Don’t mistake science policy for innovation policy, says Richard Halkett, Executive Director, Policy & Research at NESTA, the UK’s National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
Scientific research lays the groundwork for many innovations and sometimes leads directly to breakthrough products and processes.
Currently, the UK’s science policy focuses on three aims: increasing R&D spending, driving up the number of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) graduates and translating the knowledge generated into commercial value. While there is some improvement in these areas, in a world where we are competing not only with the United States and Europe, but with emerging science powerhouses like China and India, science policy needs to become more sophisticated.
In particular, we must not mistake science policy for innovation policy – the former is a necessary but not sufficient component of the latter.
Despite a doubling of the UK science budget over the past ten years and the introduction of incentives such as R&D tax credits to stimulate business investment, UK expenditure on R&D remains low in comparison to many other countries. Despite this, it has managed to maintain its status as a world-class science base, generating more citations than any country other than the United States.
However, increased spending alone won’t be enough. Maximising the economic and social benefit from scientific knowledge is dependent on meeting the increase in demand for STEM-skilled people. With correct training they are not only able to generate new knowledge, but also to identify, adapt and use knowledge that is generated elsewhere, and apply it for the benefit of UK business.
Over recent years, the numbers of STEM graduates coming out of the UK’s universities has increased, but their distribution is uneven – numbers have risen considerably in biological, computer and mathematical sciences, while those in engineering & technology and physical sciences have fallen. There is a need to do more to make STEM subjects attractive to schoolchildren and STEM careers more attractive to those with science degrees.
On knowledge transfer, the picture is mixed. While the number of university spin-outs has increased, the performance of technology transfer offices varies widely. Some initiatives, such as the Technology Strategy Board’s Knowledge Transfer Networks and collaborative R&D projects appear to work well, but they tend to see knowledge transfer as a one-way, linear process.
Future initiatives should look to the example of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s scheme of sponsoring senior industrialists as visiting fellows in universities.
And in general far more needs to be done to increase knowledge exchange through human capital, by increasing the flow of talent between industry and university.
Most importantly, however, the UK needs to recognise that the linear model of idea production in a university followed by commercialisation by industry is relevant only in a very small number of sectors.
In reality, innovation is more about multiple exchanges of knowledge over an extended period of time. Frequently, a university is not involved at all. While the recognition of this more complex process is implicitly recognised by government policies, the linear model still tends to dominate the wider policy debate.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
