Science Funding and Governance Summary

This is my summary of the course Science Funding and Governance, one of the optional classes at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose’s MPA in Innovation, Public Policy and Public Value, which was taught by the Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy.

Photo by Ousa Chea on Unsplash

Summary

• Science is fundamental in transforming the world and taking us to new frontiers;
• There are major differences between science, technology and innovation policy, and the tools/evaluations for each;
• The funding of science is made more complicated by conflicting economic, political and science agendas;
• The role of government in the science, technology and innovation (ST&I) sector has evolved over time, bringing about new tools, goals and a greater understanding of the system; funding for science involves tradeoffs with funding other areas of government;
• There is a social contract for the funding of science where publicly funded researchers must ultimately be accountable to taxpayers; this has put a larger emphasis on metrics, even though it is often tricky to tie one investment to broader socioeconomic outcomes;
• Science for policy (advice) is different from policy for science (science funding), and involves an additional set of political considerations; and
• To increase science capacity in the developing world, we need to reexamine how we measure science excellence and look to better support their institutions more broadly.

The importance of ST&I

Research increases our understanding of the world. It can be basic, applied, blue skies or strategic. This distinction is not always helpful though because you can advance the fundamental understanding of issues by solving a real world challenge. Research contributes to society by:

• Creating new firms;
• Improving business performance;
• Increasing the stock of knowledge;
• Enhancing problem solving capacity;
• Improving policy and public services;
• Developing networks and social interaction;
• Attracting R&D/investment from global firms; and
• Delivering highly skilled people to the labour market

Economic growth depends on translating research into business outcomes and solving challenges. To increase this commercial benefit, you need to engage more with firms, simplify the process for collaboration, improve the handling of multidisciplinary research, and have private sector peer review. At the same time, we need to recognize that technology cannot solve everything.

Approaches to supporting the ST&I system

Science policy and innovation studies is more than just policy, but also includes the management and economics of science, technology and innovation. Science policy involves elements of the innovation system that are focused on universities and other research institutions, and how they interact across the system. Technology policy is focused on technologies and sectors. It is also focused on research institutions but more how they connect with industry. Technology policies include procurement, trade, taxes and subsidies for firms, technology/sector-specific policies, and university research in fields with technological applications. Innovation policy is a form of economic policy. It includes funding research, protecting IP, skills policy, building infrastructure, and providing access to capital.

We looked at models for how the Government can promote innovation. The Triple Helix model looks at the relationship between firms, government and universities. Networks, interorganizational and open innovation look at how innovation occurs within networks of learning, rather than the firm-level, so it is important to help new firms survive and grow. National systems of innovation see innovation as an interactive process that happens across a wider national system. Regional systems of innovation look at the geography of innovation, spillovers and clusters.

Governments have played a significant role in the innovation system throughout history, but their approaches have changed over time:

• before WW2, science policy mostly focused on university research and training scientists;
• after WW2, the development of new technology was seen as a linear model, with the government responsible for supporting basic research, and then the private sector responsible for commercialization;
• in the 1980s, innovation was seen as a chain link with interactions of networks of institutions, where the government aimed to improve the coordination of actors; and
• more recently, innovation policy has focused on transformative change, and using missions to address society’s big challenges. ST&I policies are transitioning away from a pure R&D focus to encourage the next generation of knowledge creation, technologies, business models, and management systems. A mission oriented approach is easier for defence than social issues.

In the real policy world, all of these approaches are valid to draw upon in government support for innovation.

The politics of the ST&I system

There are conflicting political and economic agendas for ST&I. Political agendas might focus on even distribution across a geography or between disciplines. Economic agendas might look for the highest returns or doing research others are not. Some science communities understand how science underpins these issues but some do not and this creates tension. Some believe that science funding should follow the Holden principle — that researchers should decide how to spend research funding, not politicians.

There are ongoing questions about technology policy. Should the state intervene for commercial purposes or just national security ones? What technologies should be supported? At what stage of technological development should the government intervene? Should the government be a user or a developer?

Science advice

Effective science advice for policymaking identifies issues early that need science advice. It should draw on a wide range of expert advice, take an open and transparent approach, and work collectively throughout government.

Measuring the impact of ST&I

There is a long trail of responsibility for government investments in science — scientists report to funders, funders to their Ministers, Ministers to parliament, and parliament to the people. However, there is not a linear relationship of innovation benefits to countries where research takes place, which makes it difficult to justify sometimes. Looking for immediate value, like many politicians do, hides long term value. It is hard to measure the impact of one project, but is easier to look at funding across an entire field of research over the long term.

There is a social contract where taxpayers deserve to know what they get for their money when investing in science, and that it is spent responsibly. There is a new social contract of science, where it must demonstrate social and economic usefulness. Hindsight shows the clear link between ST&I investments and productivity growth but it is hard to forecast these benefits.

All of this is putting more pressure on audit and evaluation for research, so there is an increasing emphasis on metrics. Although this is generally very economic, we need to look at the societal impact of research. You need to consider the incentives that different measures encourage — e.g. more focus on publications could mean a higher quantity but lower quality of publications. Responsible metrics are robust; humble (quantitative does not replace qualitative); transparent/open; diverse (reflecting fields and researchers’ career paths); and reflexive (reflected upon and updated). Different institutes measure the same things in different ways, but data needs to be interoperable — collected and processed in the same way — to be effectively comparable.

Peer review is not perfect but it is the least worst of academic governance and can be supplemented by quantitative indicators. To reduce flaws in peer review, involve people with outside knowledge and have reviewers from diverse academic backgrounds. For the next paradigm of research, you need really high quality reviewers.

ST&I in the developing world

African countries are focusing more on S&T-led growth, but there investment alone does not automatically lead to the right outcomes. Institutions and human resources are important factors for development. However, it has been hard to develop these other inputs because the World Bank has focused on supporting primary and secondary education, over post-secondary institutions. As a result, many of the brightest people leave Africa. The world is trying to turn things around in the frame of the SDGs, but, because of a stronger reliance on international organizations for funding that is focused on science excellence, S&T does not always align with domestic capacity or priorities. This narrative is under question and countries are building domestic capacity in different ways. For instance Rwanda has ensured there is a factory in each of its 30 districts.

Devolution of powers

Devolving powers brings decisions about voters closer to them. What powers to devolve is complicated and political. Devolution of powers in the UK created more complexity for almost every sector. Innovation was retained but economic development was devolved. The two issues have a very blurred line for responsibility. For higher education institutions (HEI), the division is less clear because of the interaction between HEIs (devolved) and research funding councils (not devolved). The devolved powers have not been used much for HEI though because the UK as a whole has such a good brand that the countries in the UK do not want to mess with a good thing.