Hi Ben, rare for me to read anything on this topic and agree with mostly every word - I do here. I agree that Tickell was the missed opportunity and very recent HE sector leadership meetings I’ve been attending confirm to me that senior leadership haven’t properly seen the threat. PCE sadly and predictably turned into a defensive battle in culture wars. I start my presentations on this subject with a 2005 (2005!) Nature editorial titled harshly, “Blair’s failure”, celebrating large hikes in the science budget but little concomitant investment in infrastructure or people. Plus ca change.
I am in a small club that strongly supports the changes underway in UKRI - academia can’t simultaneously complain of hyper-competition, over work, falling success rates, inefficiency and lack of value for the taxpayer and argue for the status quo. That’s where we are. Good luck with the venture - (Rory)
Congratulations on the new project, Ben. Great set of problem statements to work on, and looks like you are building a strong team. Let me know if I (or the wider Catapult network can be of any help). Guy
I strongly agree with almost everything that you've written here! I think the present system is approaching some sort of crisis point - perhaps at the next general election, when one or more party concludes that political capital can be made from pointing out that it's broken, not delivering, and the solution offered will not be to make it work but to take the money and do something else with it.
Looking back, you're right that we failed to understand ten years ago that increased R&D funding came with a quid pro quo - but I think government itself failed to articulate that well, because everyone wanted it to simply be the case that increased funding would deliver increased productivity and economic growth through the existing system. Put more in, get more out. What we have now seen is that it doesn't work like this - there are aspects of the system that seem to absorb extra funding, do more "science," but without delivering extra economic outcomes. Why? What are they? Is anyone seriously looking at this?
I think for me the most interesting aspect of your post is the hint at doing something new and radically different outside the current academically focused research system. Something AI-enabled, consciously trying to work in a way that optimises outcomes rather than inputs. very happy to help!
Hi Ben, rare for me to read anything on this topic and agree with mostly every word - I do here. I agree that Tickell was the missed opportunity and very recent HE sector leadership meetings I’ve been attending confirm to me that senior leadership haven’t properly seen the threat. PCE sadly and predictably turned into a defensive battle in culture wars. I start my presentations on this subject with a 2005 (2005!) Nature editorial titled harshly, “Blair’s failure”, celebrating large hikes in the science budget but little concomitant investment in infrastructure or people. Plus ca change.
I am in a small club that strongly supports the changes underway in UKRI - academia can’t simultaneously complain of hyper-competition, over work, falling success rates, inefficiency and lack of value for the taxpayer and argue for the status quo. That’s where we are. Good luck with the venture - (Rory)
Thanks Rory! I'll dig out that 2005 editorial... plus ca change indeed...
Congratulations on the new project, Ben. Great set of problem statements to work on, and looks like you are building a strong team. Let me know if I (or the wider Catapult network can be of any help). Guy
thank you Guy! Keen to chat.
I strongly agree with almost everything that you've written here! I think the present system is approaching some sort of crisis point - perhaps at the next general election, when one or more party concludes that political capital can be made from pointing out that it's broken, not delivering, and the solution offered will not be to make it work but to take the money and do something else with it.
Looking back, you're right that we failed to understand ten years ago that increased R&D funding came with a quid pro quo - but I think government itself failed to articulate that well, because everyone wanted it to simply be the case that increased funding would deliver increased productivity and economic growth through the existing system. Put more in, get more out. What we have now seen is that it doesn't work like this - there are aspects of the system that seem to absorb extra funding, do more "science," but without delivering extra economic outcomes. Why? What are they? Is anyone seriously looking at this?
I think for me the most interesting aspect of your post is the hint at doing something new and radically different outside the current academically focused research system. Something AI-enabled, consciously trying to work in a way that optimises outcomes rather than inputs. very happy to help!