Interconnected Innovation: Physical connectivity as the missing ingredient in UK research and innovation policy
A new HEPI Report published today says transport connectivity should play a greater role in how the UK assesses research investment.
World‑class research capabilities exist across the whole UK, yet poor physical connectivity means they rarely function as a national system. Transport infrastructure can drive measurable innovation gains, with one study even showing that linking two cities with cost-effective flights can increase scientific collaboration by 30 to 50 per cent. Current innovation and growth strategies tend to ignore this.
Interconnected Innovation: Physical connectivity as the missing ingredient in UK research and innovation policy (HEPI Report 202) by Professor Geraint Rees (UCL’s Vice Provost for Research, Innovation and Global Engagement) and Sarah Chaytor (UCL’s Director of Strategy and Policy) argues that the UK’s compact geography is a great asset, but also that the current prioritisation of place and regional spend limits the potential benefits.
The paper’s four key recommendations are:
- research investment should be assessed for both individual excellence and contribution to the national ecosystem;
- research funders should prioritise investment in assets but also in the connective tissues – networks, platforms, shared infrastructure and mobility schemes – that support connected capabilities;
- infrastructure decisions should reflect research and innovation impacts; and
- place-based funding should incentivise connection rather than self-sufficiency.
An approach based on improving connectivity could shift policy debates away from zero-sum choices around the concentration and distribution of research funding. Better alignment of research and innovation policy with decisions on transport, digital and capital infrastructure would instead encourage different places to work together.
The paper concludes: ‘If the UK is serious about strategic research investment, it must be equally serious about the physical connectivity that makes national collaboration possible.’
Professor Geraint Rees, UCL’s Vice Provost for Research, Innovation and Global Engagement and the co-author of the report, said:
The UK is missing considerable opportunities to capitalise on our research and innovation strength through deploying greater connectivity as a tool which can drive innovation while attracting inward investment. This is a serious oversight, and one the UK cannot afford to maintain.
Sarah Chaytor, UCL’s Director of Strategy and Policy and the other co-author of the report, said:
The UK has historically used competition between institutions and regions to drive research excellence to great effect. It is now time for us to think seriously about how we enable collaboration across the country to drive greater strategic coherence and to ensure that we are maximising the potential of our entire research and innovation ecosystem.
Nick Hillman, the Chief Executive of HEPI, said:
If we were to join up thinking on research, infrastructure and economic growth, there could be huge compound benefits. At the moment, we keep dropping the ball. To take one striking example, the plan to link Oxford and Cambridge via East-West Rail was signed off 15 years ago. Building started six years ago and the section from Oxford to Milton Keynes was completed two years ago. Yet there are still no passenger trains whatsoever on the line. The UK has enormous advantages but needs clearer strategic thinking to connect them up better.
Notes to editors
The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) is the UK’s only independent think tank devoted to higher education. HEPI aims to improve the quality of debate about higher education policy in the UK.
Comments
Jonathan Alltimes says:
Connectivity causes innovation, but is connectivity a constraint on English technological innovation? The argument is a restatement of Marshall’s argument about the industrial districts of the Victorian era and the economic power of trade secrets in manufactures. The argument was restated by Vernon in the 1950s and then by Porter in the 1990s. The function of firms is crucial for invention and technological innovation. The function of the universities is to train researchers in the use research methods to be employed in firms, a few methods of which could be new.
What the report and decades of similar advocacy has not acknowledged is the fact the UK has deindustrialized on a massive scale for over 70 years against the advocacy of the universities and the research councils in the search to replace lost industry sectors. The state has responded to the advocacy with the expansion of research expenditure, but which has not caused the growth of new firms, for one simple reason, the UK lacks the massive scale of financial capital. If we were restate the argument in transparent terms, the ease of communication of trade secrets causes the commercialisation of inventions. I argue that investment in transport and telecommunications infrastructure is required to lower the costs of business for goods and services, including unintended network effects. Modern telecommunications has overcome the constraint of distance. Examples of the ease of travel for the use of geographically dispersed research equipment is a different argument and again there is no evidence that in our small country, distance is a constraint on the use of research equipment. If UKRI has any spare cash, it would be better to spend it on research fellowships rather than PhDs.
The argument presumes English research has secrets worth trading commercially and for that the English economy requires firms. The English state is finding new ways to expand its financial capital, what England lacks compared to its competitors is plentiful cheap land, so along with reindustrialization in strategic industries, we need to identify sectors where land is not a dominant constraint on production.
Reply
Add comment