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.

    141/152 (page 107)
    centre, depending on the nature and size of the companies involved in the specific initiative. Bearing in mind that the total activity must have a strong industrial focus, should a commercial research organisation be chosen, then it must be one with a significant industrial orientation. A logical next step would be to arrange for consultation between industry—through the main Trade Associations, academia, CEST and the DTI to formulate the strategy for the progressive implementation of what is considered to be a very important initiative. For our part, we would be very pleased to act as the point of contract for the Aerospace Industry and would ask you to keep us informed of future developments. M. Garrigan Assistant Director (Technical) Letter to the Clerk from Unilever Thank you for your letter of 7 September concerning the Science and Technology Committee’s proposal to establish Faraday Institutes based on the German Fraunhofer Institutes. Weare of course familiar with the Fraunhofer Institutes. They have worked well in Germany over the years and their experience is of much value. We would also agree that creating links between industry and higher education is of enormous importance to the UK economy. Over the coming years, international competition will be increasingly innovation based, and it will be essential for any country to make effective economic use of the skills and knowledge within its Higher Education Sector. The problem with commenting on this specific proposal is that the proposed Faraday Institute will find themselves within a British rather than a German context. To a very large extent, it will be the interaction of the Centres with the other elements in that context, as much as their own excellence, which will determine success or failure. To be frank, the prospects are hard to predict. We believe that the Government are right to begin with a pilot programme. What we would emphasise is the need for the pilot to be designed and monitored in such a way as to provide a real test. An incomplete test, which does not constitute a realistic trial of the basic concept, will tell us nothing. A test which is not systematically monitored, in terms of costs, benefits and underlying reasons for success and failure, is likely to provide misleading conclusions. I am unable to assess how far the Government’s proposals fulfil these criteria, but I believe that this is the essential issue. As to diversion of funds, the case depends on the effectiveness of the Institutes. Once more, a real trial is required to give the answer. I am sorry that I could not be more precise but hope that these comments are of use. M S Perry Letter to the Clerk from the Provost of University College London (UCL) Thank you for your letter of 12 June 1992. I must say it came as a surprise that the S and T Committee should choose to ask these questions now. I could have understood it when the Faraday proposal first emerged, and it would be logical in a year or so’s time when the present programme can be initially assessed. Now is the least appropriate time in my view. To answer your questions: (i) Who knows? It seems to work in Germany as a contributory factor to their economic success, and on that basis worth an experimental] evaluation in the UK. (ii) As one of the participants, I am unlikely to criticise. Non-participants (including failed proposers) are likely to be more critical. Only the relevant Government Departments can comment on the impact of funding. (iii) Yes, of course, but that is part of the British Disease to do nothing whilst considering the options. (iv) Possibly, but there is ample opportunity to develop the programme—and I do not see it as merely “‘modified’”’ CASE awards. (v) Possibly—but there are other, higher priorities for tax-payers—and the DTI “lack of generosity” didn’t seem to put off the applicants.