Faraday programme / Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
[1993], ©1993
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Faraday programme / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    8/152 (page 6)
    CHAPTER 2 THE PROPOSALS The case for change 2.1. The case for setting up Faraday Centres is not set out in any one place in the documentation we have received but the arguments advanced in the Working Group Reports and in the evidence we received from Sir John Fairclough may be summarised as follows: (i) the status, role and capability of organisations engaged in technology development and transfer need to be substantially enhanced (Final Report of the Working Group on Innovation (WGI), p.1) so as to provide a continuous flow of enabling technologies for future business opportunities; (ii) successful innovation relies on a two way flow of ideas and knowledge between industry and universities (ibid, p.2); (iii) existing facilities at universities are little used by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) who turn instead to contract research organisations (the exception being small and medium sized enterprises engaged in leading edge technology who will naturally develop strong relationships with universities) (CEST p.72); (iv) for small and medium sized enterprises in engineering-based industries where physics is the foundation, relations with universities are particularly weak (QQ 16, 30; CEST p.72); (v) hence there is need for a new kind of research establishment called a Faraday Centre, lying outside universities, grafted into existing “Intermediate Institutes”, for example contract research institutes, to act as a bridge between industry and universities. Links with industry will be secured through contract research and with universities through research contracts, postgraduate training and staff exchange (Final Report of the WGI, p.1). A typical Faraday Centre 2.2 Faraday Centre status will be accorded by way of “franchise” from a Management Group (see para 2.10 below) upon application from the Intermediate Institute (II) and the universities. An II might include any contract research and development organisation engaged in technology based work e.g. contract research organisations like some members of the Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO), AEA Technology, PA Technology; government laboratories with agency status like DRA or RSRE; and research council laboratories. CEST have since informed us that university based research institutes or consultancies which are semi- autonomous, can undertake multi-disciplinary projects and have the freedom to respond quickly to market pressure are just as likely to qualify as contract research organisations. 2.3. The three principal criteria for judging eligibility of host institutions are: success in the commercial development and exploitation of technology; extensive interaction with industry; and a demonstrable ability to generate income under contract. Other criteria for selecting a successful II would include a turnover of over £5-10m; manpower of 60-250; a good customer base and proven relationships with universities; and a recent track record both in R&D and in marketing and financial management. 2.4 The host II would provide the infrastructure for the Faraday Centre. To bid for Faraday Status, it would enter into a relationship with one or more universities from which the Centre might draw postgraduate researchers, exchange staff, and commission further research, as a customer, in