Research foresight and the exploitation of the science base / Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, Office of Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Cabinet Office.
Date:
1993
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Research foresight and the exploitation of the science base / Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, Office of Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/88 (page 12)
    In 1983, the ACARD launched a study on ‘Promising Areas of Science’. The objective was “to survey current scientific developments and advise the Council on work which showed commercial and economic promise in the medium to long term”'. The ACARD Study Group commissioned various studies from the SPRU? and others, and met with companies and research organisations. Their findings were published in 1986 in a report entitled Exploitable Areas of Science. Recognising that future national economic success will be built increasingly on the foundations of scientific knowledge, the authors concluded that a process is needed to prioritise and guide a substantial proportion of that part of the national scientific resource be it Research Councils, Ministry of Defence or Department of Trade and Industry, and to stimulate its effective exploitation to the benefit of the United Kingdom. ... We do not have a forum in the United Kingdom where we can manage [this] process ... It is, we believe, a matter of national priority that such a forum be established.° ACARD were, however, rather wary about suggesting a role for government in this process. They were apparently not convinced by the conclusion of the SPRU report on RFA in other countries that, in order to set such a process in motion, the government has to take the lead. (That report had cited the example of Japan where, even though three-quarters of R&D is funded by industry, the government still recognises that it must help initiate and catalyse RFA.) Instead, ACARD proposed “that industry itself should set up the mechanisms for undertaking long-term research forecasting on a permanent and routine basis”.* What reaction was there to this call for the creation of a process for identifying exploitable areas of science? The 1987 Conservative election manifesto took up the theme that a country of the UK’s size could not afford to.do everything in science and technology - clearer priorities were needed. Shortly afterwards, ACARD was replaced by the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST) with expanded responsibilities. Of its four terms of reference, the first was “to advise the Government on the priorities for science and technology in the United Kingdom”.® Section 4 examines what progress ACOST and its Committee on Emerging Technologies have made towards this objective. In 1988, the CEST was set up primarily with industrial funding. Many assumed that this would act as the forum sought by ACARD for identifying and prioritising exploitable areas of science. There have also been some attempts to adopt a more strategic approach to decision-making in Research Councils and Ministries. In addition, the recent institutional changes moving responsibility for the Science Vote from the (former) Department of Education and Science (DES) to the OST have brought with them a realisation that a longer-term overview of the whole of British science and technology is needed. Now is therefore a good time to take stock of what progress has been made in implementing the ACARD recommendations. First, however, it is worth briefly reviewing previous studies of research foresight and academic studies of the links between S&T. This will provide a framework for assessing the individual foresight exercises described in subsequent sections. f ihe