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.

    14/152 (page 12)
    industry. Initially funded by the research councils they are eventually to be supported by private industrial and commercial concerns. A further two are planned. 3.17 Many witnesses felt that existing schemes should be reviewed before any commitment should be made to a Faraday Programme. For example, NERC wrote that “The differences between the proposed new scheme and the existing schemes is not clear from the documentation” (p.99), and “It is important that the success of such (existing) schemes are properly evaluated and any lessons learned before new schemes are started” (p.98). DTI wrote of the “need to ensure that any Faraday programme would be integrated into the overall technology transfer scene and would not lead to a further proliferation of schemes and organisation (p.82). They told us in evidence that they were launching their own review of all their schemes to ensure that they are effective and easily understood (Q 298). CBI also called for a review of all such schemes. There was need for “a much greater auditing of the skills and of the resources that we do have” before an allocation of funds could be made to Faraday Centres (Q 143). Professor Stewart wrote of the need to assess “whether there is a need for more bridges and whether new added value would arise from a set of dedicated institutes” (p.100). 3.18 Some witnesses thought that the objectives of the Faraday Programme could be achieved by further development of some of the existing DTI schemes, especially of LINK. Thus ABPI wrote that “... further support of the LINK scheme with research carried out at recognised centres of excellence could be considered an alternative to the current proposals” (p.67). CVCP also thought that the answer lay in modifying the LINK scheme so that similar support could be offered for research themes rather than specific research projects. This would offer “... all the benefits of the proposed Faraday type institutes but without introducing any particular new structure. We should be building on existing partnerships and existing strengths” (QQ 205). They were sure that “the Faraday principle could easily be accommodated within a wider LINK programme of this kind” (Q 219). The Defence Research Agency thought that the DTI’s Research Initiatives, set up in 1984 but now defunct, had some similarity to the proposed Faraday Centres. They had been successful in promoting “good co-located research and technology transfer and spun-out commercial contract research activities” at universities and research establishments on various research themes (p.81). BP would have preferred to see more CASE Awards instead of the DTI pilot Postgraduate Training Partnerships (p.70). EA Technology approved the Postgraduate Training Partnerships as already announced, without further, more elaborate, institutional arrangements (p.84). Universities 3.19 Many witnesses argued that, if a Faraday Programme were proceeded with, the centres should be located within universities - like the German Fraunhofer Institutes (Cranfield p.79; University of Leeds p.108;). The Rector of the Imperial College argued that universities were already adept at technology transfer - perhaps more so than the IIs. CVCP thought that placing Faraday Centres in IIs would “create another barrier that has to be overcome” (Q 218). Sir Ron Dearing was not convinced that setting Faraday Centres in IIs was “obviously right”. “The greater the proximity between researcher and manager the more likely it is that it will not be a communication [for] the deaf to the deaf” (Q 110). Sir Ron thought universities or industry were a better location for such Centres than the IIs (QQ 110, 129). 3.20 The university world was not alone in the view that Faraday Centres should be located in HEIs. BP noted that the proximity of the German Fraunhofer Institutes to the universities lay at the heart of the links which resulted. “The recommendation to award degrees to workers at the United Kingdom intermediaries would only go a fraction of the way towards creating a system as effective as the FhG” (p.70). Other branches of industry were content with their existing university links (ICI p.87; ABPI p.65). Other witnesses wanted the definition of II broadened to include research council institutes (AFRC p.65; NERC p.98); medical schools (Peckham p.80); or any organisation which had “excellence in a particular area” (CBI Q 164).