News editor
The UK’s showcase event to attract overseas interest in innovation and new technology coincides with a report from a parliamentary committee calling for a commitment to increase science funding
Today marks the start of Innovate 2015, which is described as the UK’s largest multi-sector innovation event where some of the most cutting edge companies get to meet international partners in order to do business. Organised by Innovate UK and UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the two-day event has been designed to bring the research base, business, UK and international investors, international buyers from overseas markets and government organisations under one roof to help fund and support innovative ideas from over 3,000 of Britain’s high-growth, high-potential businesses.
Over the course of Innovate 2015, attendees will have access to a multi-sector technology showcase with global reach; networking opportunities including 1:1 meetings with international investors, buyers and experts; and a support zone for businesses looking for support in R&D, export and finance.
Exhibiting at this year’s event is IT IS 3D, was one of 100 companies to be selected to showcase its innovation in the form of a new metal 3D printing technology, which is under development and which it plans to launch in 2016. IT IS 3D says it plans to launch 3D metal printing with machine prices starting at under £50,000, bringing metal printing to significant numbers of companies around the world for prototyping, special purpose parts and low volume production.
Speaking at the event this morning, business secretary Sajid Javid announced a raft of measures designed in part to build on the government’s commitment of almost £7bn in science capital up to 2021.
These measures, which are expected to help make Britain the best place in Europe to innovate, include a call for local organisations to lead regional Science and Innovation Audits, and a Smart Specialisation hub that will bring together businesses, universities, investors and the Catapults to share best practice in innovation and help access national and international investment.
In a statement he said: “The UK is embracing new technologies and leading the world in innovation, but we must not be complacent and must look to the long term future of Research & Development to support our jobs and industries.
“As a One Nation Government we want every region of the UK to maximise opportunity for its local people through its innovation strengths, and the new Science and Innovation Audits will ensure that public investment is doing just that. By taking stock of our assets and supporting best practice and expertise, we will propel the UK to the forefront of the global innovation race.”
Javid’s comments follows a report from the cross-party Science & Technology Committee, which today called for ‘a clear roadmap to increase science funding in the Spending Review’ or put competitiveness, productivity and jobs at risk by falling further behind competitors in research and development (R&D) investment.
Nicola Blackwood MP, committee chair said: “Spending on science and innovation is not a state subsidy, it is a strategic investment that creates jobs, increases productivity and attracts inward investment.
“Committing the UK to a 3% GDP target for science spending would send a crucial signal about the long term stability and sustainability of our science and innovation ecosystem, supercharging private sector R&D investment from industry, charities and overseas investors alike.”
Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said: “Despite the support that the government has shown to science when faced with difficult choices about Britain’s public finances the fact remains that UK investment in research and innovation has been failing to keep pace with other leading nations.
“The UK must not jeopardise its position as a world leader in science and the associated prospects for long-term prosperity in the name of short-term savings. The government is committed to making the UK the best place in the world for science and business, world class research and innovation – in order to achieve this, government needs to increase investment in R&D over the next five years from 0.49% of GDP to at least matching the OECD average of 0.67% of GDP by 2020.”
Innovate 2015 – part of Export Week and the GREAT campaign – takes place between Nov 9-10 at Old Billingsgate Market, London.
It is really very good news to hear such positive conclusions from the cross-party Science & Technology Committee about Science funding. The President of the Royal Society is also very positive calling for increased investment for science to international average ~3% GDP in addition making the link between world class science and business. Finally we see the Government pledging to ‘By taking stock of our assets and supporting best practice and expertise, we will propel the UK to the forefront of the global innovation race.’
All of this is very positive, this will only translate into UK jobs & innovation if the UK major science facilities such as ISIS, Diamond back this up with positive tender writing. Rather like our European neighbors such as science facilities like Soleil in France who are expert in preparing tenders that comply with Eu rules BUT enable French suppliers to receive the great bulk of orders and create the jobs and support innovation as required by the French state.
Science funding and the link to innovation & jobs is very real & tangible supporting UK companies in the regions will also enable other intangibles such as the Northern Powerhouse to flourish. Extra Science funding is welcome if the focus in tender writing is moved to support UK suppliers like other Eu countries demonstrate as standard practice.
“if the focus in tender writing is moved to support UK suppliers like other EU countries demonstrate as standard practice.”
“It isn’t what you say, but the way that you say it!(repeat x3 and to a nice rythmn)…thats what gets results.” At last, I see a purpose for patent agents! let them use their vast skills to assist we simple Engineers, technolgists and scientists to write proper tenders -before the invention!- so that when these are assessed by one group of civil servants they can decide to allocate public money to another group -to further both their private advantage(s).
