House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research Eighth Report of Session 2012–13 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 22 February 2012, 18 April 2012 and 25 April 2012 Published on 13 March 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies. Current membership Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Chair) Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester) Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Sarah Newton (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth) Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central) Caroline Dinenage (Conservative, Gosport) Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford) Gregg McClymont (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Stephen McPartland (Conservative, Stevenage) Jonathan Reynolds (Labour/Co-operative, Stalybridge and Hyde) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/science. A list of reports from the Committee in this Parliament is included at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in printed volume(s). Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Dr Stephen McGinness (Clerk); Jessica Montgomery (Second Clerk); Xameerah Malik (Senior Committee Specialist); Victoria Charlton (Committee Specialist); Darren Hackett (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); Henry Ayi-Hyde (Committee Office Assistant); and Nick Davies (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e- mail address is: [email protected]. List of additional written evidence Page 1 Roger Browne Ev w1 2 Plymouth University Ev w3 3 Professor Peter Dobson, Begbroke Science Park, University of Oxford Ev w6 4 Bournemouth University Ev w7 5 Scottish Lifesciences Association Ev w8 6 The University of Edinburgh Ev w10 7 Health Protection Agency Ev w12 8 Babraham Bioscience Technologies Ltd Ev w14 9 Frank J Morris Ev w15 10 United Kingdom Science Park Association Ev w16 11 Cambridge Enterprise Ltd Ev w17 12 RSPCA Ev w21 13 Mark A Phillips Ev w22 14 Engineering YES Ev w23 15 Simon Payne Ev w25 16 Groupe Intellex Ev w27 17 Professor Michael Ferguson Ev w?? 18 Dr Venketesh Dubey Ev w30 19 Yorkshire Cancer Research Ev w31 20 Professor R Charles Coombes and Professor Anthony G M Barrett Ev w?? 21 British Society of Plant Breeders Ev w33 22 The Royal Society of Edinburgh Ev w37 23 UK Innovation Research Centre and the Centre for Business Research Ev w42 24 Isis Innovation Ltd Ev w46 25 The University of Birmingham Ev w49 26 Geoff Lawton, Simon Campbell, John Dixon, Paul England, Peter Machin, and Alan Palmer Ev w52 27 Tokamak Solutions UK Ltd Ev w56 28 Dr Michael M Hopkins, SPRU, University of Sussex Ev w60 29 Society of Biology Ev w63 30 Plant Bioscience Limited Ev w69 31 Action on Hearing Loss Ev w71 32 Imperial Innovations Group plc Ev w75 33 Royal Society of Chemistry Ev w80 34 Drug Discovery Centre, Imperial College London Ev w83 35 The Publishers Association Ev w85 36 The Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO) Ev w88 37 Midven Ev w92 38 The Academy of Medical Sciences Ev w95 39 Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd Ev w100 40 BP plc Ev w102 41 LGC Limited Ev w105 42 BioIndustry Association (BIA) Ev w109 43 Electronics Technology Network Ev w114 44 University College London Ev w128 45 Ian Phillips Ev w131 46 Plymouth Marine Laboratory Applications Ltd Ev w133 47 STFC Innovations Ltd Ev w135 48 The University of Oxford Ev w138 49 Smart Club for the East of England (SCEE) Ev w141 50 Smart Club for the East of England (SCEE) Committee Ev w142 51 Cancer Research UK Ev w143 52 Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc) Ev w148 53 Institute of Physics Ev w153 54 UK Computing Research Committee Ev w156 55 National Farmers’ Union Ev w158 56 Ethical Medicines Industry Group Ev w163 57 Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) Ev w166 58 The Royal Society Ev w169 59 Golden Rice Ev w171 60 SETsquared Partnership Ev w173 61 BMT Group Ltd Ev w175 62 Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) Ev w177 63 Novartis Ev w180 64 Met Office Ev w183 65 Association of Medical Research Charities Ev w185 66 Professor Michael Ferguson Ev w192 67 Professor Anthony G M Barrett and Professor R Charles Coombes Ev w194 68 Sir Gregory Winter FRS Ev w196 69 ADS Ev w198 70 Professor William O'Neill cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [11-03-2013 14:03] Job: 021047 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021047/021047_w069_steve_PValley 96 William O'Niell.xml Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev w1 Written evidence Written evidence submitted by Roger Browne, MD Futurology Limited Summary There is a gap/valley of death. A key reason is the different skill sets, behaviour and even values of those conducting research & development and those who have the entrepreneurial skills to spot a market opportunity and exploit it. Those developing the “new” are often so in love with their creation they assume the world will welcome “their baby” with open arms. Those with the skills to move from prototype to (say) bulk production, those able to promote the benefits of the offering, those able to kick open the doors of opportunity, are often not recruited to the team. Those working on products, services or processes that will address Climate Change issues face even greater difficulties, since they will often need to change people’s behaviour as well as have their new offering accepted. Picking winners is a most difficult task—but often there is no plan or approaches to catch proposals that are not funded but that emerge as strong opportunities sometime later. Work is already underway—The EU funded Climate KIC project—to increase the involvement of business and to help understand how to change behaviours. The focus of this work must not just be on research institutes, we need to address those best able (?) to commercialise the “new”—existing businesses. This is not a sprint but a marathon and a great deal of work will be required to change UK businesses so they are truly innovative and seek and welcome the “new”. 1. The gap In my experience there is a large gap between the “new” and the “existing”, there always has been and it hasn’t recently gone away! The gap exists whether the “new” is a new product, a new process, a new service or a new business model. It exists because there are always many who resist change, particularly those who fear that the “new” will encroach on their territory and negatively affect their income. The best example I have heard recently of this phenomenon, came from Prof. Fred Steward, Professor of Innovation and Sustainability, Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster. Professor Steward, speaking recently in Brussels, pointed out that the wooden shipbuilders and sail makers [amongst many others!] did not welcome the advent of steam power and iron ships! 2. A problem compounded The facts that the existing providers often display “vested interest” mode, and that the prospective market is slow to react/accept the new offering both compound the problem. The problem is then further compounded because those researching/designing/developing the “new” are commonly good at technical issues but not so good in other areas—key areas such as finance, marketing and commercialisation tasks. Those at the research/design “front end” are often so in love with their “baby” that they believe that the market will immediately grasp the “new” and “beat a path to their door”. Seldom is this true. Vested interests abound! There is also an enormous amount of work to get a product from the drawing board or lab to market! A task that is often under-estimated and not considered until far too late in the development life cycle. 3. Skill sets Those at the front end often lack the entrepreneurial skills needed to understand the market needs [and more importantly the market “wants”] and the force of character to overcome the many hurdles between the research lab and profitable trading. Perhaps more importantly the fail to see the need to engage people to the team that do have these skills. Outlining the problems that are likely to occur unless a complete team is assembled; isn’t an easy task and the messenger is sometimes at risk!” A few individuals do have a complete skill set—perhaps Sir James Dyson is the best example of someone who seems equally at home in the laboratory, as the board room, as the City of London.