Chemistry for the Next Decade and Beyond: International Perceptions of the uk chemistry Research Base
F What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides?
Download 435.25 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 5.G To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness
5.F What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides?Summary Findings: DTC programmes with industrial emphasis add value to academia and economy Excellent examples of translational research via partnerships and spinouts Excellent examples of knowledge exchange between academia and industry certainly exist throughout the UK. Collaborative (sponsored research), DTCs and the existence of vigorous spin-off companies offer evidence of a healthy climate. There is clear progress since the last International Review. The current situation helps academia understand technically challenging problems while industry in turn gains access to state-of-the-art chemistry. However, the Panel sensed a note of general concern in the chemistry community going forward, due to the current economic situation. 5.F.1 What is the flow of trained people between industry and the research base and vice versa? Is this sufficient and how does it compare to international norms? Industry sponsorship is very visible and diverse ranging from studentships (via several schemes) to faculty positions on the one hand and from joint research programmes to physical buildings on the other. The interaction between industrial and academic partners is often utilised as a base for recruiting into industry. However, two-way flow of people between industry and academia is less visible than in the USA, where the demise of major industrial research labs led to a large scale migration out of industry to academia and consequently fewer examples of the reverse. 5.F.2 How robust are the relationships between UK academia and industry both nationally and internationally and how can these be improved? Typically, R&D goals and the corresponding financing need to be well structured and managed. In successful programmes new technologies are pulled into industry rather than being pushed by academia. Clear two-way communication with industrial feedback is needed to demonstrate and sustain commitment. Some recent high-profile examples of UK-based industry committing significant long-term research support outside the UK have generated concern about future relationships. There is a perception that multinational companies demonstrate more commitment and sustainable interest in supporting flow of knowledge and people outside of the UK. Recommendation F.1: Appropriate mechanisms should be developed through partnerships between stakeholders to encourage UK industry to continue to invest resources (e.g. people, finances) into academic chemical research. 5.F.3 To what extent does the chemistry community take advantage of research council schemes to enable this knowledge exchange? Is there more that could be done to encourage knowledge transfer? At one level it is evident that the chemistry community does take advantage of schemes from regional governments and the Research Councils to enable knowledge exchange via support of graduate students. The Panel sensed community concern about the longer term viability of such schemes. Recommendation F.2: Academia together with industry could be further encouraged to build a more visible, collaborative framework for exchanging knowledge in both directions. In particular, appropriate government agencies should consider helping to develop programmes that help companies make longer term commitments to industry-academic partnerships. 5.F.4 What is the scale of industrial R&D in chemistry nationally and internationally and what is the trend? What are the implications for the UK chemistry research community and to what extent is it well-positioned to respond? Is there any way that its position could be improved? The Panel was told that Chemistry was considered vital to the economic wellbeing of Scotland because 10% of the GDP in Scotland can be related in one way or another to the chemical industry (broadly defined). Overall, for the UK the number was stated to be between 1 and 2%. Unfortunately, the Panel did not have the time or resources to fully address this vitally important economic question. However, the perception from the Panel’s perspective was that industrial R&D is currently a vital component of UK plc and that it is going to be even more important in the future. The pharmaceutical industry holds a special place in the UK chemistry landscape. Major blockbuster drugs have been discovered in the UK, by researchers whose scientific origins can be traced back to PhD studies and training in organic chemistry. A challenge going forward will be to sustain the competitive research environment and creativity pipeline in the UK in the present evolving global marketplace. Recommendation F.3a: The RSC and other stakeholders, in partnership with the chemistry community, should commission an in-depth study of the importance of the UK chemistry research base to UK industry and the national economy. F.3b: Research Councils and stakeholders should commence a dialogue on ways to stimulate creativity and innovation in approaches to Knowledge Transfer; the ‘Open Innovation’ approach adopted in the Netherlands is a model deserving further consideration. 5.G To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness?Summary Findings: Multiple examples of successful spin-offs National advantage possibly derives from flexible schemes for sharing of intellectual property Major innovations are apparent in selected areas, including polymers and colloids, supramolecular and medicinal chemistry, as well as chemical biology. This is evident in the number and quality of spin-offs/start-up companies across the UK clearly with origins in the chemistry community. The cited examples are ones in which knowledge has already been commercialised and jobs have been created. 5.G.1 What are the major innovations in the chemistry area, current and emerging, which are benefiting the UK? Which of these include a significant contribution from UK research? The Panel was told of several examples of spin-out companies with significant market capitalisations and at more than one location. The Panel was reluctant (indeed, unqualified) to attempt to assess the impact of these examples on wealth creation in a quantitative manner. However, it seems a distinguishing feature of UK Chemistry that it has been able to launch a significant number of vigorous and successful spinout companies. Recommendation G.1: A significant number of spinout companies are successfully exploiting UK chemistry research. These examples of chemistry innovation are worthy of more detailed investigation by the Research Councils and stakeholders as templates for success. 5.G.2 How successful has the UK chemistry community (academic and industrial) been at innovation? What are the barriers to successful innovation in chemistry in the UK and how can these be overcome? Although many examples of successful licensing and spinouts were evident, a recurrent theme was the increasing cost of doing research in the UK universities and the difficulty of securing appropriate IP agreements. The establishment of a clear framework, and pooling of resources between industry and academia beyond what is already evident, could result in more profound impact in various areas like job generation and could significantly boost efforts to address societal challenges in energy, sustainability and health care. Recommendation G.2: Further efforts should be made to improve the interface between academia and industry across the various sub-disciplines of chemistry. This includes technology transfer and IP management. The above comments are based on the panel’s perceptions derived from the four-day International Review of the UK chemistry research base. More quantitative assessments and recommendations are contained in the recent review of the UK government’s science and innovation policies “The Race to the Top” by Lord Sainsbury of Turville (October 2007)4. Download 435.25 Kb. Share with your friends:
|