Back during the blog on National Champions, I described how the UK government’s industrial strategy had identified eight priorities (the so-called IS-8) but that there was “no real impetus (or resources!) for taking substantive action”. Clearly, I spoke too soon! This past week, to coincide with the recent budget, the Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has put forward a new approach to funding research. Kendall claims that public R&D funding has been spread thinly across multiple priorities and that now is the time for ‘doing fewer things, better’. Of the record £38.6 billion announced, £8 billion would be targeted on specific IS-8 government priorities and £7 billion for innovative company growth in these areas.
As a result, some leading voices are concerned that the so-called Haldane Principle separating politics from research funding is being undermined, whereas others claim that these concerns are overstated. Another concern is about the prioritisation, and especially the narrowing of focus. For example, Diana Beech at the University of London describes how “The UK’s research strengths depend on diversity, choice and autonomy. Without those, we risk narrowing our research base and undermining our capacity to tackle future societal challenges that may differ from today’s priorities—and, ultimately, eroding our global reputation for innovation.”
Do you agree with the new UK approach? What are the main advantages and disadvantages?
Feel free to focus outside the UK — How well do you think the current approach towards innovation and setting research priorities is faring in your country (or a country of your choosing)? You are welcome to focus on specific sector(s) in making your points.