Mike B
In 1964 (prior to leaving these shores for the first time to do VSO in S America) a young Engineer graduated. He had had the privilege of studying at an excellent University, after a good schooling and a year of apprenticeship. Ringing in his ears was the ‘white heat of technology’ speech of the then PM (I am sorry but he was looking at matters from the Left!) And he knew that , after the difficulties of WWII the Nation’s science, Engineering, technology, management, productivity…was at the least sufficiently good at maintaining ‘our’ place in the top 5 of such on the planet.
Where are we now? Lot of words….but also massive slippage (are we -the UK 17th or 19th now?)
I know, lets have another speech from a minister? How about describing it as “the black cold of terminal interference by clerks, masquarading as professionsls. “You (and they) know who they are”.
Isn’t there a moment when thinking persons (perhaps like Mike B) recognise that tinkering at the edges does nothing. Yes, we have an occasional ‘blip’ -someone (Richard Noble etc) sets out (usually bitterly opposed by ‘the system’ to do something special that gains headlines, and a momentary ‘glow’ to our thinking…but I sincerely believe that unless and until a total re-vamp of the entire industrio-technology affairs of the nation occurs: and those who ‘operate’ in such are given the steering wheel (tiller, levers, guidance systems) of the ship of state…and set centre-stage….terminal decline will continue. Our nation was last really great when those great Victorial Engineers held the public imagination. Is it too much to ask that we try to do the same again? Mike B
“The UK must not jeopardise its position as a world leader in science and the associated prospects for long-term prosperity in the name of short-term savings. The government is committed to making the UK the best place in the world for science and business, world class research and innovation – in order to achieve this, government needs to increase investment in R&D over the next five years from 0.49% of GDP to at least matching the OECD average of 0.67% of GDP by 2020.” – It will make no difference if it’s spent on the wrong research.
The “associated prospects” will only be realised from the commercialisation of innovation derived from R&D investment. This has long been called ‘the valley of death’, but ‘big ideas’ in Britain are killed off before they even reach that point. It is a culture deeply ingrained in both the science and business communities. The former don’t like to sully their hands (or compromise their principles, Richard Noble) with the commercial side, and the latter moan about R&D being wasted on stuff that doesn’t promise them a quick buck.
The Science & Technology Committee is not fit for purpose, since political ideology precludes it from directly supporting the ‘near-market’ development of innovative technology – a mantra carved in stone in the very legislation that’s ‘designed’ to help ‘science & innovation’. I’ve said before, but it bears repeating – “Not only in the dictionary does ideology lie close to idiocy.”
Nicola Blackwood MP, committee chair said: “Spending on science and innovation is not a state subsidy, it is a strategic investment that creates jobs, increases productivity and attracts inward investment.” Spending on science is not a state subsidy, but public funding of innovation has been given the label ‘state aid’ by the European Commission and British politicians enthusiastically conform to the letter of that ‘law’, because they believe in it. You don’t create secure jobs unless you invest in technology innovation in order to KEEP IT in Britain. That means investing OUR money (UK taxpayers), not inviting the world to grab a profitable piece of the action.
The UK doesn’t have a strategy. It has an ideology stating categorically that horizon scanning is none of the government’s business. i.e. infrastructure planning is for the private sector’s benefit, (to attract inward investment) and must not compete against it. You couldn’t make it up. Every knee-jerk reaction weakens the UK’s control of its own economy and diminishes the value of what little intellectual property we have left. That’s all we have left, now we’ve sold off the family silver.
“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
The government line has been spelt out, ad nauseam, in letters I have from Lord Drayson, John Denham, the WDA, the Minister for Economic Development, the Deputy First Minister and the Director of Innovation Strategy, etc. etc.
The ‘peach’ was from the DTI. Patricia Hewitt wrote; “Patent rights are the property of inventors and it is for patentees themselves to exploit their rights.” Yeah, right! Impeccable logic! If you can’t OWN those rights you’re comprehensively disenfranchised. . .
“The government’s role is one of facilitating a climate for innovation, rather than evaluating and funding specific inventions.” Patricia Hewitt. The DTI. 29 Jan. 2003. The private sector is never going to fund, or even evaluate, anything that competes with their vested interest – any radical change or progress is effectively stymied.
“…the UK’s largest multi-sector innovation event where some of the most cutting edge companies get to meet international partners in order to do business”
Blimey. Is that really what I went to on Tuesday? You could have fooled me. Then again, that is easily done.
