The UK Government’s Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) has this morning announced that it plans to introduce long-term, ten-year funding for certain R&D (Research and Development) activities, which could also deliver longer-term funding for infrastructure projects too.
The move, which is intended to help support the government’s upcoming Industrial Strategy and deliver economic growth as part of their “Plan for Change“, will see the introduction of new guidance to drive innovation and “provide long-term certainty to researchers and industry, deepening opportunities for partnerships in vital R&D work“.
The mention of infrastructure seems to be focused more on fostering the development of large-scale research facilities and equipment (e.g. quantum computers). But such things could potentially also benefit the development of future broadband networks and mobile technologies too (6G, 7G etc.).
Advertisement
In theory, this could be more productive than many existing programs, which tend to base their plans around the parliamentary terms of whichever party is in government at the time and are thus often reflective of 1-4 year projects.
Science Minister, Lord Vallance, said:
“Research and innovation, from computing and AI to health breakthroughs need stability of funding.
We are delivering on our manifesto commitment to support and encourage public bodies to deliver long-term ten-year funding streams where appropriate, while retaining the flexibility of shorter-term cycles to deal with emerging priorities.
This change will provide certainty to certain types of research organisations and unlock vital business investment into our world-class research sector to drive the growth at the heart of our Plan for Change.”
Specific funding commitments have yet to be determined, but this is apparently due to be set out in the “coming weeks“. The criteria which will be used by Departments and public bodies to identify and prioritise relevant ten-year funding proposals are centred around four areas, which we’ve listed below.
The Key Criteria
➤ Infrastructure and core capabilities – Where ten-year funding will allow recipients to develop or maintain core national infrastructure or support more impactful use of such infrastructure, which would not be possible under shorter funding cycles.
➤ Talent attraction and retention – Where the skills development in a particular area is demonstrably vital to the UK growth agenda and longer-term funding would enable development of a pipeline of skilled researchers, scientists or engineers that otherwise would be difficult.
➤ International collaboration – Where there are demonstrable, additional opportunities for international collaborations with wider strategic benefits.
➤ Partnerships and Business collaboration – Where there is demonstrable need for long term partnerships with industry – including charity and philanthropy – to tackle a significant challenge relevant to economic growth, and where shorter funding cycles would impede effective partnerships.
Further details on the initial recipients of ten-year budgets are due to be set out in the second phase of the Spending Review, and in due course following the allocation of the R&D budget. Departments will operate their own selection process, in line with the guidance.
Advertisement
The claims about government intervention do not work out, given that no government can commit to long-term financing plans. Much of the benefit also goes to companies overseas. Even within an administration, there will be a change of direction every few years. The way to bring about investment in R&D and other long-term investments in the UK is to facilitate a business environment where businesses can benefit from making their own investments in long-term planning. That does not now exist in the UK.
The biggest problem with R&D is we have a privatised telecoms sector. Public ‘Investments’ will ultimately benefit the privatised companies, with minimal benefits passed on to the taxpayer. Technologies required to bring decent service to subscribers already exists.
Either the private companies should be mandated to set aside a sum for R&D, or a nationalised organisation should hold a stake in the ‘investments’. Correct me if I’m wrong but shouldn’t they really be called ‘grants’, given the public entity doesn’t own any assets or stakes in the infrastructure?
Much of the R&D funding is passed through Universities and other public bodies, but they fail to pass on the benefits to businesses in many cases because it is easier for them to just take the government handouts.
It is not for the government to mandate that businesses invest in R&D; this is carried out by businesses in their own interests, and it does not need further regulation. What we do have, though, is a government that has imposed steep increases in costs on businesses, meaning that many of those that were investing in R&D will have been cutting their budgets and headcounts.
The government would therefore have the bigger impact on R&D in the UK if it were to get its own finances in order before imposing more regultions on businesses.
Where is the evidence to support your suggestion that there is a problem with R&D just because our CSPs are all private businesses?
The biggest problem with R&D is we have a privatised telecoms sector. Public ‘Investments’ will ultimately benefit the privatised companies, with minimal benefits passed on to the taxpayer. Technologies required to bring decent service to subscribers already exists.
Either the private companies should be mandated to set aside a sum for R&D, or a nationalised organisation should hold a stake in the ‘investments’. Correct me if I’m wrong but shouldn’t they really be called ‘grants’, given the public entity doesn’t own any assets or stakes in the infrastructure?
There’s no money to fund heating for old people then they do this