Invest in science or risk relegation from the economic premier league. That was the stark warning contained in a new report published last week by the Royal Society. The august institution believes that the UK will face decades of slow economic decline unless it invests heavily in research - one of its few genuine areas of economic competitive advantage. The report - The scientific century: securing our future prosperity - also warns that our current advantage is in danger of being wiped out by the US, China, India, France and Germany who have ramped up spending in science to boost their economies.
According to the chairman of the report advisory group, Sir Martin Taylor, the UK has been in the top two of the scientific premier league for the last 350 years. But this position is precariously balanced, thanks to recent cuts of up to GBP600 million in university budgets - and with the threat of more to come, he cautions. At the same time, France and Germany have bolstered their investments in the knowledge economy by Euro35 billion and Euro12 billion respectively, while the US has announced an additional USD21 billion boost for science that is likely to precipitate yet another brain drain from the UK.
Lord Waldegrave, former science minister and current provost of Eton College concedes that times are tough at the moment but that is exactly when we need to invest in the future and focus spending where we already have an advantage. “Science is one of the jewels in our crown but it yields its dividends over decades,” he says. “Investment in science cannot be turned on and off on a political whim - we must have a long-term investment. If we cut science now, just as the benefits of nearly twenty years of consistent policy are really beginning to bear fruit, we will seriously damage our economic prospects.”
The report busts the popular myth that the UK is good at science but bad at exploiting its results. It highlights the emergence of an innovation economy in the UK with universities becoming fledgling economic powerhouses. Patents granted to UK universities increased by 136% between 2000 and 2008 and university spin-outs employed 14,000 people in 2007/08 and had a turnover of £1.1 billion. While the report also cites examples of science driving successful sectors of the economy such as pharmaceuticals, commercial R&D is picked out as one of our weaknesses. British companies spent 1.14% of GDP on R&D while in the US it was 1.9% and in Germany 1.8% (2007 figures).
To maximise the economic opportunities from science the Royal Society report calls on the next government (of whatever colour) to create a 15-year framework for science and innovation, with increased spending. It also wants to see investment priorities in areas such as scientific skills and infrastructure, and an expansion of the R&D tax credit system. Lord Sainsbury, a member of the report’s advisory group and a former science minister who oversaw some notable UK science infrastructure achievements, such as the Diamond Light Source, added his weight behind the report:
“In the last twenty years our universities have risen to the challenge of commercialising their research. Figures now show that the record of our world-class universities is close to that of top American universities, with high-tech clusters growing strongly at not only Cambridge and Oxford but also in Manchester, Southampton, Surrey and York. We cannot compete with countries such as China and India on the basis of low wages, and science and innovation must, therefore, be the basis of the strategy for growth which we need to have as we go into a tough period of fiscal consolidation.”
Last week saw the publication of another report calling on the UK to consolidate its collective expertise in science and engineering. Sir James Dyson’s Ingenious Britain was commissioned by Conservative Party leader, David Cameron. Clearly resonating with current conservative policy ideals, it nonetheless offers an impassioned view of the place of science and engineering in our culture, which cuts across all political divides. The domestic appliance entrepreneur pulls no punches in the opening statement of his report:
“Now, more than at any time over the past twenty years, I sense there is a real opportunity to set a new vision for our economy. To do this, a new government must take immediate action to put science and engineering at the centre of its thinking – in business, industry, education, and, crucially, in public culture. I believe that it’s high tech companies that can contribute the most to this new economy.
“From my perspective, high tech companies are those who, regardless of the sector they are in, are making genuine investments in research and development to gain an advantage over their international counterparts. The UK has numerous examples of these companies – our goal must be to expand their size and number. And we’ll do this by combining our entrepreneurial culture and ability to innovate.
“To remain internationally competitive, government needs to get serious about engineering and science – in its commitment to research, delivering skills and backing significant infrastructure projects. High tech exports create real wealth and will help us recover from our deficit."
Not unlike the Royal Society’s report, Ingenious Britain calls for more government spending, including more generous R&D tax credits refocused on high tech companies, small businesses and new start-ups in order to stimulate a new wave of technology. Sir James also believes that we need to unlock the potential of angel investors and encourage lending by commercial banks by increasing the Enterprise Investment Scheme relief available to 30% for angel investors supporting high tech companies.
But before all these ambitions can be realised, there is one other priority for the next administration – getting the economy, as a whole, back on an even keel. With money as tight as it is at present, the clamouring of both reports to see Britain’s science and engineering powerhouse so generously supported and funded – however compelling the reasoning behind it – is likely to slip below the radar when the political campaigning is all but a distant memory.
Les Hunt
Editor