Faraday programme / Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
[1993], ©1993
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Faraday programme / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    17/152 (page 15)
    CHAPTER 4 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE Is the case proven? 4.1 We consider that technology transfer is very important but the case for a Faraday Programme has not been made successfully and we doubt whether the Programme is a desirable addition to current schemes. The evidence we received demonstrated clearly that large companies, and in particular the chemistry based industries, were unlikely to benefit from the facilities offered by Faraday Centres. Their relationship with university based basic research was already close and long established. However it was frequently said, in corroboration of the Working Group’s report, that existing technology transfer arrangements were less used by the physics based engineering industries and by SMEs (paras 3.11-3.12 above). 4.2 Thereasons for these differences are not difficult to find. In the chemistry based industries the development gap between laboratory science and products and processes is much narrower than in the physics based engineering industries. So far as concerns SMEs, universities have in the past not taken enough interest in courting SMEs and SMEs have not, for their part, been sufficiently aware Of what university science and DTI technology transfer schemes have to offer. We acknowledge, however, that recent years have seen a culture change at the universities, which have become much more proactive in courting industry, including SMEs, and offering them the benefits of their research. The large number of university based collaborations bears testimony to this (para 3.15-16 above). We particularly applaud the activities of the research clubs which some universities have initiated with SMEs particularly in mind, other local initiatives involving universities, and the part-time PhDs. 4.3. Wealso observe that AIRTO, when pressed, admitted to us that what particularly attracted them to the Faraday Programme was the prospect of untargetted funding for industrial research. Current DTI schemes and the research associations and contract research organisations did not at present provide for this (para 3.10 above). 4.4 The evidence leads us to conclude that the case for Faraday Centres has not been made successfully. They are clearly not necessary to give scientists experience of industrially relevant research nor for promoting technology transfer across the whole spectrum of science based industry. The changing attitudes of the universities and several of the publicly funded schemes, particularly CASE, LINK, Teaching Companies and the experimental PTP, already show how this can be facilitated. Generally speaking, new schemes should not be introduced unless the objectives cannot be met by existing means. 4.5 We accept, however, that there is a case for promoting technology transfer between universities and SMEs and some physics based industries in particular. A new organisation? 4.6 The next question we have to address is whether, to meet the needs we identify, new organisations like Faraday Centres are required. We note the disquiet which many witnesses expressed over the want of greater administrative detail, the problems of IPR, and the suitability of the research for PhD status scientists (paras 3.27-3.32 above). 4.7 However we attach particular weight to those arguments which relate to location and funding. We agree with those witnesses who argued that intermediate institutes should not be hosts to Faraday Centres, that contiguity made for better technology transfer and, to that extent, that the Centres represented an undesirable barrier (para 3.19-3.21). In our view, to have any chance of success, Faraday Centres would have to be placed on university campuses. We also share the fears of witnesses that were a Faraday Programme to be launched in present circumstances it would be at the expense of government funding of the science base, both direct and indirect (para 3.22-3.26). We recognise that such a transfer might have merit were it likely to unlock substantially higher investment in research by industry but in the light of the failure of the Fraunhofer Institutes to generate more than 29 per cent contract income from industrial contracts and of the UK industry’s