Step 1: Have brilliant, insightful idea that could revolutionise economy, save lives, and increase some happiness of humankind.
Step 2: Seek grant funding.
Step 3: Fail because research was in an “untested area”
Sound familiar? With all the obsession these days on funding, publication, and not looking silly, we seem to have forgotten that the main thing that scientists do, and are supposed to do, is fail. If we knew what we were doing it wouldn’t be called science (and all that). But here in the UK is there enough being done to foster a spirit of innovation and entrepeneurship?
A workshop and dinner/discussion was convened at the Royal Society on June 5th to discuss this issue.
The perhaps startling feedback from the workshop was that many of the initiatives piloted at the big universities, like spinoffs, licencing, and intellectual property development, have not been succesful. In fact, they have lead to embargoed publishing and may have even stifled the free exchange of ideas, in return for very small amounts of money. Perhaps what is needed is fewer barriers to innovation.
During the dinner/discussion, two areas were frequently cited as areas of great innovation; silicon valley in california and Cambridge Massachussetts, home of MIT. In the former, there are famed restaurants where punters come to mingle with goateed techies pitching their wares to venture capitalists, whilst in the latter there is a network of wealthy MIT graduates who return as “angel” investors to encourage the development of startups. Throughout all of these activities, people fail. But at least one of the cultural differences seems to be that if you fail in America, that means you’ve learned your lessons and you’re in a better position to push forward. In the UK, if you fail, it’s “because you’re a failure”.
Of course the fuel for innovation is capital, and we heard several ideas for where this might come from. Anne Glover (Amadeus Capital Partners) suggested that government procurement (worth £150 billion) could be a major driver, but of course this would have to be supported by policy as what civil servant would act in a risky way in our risk-averse culture? She also suggested that removing stamp duty from share transactions could improve the economic environment for venture capital and allow the UK to rival Europe and the US for a culture of innovation.
Rod Coombs (Manchester) suggested that other environmental changes that could be helpful might include allowing innovative firms to hold monopoly rights for a few years, freeing up funds for “proof of concept” research, and giving academics a bigger personal stake in licencing revenue. Finally, he suggested that the “R&D tax credit” be revised as it is not being used appropriately and could be developed into a more useful tool.
Throughout all of these developments, it is my own view that postdocs and contract researchers are the people best place to be innovative; they’re full of ideas, intuitively understand new technology, and aren’t completely entrenched in the academic way of thinking. However so far the main beneficiaries of university licensing bodies and spinoffs has been semi-retired senior PI’s and professors who have set up only marginally successful companies as a nice little nest egg for retirement. By contrast, our counterparts in America are being taken more seriously when they have a good idea and are having such remarkable successes as Google and Facebook.
One final point; I myself work for an American website and have recently come across at least one other, Traineo.com which has US capital and management, but UK design staff. Both companies are based in Cambridge Massachussetts. If you’re an early career researcher with a great idea, I’d recommend you get over there and see what you can do, because right now the UK isn’t the best place for you.