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.

    21/88 (page 19)
    A comparison of the instruments study with the foresight model outlined above shows that it covered some of the key elements - industrial needs, and scientific and technological strengths - although there was much less emphasis on science-push opportunities. Where it was far from successful, however, was in establishing a process for ensuring fruitful and continuing interactions among scientists, technologists and industrialists. After the instruments study, the Assessment Office gave less emphasis to work on S&T priorities. Partly, this reflected a belief that they did not need a complex model; a general map of the links between technologies and the underlying sciences, together with a check-list of indicators to measure UK performance in applications and scientific research, was probably all that was required. In addition, ACOST felt that less effort was needed because “outside bodies such as CEST have now been established to offer advice in this area”.”* 4.1.2 Studies by the Committee on Emerging Technologies ACOST established a standing Committee on Emerging Technologies (ET) in 1988. Over the next four years, this produced reports on four technologies, as well as briefly considering ten other topics. The first report was on biotechnology.”? It was carried out by the Life Sciences Sub-group of the ET Committee. They commissioned a dozen papers from experts and sought written views from another ten organisations or individuals. As regards the four main inputs to RFA identified above, the report covers most of them reasonably well. It analyses present and future markets. It considers the UK’s capacity to exploit the potential economic benefits.** There is a good analysis of research opportunities. And it uses international comparisons to help pinpoint areas of UK scientific strength. Although some conclusions are rather general,” it does succeed in identifying a small number of specific research priorities (eg embryonal stem cell biology), unlike other ET reports described below. It also points out that skill shortages are impeding the exploitation of biotechnology.” By comparison, the ACOST report on advanced manufacturing technology is much less impressive. This was again prepared by a sub-group of the ET Committee. Part of the problem may have stemmed from the composition of this group which failed to strike a balance between science-push and demand-pull.?’ As regards the approach, the only substantial external input acknowledged in the report is a discussion with six industrialists and two other experts. On the economic demand side, the analysis of UK manufacturing is very sketchy and the only data presented are some general balance-of-trade statistics. The discussion of research opportunities is little better. There is no analysis of the capability of British industry to exploit the new technology, nor of British research strengths and weaknesses. These shortcomings are a little ironic as the report recognises that three key components of a technological strategy are an assessment of competitor performance, financial justification and human factors, yet the ET sub-group failed to follow this sound advice in preparing its report.”* Few priorities are identified and those that are mentioned are relatively unsurprising.” Finally, the concluding recommendations are rather vague” although the DTI is now acting on the recommendation to set up a network on best practice in advanced manufacturing technology. The working group which prepared the report on neural networks struck a much better balance between researchers and users.*! Their terms of reference were taken from those of the ET Committee and included: “assess[ing] UK activity and its relative strengths and weaknesses” and “ prepar[ing] views as to which areas should be given priority”*? They consulted with a selection of industrial and academic experts.*> The report analyses the potential demand for neural network technology, identifying a range of applications (for example, in the financial sector). It also considers factors likely to affect Britain’s ability to exploit the technology, noting that “any strategy for the UK must accept that, in the electronics sector, the domestic manufacturing base is very weak”.**