Source · Select Committees · Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Recommendation 5
5
Rejected
Public support for R&D is not effectively designed to reach researchers and innovators that have...
Conclusion
Public support for R&D is not effectively designed to reach researchers and innovators that have not traditionally received large amounts of innovation funding – such as those in the regions. UKRI, the country’s biggest public innovation funder, has acknowledged the problem, but its new objectives are only the starting point in addressing the challenge. It is also disappointing to already see vast regional imbalances in the spending of recently-formed ARIA. (Conclusion, Paragraph 21)
Government Response Summary
The government explicitly disagrees that funding to Golden Triangle institutions should be contingent on demonstrating economic impact elsewhere, but states it already considers both national and local impact when evaluating R&D investments to maximise impact across the UK.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The government disagrees that funding to institutions in the Golden Triangle should be made absolutely contingent on demonstrating quantifiable economic impact elsewhere but we agree that this is a factor that should be considered. Indeed, we already consider both national and local impact when evaluating business cases for investment in R&D and innovation. Our goal is always to drive quantifiable economic results throughout the investment process. In particular, when evaluating R&D investments we consider both their immediate local impacts as well as the potential consequences they can have across the UK through their interactions with other assets and institutions. This approach focuses on building excellence wherever it exists, with investments coordinated and managed to maximise impact and prevent duplication.