Economy: Growth

Baroness Greenfield Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greenfield]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for the opportunity to discuss this wide-ranging topic. As a neuroscientist at Oxford and Chancellor of Heriot-Watt, I shall focus on innovation in universities by considering four bottlenecks along with some examples of how we might deal with them.

Bottleneck one is the limited talent pool of young scientists forming the next generation of researchers. Currently only 16 per cent of A-level candidates opt for one or more science subjects, so how can we sell science effectively to bright sixth formers? Just one idea could be a twinning scheme where graduate students sign up for an ongoing relationship with a local school, thereby themselves gaining invaluable experience. The continuing mentoring that could ensue, as well as work experience in the twinned lab, might completely transform the career plans of a 16 year-old.

Bottleneck two is the diminishing talent pool resulting from the sub-optimal retention of women in science. One crucial issue here is the conflict of pregnancy and its aftermath with the demands of a highly competitive research career. Returner schemes, such as those pioneered by the Daphne Jackson Trust, would ring-fence funds for fellowships for anyone who had taken time off from research for primary childcare responsibilities. However, only the Government could have the resources to roll out a returner fellowship competition to an extent that would make a real national impact.

Bottleneck three is the lack of a cohesive strategy for optimising translational research. Universities generally have limited patent budgets, which can force technology transfer offices to form spin-out companies too early so that a very high proportion fail and patent applications may be dropped before any value can be realised through licensing. Meanwhile, investors are often wary of a technology that the scientists are unable to explain to them in terms that they can understand. Such investors may also view the work as: too high risk; at too early a stage; too little, given the funding required, to give a good return; or having a burn rate that is too high and exits that are not obvious.

One possibility around these cultural minefields could be to set up venture capital syndicates that do not invest as such but give some private sector grants. Modest but highly timely amounts of money could be awarded, with the financial burden diluted by the collective membership. In return, however, each individual member of the syndicate would have privileged access to the research as it was developed and therefore first refusal to purchase the IP and perhaps develop the spin-out as and when the work matured and as and when people felt personally that the time was right. The notion of private sector grants is not in the national culture of either academics or, indeed a venture capitalist, so the Government could be perfectly positioned not to contribute financially but rather to act as a kind of co-ordinating broker.

Bottleneck four lies in the current attitudes of non-translational but potentially highly innovative basic research. Surely for originality to flourish we first need to let a thousand flowers bloom, but the current peer review process is open to criticism—especially and typically when money is tight—of being risk averse. In addition, currently only 10 to 15 per cent of research council grants are successful. Let us assume that that does not mean that some 90 per cent of British academics are simply poor scientists. A very heretical, yet perhaps effective, change might be to abolish the peer review system and research councils altogether and divide the available funds along with the vast sums saved from the bureaucracy equally between eligible scientists. Of course, there would need to be careful thought as to where the boundary conditions of eligibility were set, along with potential penalty measures.

It would be a fascinating paper exercise at least, to see how much money would be immediately available to each scientist to explore their particular scientific challenge, unencumbered by insecurity or lengthy futile applications. Given breathing space, scientists could once again truly maximise original thinking and regain the confidence for developing innovative theories that challenge existing dogma. Why would such an intellectual nirvana help the more practical issues that we are debating today? Bear in mind the fact that quantum theory concerning the inseparable nature of waves and particles, when it was developed at the beginning of last century, seemed to be a highly abstract notion. Now, however, this improbable theorising has led to lasers, transistors and modern computers, as well as an understanding of molecular bonds and X-ray crystallography without which modern molecular biology would not be possible. To those four bottlenecks, there are no easy answers, but those are at least some suggestions for unblocking them.