The UK government has announced the launch of the Advanced Research & Invention Agency (ARIA), a research body aiming to fund ‘transformational’ science.
ARIA will be independently led by top UK scientists and backed by £800m of government funding, as set out by chancellor Rishi Sunak in the March 2020 budget. The plans were revealed today (19 February) by business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, as part of government plans to ‘cement the UK’s position as a global science superpower’.
Tasked with funding ambitious, high-risk research, the Advanced Research & Innovation Agency aims to support discoveries that could prove transformational to people’s lives, creating highly-skilled jobs across the country in the process. This will be achieved with flexibility and speed by looking at how to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and experimenting with different funding models, the government said.
Models that have proved successful in other countries, such as the US Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and its successor DARPA, have inspired the creation of ARIA. Funding models explored will include program grants, seed grants, and prize incentives.
Business secretary Kwarteng said: “From the steam engine to the latest artificial intelligence technologies, the UK is steeped in scientific discovery. Today’s set of challenges – whether disease outbreaks or climate change – needs bold, ambitious and innovative solutions.”
Government commissions Solar Power Satellites research
New policy centre to drive engineering’s dialogue with government
Science and Innovation minister Amanda Solloway added that to “rise to the challenges of the 21st century, we need to equip our R&D community with a new scientific engine – one that embraces the idea that truly great successes come from taking great leaps into the unknown.”
Legislation to create the Advanced Research and Invention Agency will be introduced to Parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows, and the aim is for it to be fully operational by 2022, the government revealed in its statement.
Tony McBride, director of Policy and Public Affairs at the Institute of Physics (IOP) described ARIA as an important step toward achieving the 2.4 per cent R&D target.
“We believe that a clear mission will be essential to the successful operation of ARIA, whilst still remaining agile, flexible and free from bureaucracy” he commented. “One of the elements underpinning DARPA’s success in the US is the bringing together of experts from academia, industry and government to solve clearly defined problems.
“As a nation, we must understand where the greatest technological opportunities lie and make strategic decisions about the areas and challenges we want to prioritise and lead the world in.”
MP and chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Greg Clark, welcomed the government’s commitment to funding high-risk projects but expressed concern at the lack of clarity around the idea. “It’s not clear if it is a new institution that will conduct its own research and attract global scientific talent, or if it is another funding agency for researchers in existing organisations,” Clark said.
“I am concerned that ARIA lacks a clear focus or purpose, and risks becoming rudderless without the direction our report called for. I now urge the government to press ahead appointing a director who will establish a culture which will embolden and empower the brilliant scientists who should be ARIA’s employees.”
I welcome this new agency AS LONG as it takes risks, cuts frustrating bureaucracy and starts backing “the disruptive innovators” rather than safe bigger companies which are less unlikely to make major breakthroughs. Never forget Tesla – why did established carmakers laugh and turn their backs on electric cars for decades?
A Commendable Government initiative to avoid the ‘Valley of Death’ scenario that has plagued British inventions in the past. If there was ever a time to ensure technological breakthroughs are not overlooked, recovery after a global pandemic must surely be such an occasion, and a radically different quantum electrodynamic approach to propulsion may be one such development.
Excellent, we called them ‘skunk works’. Brilliant people let loose to solve problems..small teams..off the radar..can do mindset. IBM used them to create personal computers. We appear to have used them to produce Covid vaccines! More of that creative excellence please. (If you get stuck and need a ‘PM’ to work with highly creative people then give me a bell…really, please, I’ve been in the desert too long now)
It sounds wonderful, but will the reality be as expected ? The trouble in the past is the “Experts” who decide who gets the funds lack any vision for the future, and want to play the safe and securer approach. There is a need for the funding approach as most investors do not want to take risks, but to abolish patent renewal fees would be a good start as with small companies and individual inventors, the patent fees and renewal take a big slice out of the R&D budget.
Announcements like this are always welcome, i still think that the problem has been linking the science lab with industry, too many companies are unwilling to take the risk on disruptive technology and funding from banks and hedge funds only seem to want to throw money in the direction of the USA (more specifically California) perhaps with this agency shouldering more risk, then it could make industry more willing to step in and fund innovation. Time will tell
ARIA is a welcome announcement for my team who are developing a semi-fuel cell which is deemed too disruptive for the APC/InnovateUK’s Technology Road Map to be considered for public funding. After 20 years of hard work and fantastic investor commitment we got through the valley of death and I’m heartened that ARIA will help others like me and speed up the technology changes that are necessary.
Trevor Jackson
Chairman
MAL Research and Development Ltd.
This is good, but it needs to be backed by a UK sovereign wealth fund, so that British innovations can be turned into products in British factories. Otherwise this R&D will just benefit foreign manufacturers.
Fantastic as it sounds, but is the Patent office contribute anything into it or are obsessed with charging even for applying for a patent, which used to be free a couple of years ago, encouraging all the inventors to provisional patent their ideas. The unfair charge of £90 is a gamble for the often poor inventor. To be an inventor, you don’t have to be a scientist or part of a big research organization,. Inventions are a “brain storm” which could come to a reight person at any time and with or without a scientific background. I, for start, have many brilliant ideas, but as I am not a salesman, I have not been able to attract any organization for any of my 170 ideas, all of which have been describe in details and with technical drawing. So, if the government is genuine about their new approach to inventions, they better make it easy for the unknown inventors, which are often not as greedy as the big corporations and be more than happy with a small cash and recognition. Any legitimate organization out there, can contact me and have some of my inventions with pleasure. The unknown inventors come across “ideas” which not many of people are capable of; what hey need is a real support to turn that idea into an “invention”, by getting help from ARIA the new government initiative.
pleasure
Why is this actually needed ? There are similar government organisations (Eg. DSTL) that have been starved of funds and support for years and now we have more funding going elsewhere, again.