But that article does read like it was lifted from the official press release. (Does any journalist write that sort of guff?) So perhaps you’ll forgive me for being baffled.
I had a chat at the event with a very senior person in Innovate UK. I tackled them on the hot topic that this news report somehow manages to skip. Grants versus loans.
This very senior person said to me that Javid was being very tight lipped on what will emerge from the spending review. But it is no secret that the idea of turning grants into loans is a hot topic that this piece somehow manages to overlook.
The response I got did not suggest that the rumours were wrong, but it did point out that grants and loans can come in various guises.
Just ask today’s undergraduates. What is a loan to people who go on to earn squillions is a grant to people who go on to do proper jobs, such as teaching, and never earn enough to have tp pay it back.
In other words, one person’s, or a company’s loan, is another’s grant.
By the way, I also saw some neat technology on show. My favourite was Oxbotica, but that may be because I have just written >2000 words about them. Pity that so much of its was displayed on a plinth of darkness.
I also heard a nice sound bite about satellites over Milton Keynes. But I’ll keep that to myself until I have sold the article to someone. Any takers?
Sajid Javid has overall responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. None of the Ministers under him have ‘Innovation’ in their Portfolio titles, which are:-
Business and Enterprise
Universities and Science
Culture and the digital economy
Trade and investment
Skills and Equalities
Life sciences
Intellectual property
Make of that what you will. In my experience it can only mean that politicians are scared witless of the prospect of having to ‘pick winners’ from Britain’s unending stream of technological advances so they simply say it’s none of their business. It’s up to the private sector to put their money where they think they’ll get the best return. Trouble is, they won’t make any judgement until the R&D has been funded and proven its viability – Catch 22. It gets worse; disruptive technology is anathema to an established business. They will vigorously oppose any funding and scream “state aid”, with the full support of the European Commission. So, the best British innovation is either stillborn or snapped up by a less risk-averse foreign competitor, and I haven’t yet touched upon the IP issue!!!
Sajid Javid repeats the mantra that we heard from the likes of David Willetts and Paul Drayson. They don’t know what “best practice in innovation” is and I doubt they care, judging by their tenure of office in ‘science & innovation’. If it doesn’t pass the acid test of a quick ROI, rather than serve society’s long term interest, it won’t get a loan or a grant. Javid wouldn’t have the job if he failed to conform to type. Of course, their favourite subsidy is a tax credit (that doesn’t come out of their budget?) – the only way to keep giving the nation’s wealth to wealthy foreigners, when they say they’re reducing the UK’s deficit:-
“The UK is the only G7 country to go back on its pledge, and has in fact increased the amount of money handed over in recent years.”
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/business/what-austerity-the-government-is-literally-giving-taxpayers-money-to-big-foreign-oil-companies/11352.article?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=17719-313195-13%2F11%2F2015
“Government figures show tax breaks announced in the Budget by George Osborne will hand North Sea oil and gas companies a further £1.7bn of taxpayers’ money by 2020.”
If we invested taxpayers’ money in applied research, identified the technology winners and built it all, regardless of the resulting demise of some (foreign) companies, then we would be in charge of our own economic destiny and boast the cheapest sustainable power in the world. Who wants to be indebted to Chinese nuclear? Why aren’t Javid and Osbourne declared unfit for Office?
The ‘market forces’ writing is on the wall:-
http://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-finance-publications/unhedgeable-risk
But the Tories spend money they say we don’t have – betting on losers.
“Economic growth is highest in the LONG TERM if society is dealing successfully with climate change.”
“The UK is embracing new technologies and leading the world in innovation, but we must not be complacent. . . .” Javid’s delusional claims illustrate his complacency. The ‘establishment’ view has always judged innovation on its profit-making potential, and that, together with their abdication of responsibility to fund research, is at the root of Britain’s failure to embrace disruptive technologies.
“Economic growth is driven by learning and innovation and the accumulation of ideas, skills and ‘knowledge capital’. Knowledge and innovation allow society to decouple growth from resource use to ensure that we can get more out of the resources we have. Unlike other resources, knowledge capital is weightless and does not deplete. Quite the reverse, knowledge builds on knowledge, making this a ‘magic resource’ subject to unlimited economies of scale.”
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/17/cities-climate-change-problems-solution
Javid’s empty rhetoric is an insult to the real drivers of progress – the innovators, who want to bring changes to society and the economy that he, like Matt Ridley and his ilk, can’t stomach. We urgently need to “decouple growth from resource use” but they oppose any change that threatens their greedy self interest. (paying less tax)