The researchers behind the GEDI study suggest that attitudes and entrepreneurial aspirations in the UK are holding back UK entrepreneurial performance. They found that while UK entrepreneurial activity is innovative and enjoys strong cultural support, its full potential may be held back by negative attitudes and a lack of ambition, relative to leading entrepreneurial economies.
The researchers found that the overall UK performance in entrepreneurship is world class. However, the different elements making up entrepreneurship in the UK - such as ability, attitudes and ambition - are not as well balanced as in the very leading entrepreneurial economies such as the US, which ranked first in the Index, and Australia, which ranked second.
In the study of the UK and 119 other countries across the world, the team analysed data from more than 3,000 highly skilled individuals with business ideas, alongside data describing how well each country supports entrepreneurial activity.
The researchers found that while entrepreneurial activity is innovative in the UK, Britons were less likely to choose entrepreneurship as a career path because they had a wealth of employment options available to them. This made them reluctant to leave secure, well paid jobs for the uncertainty of starting up a business.
This is in comparison to countries such as the US and Australia, where highly skilled individuals with innovative ideas are more likely to set up businesses despite the risks. In these countries, innovative entrepreneurs also show ambition to grow their businesses and they are supported by more positive attitudes than in the UK.
The high valuation of entrepreneurship means that highly skilled individuals are more likely to set up growth-oriented, high-quality businesses. The researchers say this type of 'can-do' environment provides a platform for aspiring entrepreneurs to develop a bigger network of contacts who can provide support, in the form of advice or even financial backing.
The study was carried out by researchers from Imperial College Business School in association with George Mason University, the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of Pécs.
Professor Erkko Autio, co-author of the study from Imperial College Business School, said that while the UK is a world-leading entrepreneurial economy, the study shows that a relative lack of ambition and positive attitudes may hold the UK back from realising its full entrepreneurial potential.
"Enterprising people who are highly skilled should be encouraged to see setting up their own business as an exciting alternative to full-time employment," he says. "However, our report shows that many still crave the security of full-time employment. Entrepreneurship creates social benefits that extend beyond the individual, such as job creation, increasing competition and enhanced economic dynamism. Our report pinpoints areas that the government can focus on to help aspiring entrepreneurs make the leap from the safety of a well-paid job into what they may feel is riskier territory."
This year's GEDI index, now in its fourth edition, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the economies of 120 countries and compares their entrepreneurial characteristics. The Index compared the experience of male and female entrepreneurs for the first time, to reflect the increasing participation and importance of women in entrepreneurship around the world.
The researchers found that the UK has fewer female entrepreneurs, relative to males, than many other countries such as Germany, the USA and Australia. They suggest that increasing female entrepreneurship could improve the UK's performance.
The researchers also found that UK entrepreneurs are strong in innovation. The UK ranks first in Europe and third overall, for its level of start-up activity in the medium and high technology sectors. In recent years, the government has been fostering technology clusters such as 'silicon roundabout' in Shoreditch, London.
These clusters have given entrepreneurs access to high quality training and development to help them grow their businesses. These companies are also doing better because they are providing niche products and services that are not currently offered by other businesses.
Another trend that emerged from the survey was that UK entrepreneurs were less inclined to grow their business globally or employ large numbers of people. This resulted in a lower ranking for the UK in the "aspiration" category, coming ninth in Europe and fifteenth globally.
Britain could also improve the way highly skilled people viewed entrepreneurship, coming eleventh in Europe in this regard. UK also ranks lower than the US in entrepreneurial networking, meaning that gaining mentoring support and learning from the experiences of others is relatively more difficult here.
The authors suggest that GEDI could be used by UK Government policymakers to develop more targeted strategies that enhance the conditions that will allow for more entrepreneurial activities in the UK economy.
Scientists can't agree on 'responsible research'
The EU's Horizon 2020 programme has put 'responsible research' firmly on the agenda, according to University of Copenhagen's Maja Horst.
The EU's Horizon 2020 programme requires all research projects to show how they contribute responsibly to society. New research from the University of Copenhagen reveals that the scientists themselves place great emphasis on behaving responsibly; they just disagree on what social responsibility in science entails. In other words, responsibility is a matter of what perspective the researcher places on his or her work.
A communications researcher herself, Maja Horst says that on the one hand, we have scientists who are convinced that they should be left alone in their 'ivory tower' and that neither politicians nor the general public should interfere with their research activities.
"In their eyes, the key to conducting responsible science is to protect it from external interest because that will introduce harmful biases," she says. "Science should therefore be completely independent and self-regulated in order to be responsible.
On the other hand, she adds, there are scientists who believe that the ivory tower should have an open door so that politicians, the public and industry can take part in the development of science. Such engagement is seen as the only way to ensure that science develops in accordance with the needs and values of society, and thereby fulfils its social responsibilities.
In collaboration with researcher, Cecilie Glerup from Copenhagen Business School, Maja Horst has analysed more than 250 scientific journal articles all concerned with the role of research in society and particularly the notion of responsibility. The results of their analyses have just been published in the Journal of Responsible Innovation.
“We can conclude that all the scientists are deeply concerned that their research is responsible and useful to society; they just disagree about what it means to conduct responsible research – how transparent the ivory tower should be, if you like," says Horst.
"This is a problem because if we have different definitions of what it means to be a responsible scientist, it becomes very difficult to have a fruitful discussion about it. It also makes it very difficult to be specific about how we want scientists to act in order to be responsible.”
According to Horst, discussions about responsible research are particularly important in light of the fact that entire research areas may be at risk if they are perceived to be irresponsible or controversial.
“Scientists within stem cell research, nanotechnology, or synthetic biology, which is about designing biological organisms, pay a great deal of attention to the way in which their research area is presented in the media and perceived by the public," she says.
"They all saw how the GMO debate – about research into genetically modified organisms – ended in a deadlock that had serious consequences for robust research projects which simply could not attract funding. No one wanted to be associated with GMO research after the heated debates.
“With a more balanced discussion of the role and responsibilities of scientists and society, we might have avoided the extremely rigid positions, for or against GMO, which dominated the debate.”
You can read the full article here.
Les Hunt
Editor