benefits from research on stem cells, and was there any other way of achieving these benefits? Only when we had yes or no, we went forward to have debates in both the House of Parliament and passed the legislation. As well as improving public understanding of science, it is important for scientists and decision-makers to understand the public, and listen to their views. Without this mutual understanding, there will be no productive dialogue. Governments can also take action to create the right climate for innovation at the sub-national level and I believe that the recent establishment of Regional Innovation Funds in the UK are a good example of this. These funds enable our Regional Development Agencies in the UK to support clusters of innovative business and incubators in their respective areas. Such clusters can raise innovation and productivity in a number of ways - companies benefit from sharing knowledge about best practice and they can reduce costs by jointly sourcing services and suppliers. Also, the interactions within clusters facilitate knowledge transfer and encourage collaboration between institutions with complementary assets and skills. The critical mass effect of clusters attracts further companies, investors, services and suppliers into the cluster, as well as creating a pool of skilled labour. Of course, Governments can't create clusters; they must be business driven and they can, and do, develop due to a variety of reasons - specialised demand, historical accident, or the prior existence of related industries or institutions. Clusters arise from making the most of synergies across and between companies and academic research institutes. However, it is the role of Government to create the conditions to encourage the formation and growth of clusters, and we can ensure that national and regional priorities do not inadvertently place barriers to cluster development, and ensure that research and innovation support programmes build on existing strengths so as to work with the grain of cluster development. This is why we have already done much to support cluster development. There have already been some outstanding successes. In North Wales, a cluster in opto-electronics is worth over 750 million pounds to the local economy, securing about 7000 jobs, with notable foreign investment from France and the USA. Across central England, a Motorsport Valley has developed with significant investment from Europe, the USA and the Far East. And the area around Cambridge is home to a biotechnology cluster as well as "silicon fen" - an outstanding example of a dynamic high-tech cluster. Science is also both competitive and internationally collaborative. So if we are to remain an innovative, forward-looking nation, we need to retain the capacity to do this work, both on our own and in collaboration with other scientists - bearing in mind that 95% of the world's science is funded outside the UK. Thus, an international network of advice is essential - both to let others know what is happening in the UK and to make sure that we are aware of the latest developments in other countries. In March 2001 in the White Paper on Science and Innovation we announced that we would double the number of scientific attaches in our embassies across the world. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's original scientific attaches were based in Washington, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Taipei, Paris, Bonn, Rome and Moscow. Under the expansion all but two of these posts have been reinforced, and networks outside capitals have been introduced. The geographical coverage of the network has also been extended. Appointments have been made to new Science and Technology slots in Ottawa, San Francisco, Houston, Los Angeles, Boston, Delhi, Tel Aviv, Berne and The Hague. Future appointments planned include Stockholm, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Bangalore, Singapore, Pretoria and Sao Paulo. Many of the new S&T staff are being recruited at post to provide local expertise. The Science and Innovation White Paper published in July 2000 also included a decision that the number of International Technology Promoters (ITPs) would be doubled from 8 to 16, to enable more focus to be placed on key strategic technologies of importance to UK business and ensure better coverage in North America, Europe (including East Europe and the former Soviet Union) and the Asia Pacific region. International Technology Promoters are UK-based experts in technology transfer with both commercial and scientific backgrounds, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, who seek out new technologies abroad on behalf of UK businesses and assist them in building relationships with technology owners. International Technology Promoters have proved to be extremely successful in forging links with technology partners overseas and have played an important role in promoting inward investment and UK technology exports. Under these arrangements, the number of International Technology Promoters covering North America will be increased from 3 to 6. The existing coverage of biotech/life sciences, digital content/software, aerospace/advanced materials/advanced manufacture, will be increased to include coverage of opto/micro-electronics, and sustainable/environmental technologies. I hope that today I have given you a flavour of the exciting developments taking place in the UK in science and technology. The UK Government sees these developments as a priority because we believe that science and innovation can help us create a safer and healthier society, a cleaner environment and a dynamic knowledge-driven economy. |
|
|
|
|
Other speeches by Lord Sainsbury of Turville
(the following are available from the archive) |
|