I believe this is one of Cummings pet projects which appears to just copy the US approach, so caution should be the sensible approach for anyone expecting real change.
I cannot help but think of what’s happened over my career and all the millions wasted with new agencies that have come and gone and all doing the same thing to a greater or lesser extent:
RSRE, DERA, DRA, Qinetiq, DSTL, NCSC and now ARIA … the song remains the same !
The UK used to be near the top of the tree with respect to inventions and innovative ideas. During the past few decades however, we seem to have lost our way. Many brilliant ideas have come to nought, due mainly to apathy by the powers-that-be and lack of interest from investors with short-term mindsets. The establishment of an ARIA might hopefully put the UK back on the road to global success in manufacturing and engineering.
In the second paragraph you called it the Advanced Research & INNOVATION Agency, I prefer that name to the actual name using ‘Invention’ in it, but I also still prefer the original American version using ‘Projects Agency’. Why is it this country does seem to have a record of poor naming of prestigious agencies and projects?
@ Michael Breslin: Historically, the UK’s ideas have often been exploited by foreign business!
It is far worse than mere ‘apathy’. Unlike Germany, UK ideology excludes state funded bodies from R&I in applied sciences. That’s why the ARIA is said to be restricted to ‘blue skies’ research.
Last item in the Ten Point Plan is. . .
“Boosting innovation and establishing the City of London as the global centre of green finance.”
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/11/18/boris-johnson-unveils-ten-point-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-deliver-net-zero-and-launch-a-green-industrial-revolution/
The two are mutually exclusive. Investment is only attracted by the prospect of a good return. If an idea is still being ‘researched’ it could be years away from commercial fruition.
“investment should be driven by demonstrated support from business.”
“public support should not directly subsidise industry’s near-market research.”
Ref: Science & Innovation Ten-Year Investment Framework. Par. 4.12
Innovation may be adopted by an incumbent, IF it fits in with an industry’s plans for incremental improvement. Radical invention is more disruptive and will be rejected by any business. If ARIA won’t touch applied science, then nobody’s going to research ANY novel concept. Established players leave it to vulnerable start-ups to do the R&I hard graft and buy the IP cheap, IF it proves to be of any worth.
Both industry and government have failed to even define the term ENERGY storage, as distinct from electricity storage. The latter (battery) is untenable in network operations and unaffordable.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-how-does-the-uks-energy-white-paper-aim-to-tackle-climate-change
Energy storage: The paper commits to legislating to define electricity storage in law, “removing another barrier to flexibility”. No, it does NOT, but energy storage would eliminate intermittency.
Then there’s the circular economy and EU standards, that Brexit tries to circumvent:-
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/batteries-eu-sustainability-green-deal
That’s irrelevant. The prerequisite for government-funded R&I, new OR existing, is that the state should own any IPR that transpires. Otherwise, it’s public money down the drain.
I am unsure over how this will work effectively.
If the aim is to generate radical innovative research with potential then it needs to be aware that (historically) the majority of this has been despite, rather than because of, the experts.
Radical research is often cheaper and easier than incremental research.
The chronometer, magnetron, iron & glass buildings, world-wide-web are all radical innovations (from the UK) that arose from non-“experts” – and often, as a result, faced significant hostility and barriers and limited interest in their application.
The challenge, thus, is for an agency to assist in finding and identifying such radical ideas and, most importantly, ensuring that they are well enough formed and supported that they they have a good chance of being born and growing, without fear of a “valley of death”.
If reliance is only on narrow “experts” in the right parts of academia and a hope that their research might, through oodles of cash, make it to market then prospects are not good.
Small differences in approach can make a lot of difference. In the USA start up companies (including academia) are used to do do research but, unlike InnovateUK, they are fully funded.
Perhaps a good test of the agency would be how it would (or could) have supported some of the great innovations already mentioned. And to be aware that not all innovations are of a product – often they are a “platform” innovation , such as the WWW, which allows further radical innovations or products; a community or network of innovation would allow such to grow (as was, historically, extant) . Such a community would also need to include non-scientists – including financial managers and resourcers (if they can break away from deadly ideas of “business plans” and think in terms of risk management and opportunities).
Personally I would like to see support for developments in radical manufacturing technology, especially forming and casting (as innovative manufacturing seems quite neglected in the UK) and the development of truely additive manufacturing (I would anticipate that radical would imply affordability); such might provide platforms for radically better products.
But first one must generate interest in being radically innovative; providing an atmosphere and climate for innovation
I agree with the formation of the Advanced Research & Innovation Agency as long as it does what promised.
It is essential to ensure that the excellent UK research environment, highlighted by the *scientific* response to the pandemic, continues to act as a global hub for research. We have benefitted substantially from the EU’s European Research Council, taking some 15% of research funding, attracting top research talent and leading on many projects.
The UK needs to make up for this loss by replicating some aspects of the ERC’s structure and approach. We must dispense with the xenophobic hostile environment, make awards and invitations to global experts rather than institutions, and ensure flexible visa and work permits are available where needed. There should be particular attention to young researchers, with a route to citizenship if they so choose. We should also enable overseas students to stay for some time after graduation, again with a route to citizenship.
Along with massive improvement in university research facilities over the past 20+ years, these have helped underpin UK science and technology but we must never forget that science and knowledge are international. My worry is that in trying to mimic DARPA, ARIA will become far too focussed on defence and not knowledge.