The key idea behind the ‘One Nation’ slogan is that, to address the nation’s problems, we need to bring people together. Britain needs to promote partnership and collaboration across society. One word – fragmentation – summarises why we need that partnership and collaboration.
I want to explore what this means for innovation policy. Innovation is critical for Britain because we have so few resources other than our wits. Innovation is our Get Out Of Jail card.
The trouble is, we are no longer as good at it as we were. We rank a modest ninth in patents granted. We rank 16th in the world for citations per research paper (a measure of scientific value). UK has just two firms – both troubled – in the world’s top 50 research-intensive companies. We have a big knowledge economy but growth is stalled. The latest innovation map shows we punch beneath our weight, even if we fondly imagine the opposite.
How do we address this problem? How do we ensure we can all live well on our wits? We need root-and-branch reform of the innovation ecosystem as a whole from research, through development to innovation. We now have a new economy – the knowledge economy. But its organisation is fragmented, serving narrow vested interests better than it serves our nation.
If research, development and innovation is our Get Out Of Jail Free card, you would think it would be a top priority for government. And you’d be wrong. No one in government has specific, overall responsibility. Instead we have a junior minister who controls just a fraction of the public research budget. Working out how RDI policy and practice is organised across Whitehall today is as tough as solving a Rubik’s Cube. Yes, there are plenty of structures each with their own advisers. But there is no overall coordinator.
We need a full department for RDI. The minister’s first job should be to identify duplication and gaps among the public and private organisations comprising the innovation ecosystem, all the way from ‘blue skies’ research to novel products and processes. The next job is to oversee the construction of fit-for-purpose RDI infrastructures and to network stakeholders to plan, construct and maintain RDI partnerships and joint undertakings.
Those two ideas – RDI infrastructure and partnerships – need to be the leitmotif of reform. Both ideas bring people together, de-risk innovation and cut RDI costs. Peter Mandelson’s small Technology Strategy Board made a start in this direction. But TSB makes the RDI landscape still more complicated. It leaves RDI off the cabinet table. It fails, by burying RDI in BIS, to see RDI as cutting across all aspects of society (eg health RDI impinges on industry, NHS, housing, education, transport, sport and more). It fails to see R&D’s 1.8 per cent share of GDP as the key driver of the economy.
An RDI ministry would need to address two agendas in RDI: the societal agenda and the researchers’ own agenda. The societal agenda asks: what are the priorities in RDI between improving health, reducing carbon, sustaining communities or innovating in communications, services and industry? The researchers’ agenda arises from each line of research being followed. Research goes in a cycle (propose hypothesis – devise investigation – undertake investigation – capture data – analyse data – propose new hypothesis); it can go on and on (to better things or to a dead end) and must be allowed to go on. So the researchers’ agenda asks: What shall I do next when I have been successfully following my line of research? These agendas should replace today’s technocratic, elitist distinction between ‘pure’ versus ‘applied’ research.
The minister would take control of most departmental RDI budgets even if that means ruffling Whitehall feathers. They would take the best ideas of the EU: a multi-purpose research council; a distinct focus on RDI infrastructure; a huge range of technology platforms that prepare joint undertakings so that ‘winners’ pick themselves. Other EU nations nations (France, Germany Italy and many more) and all the new economies (Brazil, Russia, India China) have such ministries. But we proudly muddle along, increasingly dropping our punches.
A powerful RDI minister would realise a vision that is a long way from today’s fragmented and quietly fractious innovation ecosystem. It’s a vision for better use of existing public and private investment – not a covert bid for cash. It’s a vision for innovating innovation. It’s a vision to ensure that our one nation can live well on its wits.