Share
The Iain Gray Column
Closer international partnerships have a very important role to play in the development of technologies in the UK
The challenge of graphene
I took part in some interesting discussions and meetings this month — ranging from the potential progress of graphene in the UK to how we could develop closer technology and business links internationally.
I was invited to attend the first meeting of the UK/Israeli Science Tech Council, which was created following an agreement between David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu to build a partnership in technology. This first meeting gave me an opportunity to report on the activities of the Technology Strategy Board and we also agreed some key sectors for the two countries to explore together, including water technology. I was intrigued that the Israeli chief scientist had a specific role to ‘turn science into business’ and it struck me how this was aligned to our own organisational strategy of ‘concept to commercialisation’. Whatever the phrase we use, it is the end goal of delivering real business growth and success that we are all striving for, and if closer working with new international partners helps to contribute to that then it is in all our interests to build these important bridges.
International partnerships were also on my mind during the month as we facilitated 16 of the UK’s best, high growth potential clean-tech companies on the Clean and Cool Mission to San Francisco. The aim of the mission is to provide these rigorously selected companies with a chance to meet the best of Silicon Valley’s investors, customers and supply-chain partners — and, of course, tochampion British clean-tech innovation on an international stage.
Lamenting the reasons why the UK does not have its own Silicon Valley offering is a much discussed topic and I found it interesting that it again reared its head as part of the debate about the graphene hub plans for Manchester. During the month I met with Dame Nancy Rothwell, president and vice-chancellor of Manchester University, and we discussed the three main issues surrounding graphene — the science; the identification and development of applications; and the manufacture of it in industrial quantities. For me, there is an interesting comparison to be made with the discovery of carbon composites and the challenge of how scale changes can take many years to be introduced and filter down through different supply chains and sectors. It was back in the 1960s that scientists in the UK first realised the high potential of carbon fibres yet it is only recently that we have started to see their wider application in commercial and civilian aircraft, recreational, industrial and transportation markets. We all need to ensure that graphene builds on the reputation that the UK has for a diverse, well-managed and innovative range of products with international appeal.
This was also touched upon by George Osborne in a speech I heard him give at the first annual EEF conference in London. The conference focused on competitiveness in the global economy and was an excellent opportunity for some strategic high-level discussions with a range of key players. I also found it an invaluable networking opportunity and an excellent platform for the Technology Strategy Board in its objective of reaching out to more companies in the sector.
Iain Gray is chief executive of the Technology Strategy Board
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 10 May 2012 12:58 pm
the three main issues surrounding graphene — the science; the identification and development of applications; and the manufacture of it in industrial quantities.
Our aim should quite simple, to be world leaders in all three. Please please please do not abandon the manufacture to others and repeat the mistakes of the past. This is such a great opportunity for the UK, lets make the absolute most of it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 11 May 2012 10:25 am
This is more Whaffle about what we should have done and what we ought to do. If we haven't learned by now how to keep up with the rest of the world, what's the use of going on about it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 May 2012 3:41 pm
CG
Because you never stop learning how to do things better, just like engineering! Besides I think we are doing far more than just keeping up, particularly in this field.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 12 May 2012 10:15 am
Anonymous,
Just name some fields where we lead, please. Listening to George Osborn will not get you far, he can't even deliver a Budget Speech with out making cock-ups. And his government can't decide what planes to put on an aircraft carrier, after selling off the ones we had that could -VTO, that's one field we don't lead in any more.
By the way, Graphene is not patented, so goodbye to that lead.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 May 2012 1:38 pm
CG
Advanced Composites, Aerospace and Defense, Bio-Science, Pharma, Automotive hybrid technology, affordable satelites, materials science, we compete at the top level in all these areas and more. Its not about listening to George Osbourne or any other politician, its about believing that we can compete and win. What is the point in simply criticising and being negative? There are an awful lot of very talented people in this country working very hard to give this country a lead in this field and many others and I believe they are suceeding despite of poor political leadership and quite frankly synacism and negativity from the general public!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 15 May 2012 10:10 am
Anonymous,
Please name the projects in the fields you have named, where we lead the world.
This article is all about mandarinism, people just talking about engineering and science, and not doing it. China has got rid if its mandarins, and embraced a western type of enterprise, we westerners have done the opposite.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Kenward | 15 May 2012 7:57 pm
Good to see that the TSB is on the graphene case. The naysayers should realise that the TSB can only back what the people who will really do the work ask for. It is just a catalyst, even though it likes to think in terms of catapults.
There is one missing link in these tales of the UK's abilities, making the things to make and measure the stuff. This comes first.
Instruments and manufacturing kit that can lay the foundations for graphene technology will be the first moneyspinners, albeit not in massive amounts. This part of the chain precedes the areas that Iain rightly highlights.
Being nearer to the academic world than production lines, these "support systems" are well within the UK's reach. Get that right and you can go on to do bigger things.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Davey | 16 May 2012 11:06 am
Re the knockers. Don't forget that the Industrial Revolution began HERE. We had the first railways and we became the workshop of the world. We also had "King Cotton" which at its peak provided most of Britain's GDP. In more recent times the worlds first electronic computer was invented HERE (Berkely USA was only touted as having this honour because of the UK's 30 year rule!) Other innovations have been television, the hovercraft and the jump jet but for reasons that I don't understand we seem to give our best ideas away. Standard procedure nowadays seems to be Joint Ventures with low wage countries. Once the product has been perfected in the UK the factory can be shut down and asset stripped. A skeleton staff in a small office is of course retained but the jobs and know-how are exported. I saw this happening in Manchester in the 1950s. The cotton mills were shut down and the best looms were shipped to India. Presumably when the production of Graphene is perfected the know-how will be given away for free or almost free as in the UK this seems to be par for the course.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment