Prosperity Partnerships will see £42m invested into industry-led projects to stimulate and direct basic research towards industry’s needs, but is it the right funding model?
To recap, Prosperity Partnerships are five-year projects to investigate topics of national and global importance. They are co-funded by government and industry, with the research areas identified by business and undertaken in collaboration with universities.
EPSRC is investing £20.4m in the scheme, while industry partners are putting in £16.8m and universities are contributing £4.9m. Partners from industry include Akzo Nobel, AstraZeneca, Oxford Photovoltaics, Google, Rolls-Royce, Tata Steel and Weir Group.
The first round of projects – covering topics including electromagnetic and acoustic materials, photonics, offshore wind energy – were announced in 2017 and are now said to be attracting additional foreign investment.
The seven new projects will look at areas including a new virtual factory approach to steel production, new materials for solar panels, sustainable coatings and paints, and bio catalysts for the production of medicines. They represent a way of stimulating and directing basic research towards industry requirements, which hasn’t always proven successful, prompting The Engineer to ask if this approach will be more successful than others, and whether the right subjects are being tackled.
Under half of respondents – 44 per cent – agreed that the new partnerships will provide tangible outcomes, followed by 22 per cent who thought the partnerships sound in principle but not in direction. The remaining 34 per cent of vote saw 11 per cent agreeing that the new projects should be directed through Faraday Centres, and just under a quarter (23 per cent) opted for the none of the above option, including Another Steve who said: “This sounds like a sell-out of R&D to the sharks of the commercial world – beware. Surely the clue is in the name, Prosperity, Partnership Initiative = PPI.”
Julian Spence added: “Perhaps if there were some partnership that was establishing why innovative (small or start-ups) firms find it difficult to innovate AND to follow up by further innovation on success that would be better; it would set a foundation for creating partnerships that were truly innovative – but I suspect that it would involve business resourcers (finance & academic managers) moving away from their beloved business plans and poor understanding of managing risks (managing not avoiding).”
Finally, Rich used comments to say: “The AMRC in Sheffield is a great example of university – industry collaboration and it needs to be done more because there is clearly a gap between academic and industry in the UK. The gap might be due to an attitude problem, it is much easier for universities to earn money by the “bums on seats” policy for accepting students (and their bloated tuition fees) and companies put short term shareholder gain above long term competitive advantage.”
What do you think? Let us know using comments below. Comments are moderated. The Engineer’s policy on guidelines for comments can be found here.
The seven new Prosperity Partnerships:
Developing a new virtual factory approach to steel production, involving computational techniques and scale-up activities, aimed at reducing screening times for new materials by a factor of 100 led by Tata Steel in partnership with Swansea University
New materials for solar panels, focusing on perovskites, led by Oxford PV in partnership with Oxford University
Sustainable coatings and paints, using studies of coatings failure combined with a machine learning approach to designing protective coatings and nanocomposites, led by Akzo Nobel in partnership with the University of Manchester
Bio catalysts for production of medicines, and developing both new complex therapeutic molecules and new manufacturing technologies, led by AstraZeneca with Prozomix and in partnership with Manchester University
Quantum simulation and software development to harness the power of quantum computing, combining developments in quantum processor hardware with quantum algorithm development, led by Google in partnership with University College London
Hi-fidelity virtual 3D simulation of a complete gas turbine engine during operation, led by Rolls-Royce in partnership with Edinburgh University
New oil and gas well stimulation technology, using numerical modelling, sensing and electronic control to enable a targeted pulsed stimulation process that could improve exploitation of subsurface energy sources in a socially responsible way, led by Weir Group in partnership with Strathclyde University
Of course it will be successful and hopefully will ensure the projects will remain for use of this country.
>The most recent figures available, for 2016, have a total R&D expenditure representing 1.67 per cent of GDP>
That’s truly pathetic, but what else can be expected from a political class of the depressingly low calibre we have?
It sounds reasonable, but big firms like those mentioned must be obliged to allow their staff to publish. It is not clear from this article whether this condition is stipulated.
Historically British firms seem to be far behind their other-nation competition for fundamental research, and this needs to change. I’m a firm believer in the democratisation of both education and research, but a jet engine is a jet engine, and you’re not going to build cutting edge stuff in your back garden. If the likes of RR and others want to rely on the state to bail them out when the going gets tough, then they need to pay it in now, even if it risks the displeasure of shareholders. They can think of it like an insurance policy.
hmm… 2.4% of UK’s ~£2 trillion GDP is £48 billion. This announcement of £20.4 million spread over 7 projects averages just under £3 million per project. £48 billion divided by £3 million implies 16,000 R&D projects – does the government have the resources to project manage this?
These projects should help, the AMRC in Sheffield is a great example of university – industry collaboration and it needs to be done more because there is clearly a gap between academic and industry in the UK.
The gap might be due to an attitude problem, it is much easier for universities to earn money by the “bums on seats” policy for accepting students(and their bloated tuition fees) and companies put short term shareholder gain above long term competitive advantage
None of the above. This sounds like a sell out of R&D to the sharks of the commercial world – beware.
Surely the clue is in the name, Prosperity, Partnership Initiative = PPI.
This is why I say that employees must be allowed to publish; it acts as a metric for progress and is effectively an audit made by an independent third party (the scientific community).
It does seem to be that this “research” is to help big companies and, many of them not UK oriented (google???).
And, it does seem that much of the R&D is not basic but development (though it is hard to say with the way some are described – for example is one to do with improving fracking? And is the AstraZeneca one developing array microfluidics for discovery and manufacture??).
This smacks more of tactically significant problems and incremental research (on fashionable topics).
Perhaps if there were some partnership that was establishing why innovative (small or startups) firms find it difficult to innovate AND to follow up by further innovation on success that would be better; it would set a foundation for creating partnerships that were truely innovative – but I suspect that it would involve business resourcers (finance & academic managers) moving away from their beloved business plans and poor understanding of managing risks (managing not avoiding).
The lack of understanding of how Invention and new R&D works. In good time companies spend money on R&D, but as the finance tightens, the first thing that goes is R&D on invention and R&D, and when finance improves, the last thing to get any finance is invention and R&D. We are in a time of tight finance, and virtually no Innovation and R&D is being preformed. Do not confuse R&D on cost saving, and ways to reduce costs and staff numbers, I am talking about NEW innovation, and NEW products and very little is happening, the Government and Industry has to start supporting inventors and new ideas, not spending money on old technology.
But that is what achieves R&D money! allocated by folk who don’t really know what is involved, given to academics who definitely don’t!
As an exercise for my students, I invited them to split their waking day into 30 minute ‘slots’: and then each student took one ‘slot’ to investigate. the intention was to list, with special emphasis on items imported, the ‘stuff’ they personally used, had access to, shared, and so on: and then to calculate the potential market (size, number, value, cost, effect on life) for the products in their list.
It became quite simple to then recognise where there were ‘gaps’ and hence to where any Government seeking to re-invigorate UK plc might sensibly offer our! money to firms and organisations who might start to fill that ‘gap’. I believe we were all amazed by the scope of potential areas for R&D. Of course, it does seem to be the case that it is invariably individuals with fire in their (intellectual) bellies who become product champions: and who will succeed whatever obstacles are placed to stop them.
I think that the exercise you describe is a very good one and I expect other similar exercises(such as looking at a process and reviewing the assumptions (& challenging them) – or looking for similar problems/solutions or (old/outdated) patents (as done for Pilkington’s float glass) – these would help students to appreciate innovation – and innovative research.
Sometimes the research is not the product – but in techniques for delivering; it is evident that manufacturing and fabrication/building research is lacking (eg offshore wind turbines or nuclear reactor – 80% cost is in making the non-nuclear bit).
The more obstacles the more difficult it is to be innovative (fire runs out of fuel?) and deliver really new products; if innovation process was not organised to be diffusive then that might help