A world-class science base: Emulating Uncle Sam

Sir Richard Sykes

Asked to give some tips on achieving a world-class science base in the UK, the obvious response is that we already have one. The more pressing challenge is how to stay in the premier league.

My own view on why that matters is not new or original. I believe that science essentially puts us on a course to a brighter future and that economic development or competitive advantage follows investment in science. This has been understood since the 19th century. Former MP and a professor at one of the forerunners to Imperial College, Lyon Playfair, recognised it in 1852 when he wrote: “It is indispensable for this country to have a scientific education in connexion with manufacturers, if we wish to outstrip the intellectual competition which now, happily for the world, prevail in all departments of industry. As surely as darkness follows the setting of the sun, so surely will England recede as a manufacturing nation, unless her industrial population become much more conversant with science than they are now.”

More recently, the Nobel Laureate Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology put a figure to that line of argument. He estimated that 50 per cent of the economic growth in the US since the Second World War could be attributed directly to technology.

To get a measure of the challenges facing the UK’s science base we must consider what is pitted against us, and it is clear that our principal competition is the US. In February this year, President George Bush used his State of the Union address to advance an impressive scientific agenda. His administration is looking to double federal funding for basic research, spending an additional $50 billion over 10 years in direct response to the economic threat from China and India. The majority of the additional funding will go to the physical sciences, while the biomedical sciences will just about hold steady. Another $86 billion will be available in R&D tax credits. The US also intends to recruit some 100,000 additional science teachers and assistants for its schools.

These measures appear to have a large degree of bipartisan political and industrial support, and in part respond to a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report that foretold a bleak future for the US if it does not address the basics of science and engineering.

John Marburger, the President’s science adviser, described the thinking behind the initiatives when speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in April. He said that the principles are, first, that funding long-term, high-risk research is a federal responsibility; second, that areas of science most likely to contribute to long-term economic competitiveness should receive priority; and third, that current levels of funding for research in the physical sciences are too low in many agencies.

How should we respond to this show of force? I see a number of areas requiring attention.

We too must recognise the importance of funding basic research, which is our fundamental contribution as scientists. The UK should also encourage approaches that span the disciplines, helping to bring a ‘critical mass’ of researchers together. This is vital because these days physicists and chemists are just as important as molecular biologists on the front line of cancer research, for example.

We should also recognise that what is known as applied research relies heavily on basic science input. Consider the development of the jet engine, which relied on fundamental materials science research. That basic work was pushed forward because there was an application – a superior fighter aircraft – waiting for it.

In fairness, the current government has done a great deal to prioritise UK science. Research universities in this country have benefited from a far greater emphasis on science and technology spending in the past five years. However, a world-class science base does not mean simply better-tended universities. It must embrace the whole ecosystem.

The role of industry in exploiting universities’ intellectual property is vital, and it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Businesses need research to make money and universities need money to do research. Businesses simply cannot build the kind of in-house R&D arm that a major research university has, especially where multidisciplinary work is being carried out. The great universities are the only institutions where world authorities in all relevant disciplines can come together and flourish.

Though I have not worked in a lab since the early 1980s, to industry big and small I offer one observation: PhD graduates from our research institutions are the people who are going to change your business model. They are the people who will innovate, who will do the new things that your company needs to stay ahead.

Industry should be on the lookout for their educated minds first, their technical skills second. Often the work of postdocs could more accurately be described as troubleshooting than true innovation, but the economic effect is positive. I would suggest a scheme to second a postdoc into SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) that have never had one.

A particularly welcome example of how innovation is being encouraged by government came in the 2004 Budget, with the removal of a tax measure that slowed innovation by taxing any investment funding won by academics. But that is a relief from a restriction. We also need more active measures. The US government – a big buyer of technologies – is obliged to place a certain number of contracts with SMEs. If our government were to follow this example the benefits would be enormous, giving technology-based start-up companies greater traction in the marketplace.

We face big challenges in the global market but it is important to remember that the UK remains an attractive place to do business and carry out the science that underpins it. To maintain this position we must compete vigorously for international students. The US in particular is making great efforts to attract the best young people from countries like China, Malaysia and Singapore.

We must make sure that these talented people know we want them here. One way to achieve this, recently introduced at Imperial, is to repay them the cost of obtaining their UK visa - at £85 per student a relatively low-cost but nevertheless symbolic move.

I am relieved to say that the international flow of scientific talent is becoming a less overwrought topic than in the past. Too much has been made of the ‘brain drain’. As the former prime minister of India Rajiv Gandhi cleverly remarked: “Better to have brain drain, than brain in the drain.” Today, ‘brain circulation’ is nearer the mark. Many scientists and engineers who leave these shores eventually return, and in many cases they come back brighter.

The process of nurturing the scientists of the future starts in schools, and here once again postdocs can play a role. At Imperial over the past few years we have been running a novel scheme that puts these researchers through teacher training for two years alongside their lab-based careers. They spend half their time assisting with science teaching and enrichment activities in specialist schools and studying for a PGCE (Post-Graduate Certificate in Education). They spend the other half undertaking scientific research. The scheme is funded by GlaxoSmithKline and, appropriately, is called INSPIRE.

An interim evaluation indicates that schools do indeed see the postdocs as an inspirational resource with measurable results for their pupils. Improvement in GCSE results and coursework and an increased take-up of A-level science courses have also been noted.

Schools benefit enormously from the presence of these passionate advocates for science and their knowledge of the highest levels of research. The postdocs act as role models for students and as on-hand experts for teachers. Unlike similar schemes, an INSPIRE postdoc spends many months in the same school developing relationships with students and teachers. So far, half of the postdocs have decided to make teaching science in schools their career.

But the profile of science needs to be raised not just in schools but across the board. It was striking that just a few days after the US President’s announcement in February of new investments in science, Time magazine ran a cover headlined “Is America flunking science?” Its main story hankered after the formula for “a US comeback”.

The high visibility afforded to science on the other side of the Atlantic is impressive, demonstrating that the subject can capture the imagination of the mainstream. Would a British-based weekly news magazine give similar prominence to such questioning of our own scientific system? Perhaps it is not only money and facilities that are enabling the US to win over the best brains. Newton’s Apple should be a valuable step towards helping science take a more prominent position on the wider social, cultural and economic agenda.

Sir Richard Sykes is Rector of Imperial College London and former Chairman of GlaxoSmithKline. He is chairman of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, on the Board of Rio Tinto plc, and the Singapore Biomedical Sciences International Advisory Council. He is also a founder member of Newton's Apple.