Universities and innovation in England: King’s College London as a worked example

1. Universities and innovation in England: King’s College London as a worked example International symposium on university costs and compacts Canberra, 14 and 15 July Ian Creagh Head of Administration & College Secretary

2. Universities, innovation & HEIF in particular • Universities and innovation: recent background and policy context • Perceptions of trends in business university engagement • Issues surrounding the Russell Group and its innovation and research performance • King’s as a worked example • HEIF funding: where it fits; its scale; utilisation; maturing objectives; target sectors; critical partnerships • Some successes & and recent trends – KPIs • Outstanding challenges, issues cultural & otherwise, internal and external

3. HEIs and innovation – the policy subtext • Universities not particularly well managed – a view firmly held within some quarters of government • Certainly NOT sufficiently focussed on meeting business needs • A pre-disposition towards US solutions/methods • A pre-disposition towards apparent linear solutions • Lambert’s 2003 Review changed the tone and tenor of the debate

4. Lambert Review -- 2003 • “The biggest challenge identified by this Review lies on the demand side…. • “There has been a marked culture change in the UK’s universities…. • “…most of them are actively seeking to play a broader role in the national and regional economy…. • “Compared with HE institutions in other European countries, British universities have made real progress in their efforts to work with business.”

5. Key outcomes -- Lambert • People networks • Innovation process is non-linear • Calculation of economic returns to academic research is fuzzy, but evidence of public good is persuasive • Research concentration rather than diffusion • Tech t’fer: not the goose that will lay the golden income egg for institutions • Business should have a greater say • 3rd stream funding: should be permanent feature of HE funding; formuliac allocation

6. Sainsbury Review 2007 echoed these sentiments… • “Both new and established high-technology companies want to work with world-class research universities…. • “Private firms alone, in seeking to maximise their returns, will undertake less research than is socially optimal… • “Although research is of great importance to any innovation ecosystem, little is to be gained from research in universities…if there are not strong links between the researchers and industry, and that is why knowledge transfer, and incentives for it, are so important.”

7. Sainsbury: key directions for the innovation ecosystem • Strong support for formuliac HEIF • Research Councils: KT targets • Push on Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics • International collaboration • Repositioning the role of govt departments in innovation • Attempted to differentiate between “research universities” and “business-facing” institutions

8. Warry report, 2006, on RCs and KT • High profile for economic impact in Council strategy • Substantial funding for user-relevant programmes • Peer review and potential economic importance • Expand incentives for researchers to engage in KT • Promote interchange of people and ideas • Clear demonstration of the economic impact • (Increasing the economic impact of research councils, 2006) • White Paper on Innovation (DIUS, 2008) : further support for the UK’s “world class research base…”

9. UK HEI research income by source Source: HESA

10. Transmission mechanism of research base benefits to economic benefits Source: Research Council Economic Impact Group, 2006

11. Recent indicators of HE/business interaction

12. Russell Group (RG) – dominant force in business interaction • RG institutions comprise 12% of HEIs • Among other things, HEIF has seeded interaction between RG and non-RG institutions in relation to business collaboration • All England RG institutions received maximum capped amount in recent HEIF 4 funding round announcement • Recognises the obvious: basic research intensivity/quality correlates highly with knowledge transfer capability • Capped amount will be £1.9m in 2010/11

13. Industry research performance

14. RG: evidence of successful business interaction • RG institutions comprise 12% of all HEIs, but in 2003/4, were: • 79% of HEIs whose contract research with SMEs was > £1m • 65% of HEIs whose contract research with non-SMEs was > £3m • 85% of HEIs whose contract research with non-SMEs was > £5m • 60% of HEIs who had set up 3 or more business spin-offs with some HEI ownership

15. King’s Research income 2006/07

16. HEIF 2001/02 to 2010/11

17. As a proportion of total spend…

18. Research and innovation management at KCL

19. Early innovation funding at KCL • Early years of HEIF funding devoted to capacity building, direction setting, reach-out mechanisms • In particular, business development and reach-out capacity within King’s Business • Also focussed on collaborative activity with other HEIs • Leadership, culture change and embedding KT and KE support in the enterprise • Weaving KT and KE into the mission “…in service of society.”

20. With maturing capability, innovation objectives have sharpened • Undoubted focus on income from business for collaborative research, commercial clinical trials and consultancy • Also now focussed on stocking the innovation pipeline to enrich the licensing portfolio and associated deal flow • BUT, income alone is not the point. KT/KE positioned as non-linear & dynamic process leading to varied benefits • All about layered business partnership: to create, share, apply and translate research to achieve a social & economic impact • Successful creation of King’s Academic Health Sciences Centre: a major priority of the translational research and innovation agenda

21. Target sectors • London and the South East predominate, but also multi-national • As a bio-medical & health sciences led research university, the pharmaceuticals sector is of particular importance • Social sciences and public policy footprint is also large – has led to some intriguing interactions and commercialisation activities • Financial services – the City • Creative and cultural sector – South Bank cultural quarter, Globe Theatre, British Library, British Museum, King’s Cross • Often highly multi-disciplinary in character

22. Critical partners/friends/contributors • London Development Agency • Larger bio-medical charities • Department of Culture, Media and Sport • King’s partner NHS Foundation Trusts • - Guys and St Thomas’s – Foundation Trust • - King’s College Hospital Trust – Foundation Trust • - South London and the Maudsley – Mental Health Trust • Crucial to the creation of the Academic Health Sciences Centre and its translational research raison d'être

23. HEIF successes: HEIF supported spin-outs • Ossprayhttp://www.osspray.com/ • Ixico http://www.ixico.com/index.php • Simulstrathttp://www.simulstrat.com/ • Proximagenhttp://www.proximagen.com/default.shtml • Lidcohttp://lidco-ir.co.uk/ • Medpharmhttp://www.medpharm.co.uk/ • LACEhttp://www.lcace.org.uk/home.php

24. King’s -- Business related income

25. King’s Equity realisation

26. Innovation agenda: institutional challenges and tensions • HEIF both in terms of purpose and design is SME focussed • King’s research impact dominated by bio-medical science • Natural partners -- pharmaceutical sector; transnational rather than regional in character • SE England pharmaceuticals have relationships with the best institutions on the planet • Access has to be achieved at the most senior levels • Also requires subtle partnerships with others, when ferocious competition is the norm! • Global Medical Excellence Cluster initiative may assist help to overcome

27. Scale and competence of KT/KE experts still needs to grow • Demand outstrips capacity to supply embedded KT expertise by an order of magnitude • Expectations increasing esp. with the advent of the translational research agenda and the King’s Academic Health Sciences Centre • Not quite as acute in relation to the creative and cultural & public policy sectors • In part this is the case because of residual cultural resistance to or suspicion of engagement with business (eg. some humanities disciplines)

28. A note on FEC and pricing of SME contract research • All research now required to be fully FEC’d • Price rather than the fully FEC’d cost is quoted to the SME partner • Most PIs report that SMEs simply cannot afford the full cost of the research…at this point in time • May improve, but results in internal tensions regarding business engagement mood music, research strategy, focus and income target achievement

29. In conclusion • HEIF -- an important and welcome (but relatively small) funding stream for research intensive institutions such as King’s • Has evolved on the back of a consensus among policy elites & business lobby groups concerning the positive role of universities in a modern economy • Has assisted with KT/KE institutional capacity building • Seeded collaboration between HEIs in the interests of business • Raised the profile, importance and benefits to most research active academics of KT/KE