My my role now is to hopefully spark a lively debate and discussions that bounce off those two
fantastic presentations and I can see in the Q&A we're starting to get some questions coming through.
We've got about 15 minutes,
so I will try and ask each of the speakers to kind of give quite succinct answers and then we can try and get through as many of the questions we can.
Can I just provoke a question to both of you and sort of use desperately just to sort of ask the first question,
which is when I look at you this year and your last questions you you were
talking about some of the return on investment almost question both governments,
like many governments around the world, are clearly setting, you know, almost wartime levels of public debt in terms of government debt.
So clearly, there is going to be a huge pressure to see return on investment.
I guess the question to both of you, I can see this is both an opportunity for science and technology and research and innovation,
but also want all of the sort of the challenges to that.
So I'll pass to you first and then and then thoughtfully. Sure.
So some of these metrics were for for U.S. laboratories, for private laboratories are required by statute.
So we have to every single research agency has to report, for example, a number of inventions,
number of patents, a number of collaborations, the amount of royalty collected.
And that's one way that we can have metrics that are activity driven, right?
But these metrics are not impact driven. They really don't talk about the impact as much as they talk about the activity.
One of the things that we have found is that so if you were to divide this, you know,
the US portfolio, the hundred fifty billion dollars that goes into the federal R&D into intramural,
which is research that gets done at the agencies by federal employees and
extramural money that's given to universities and nonprofits to do the research.
What you'll see is that we have a lot of activity metrics right on the federal side, on the intramural side, and we have a lot of people.
We have some impact metrics on the extramural side, but we don't have in the way that would truly give you a complete picture and
impact study that would reflect all of the USGS contributions in the R&D arena.
We have studies, for example. Yes, that has been done and its effect on the economy or the fact that some of the some of
the areas of research in the US government have spurred actually industries right.
But we haven't done impact studies on those as much as we have done on the real side.
Conversely, we have a lot of activity metrics utterly, yes.
So I agree. Having really convincing indicators for all on government investment decisions,
I think is crucial and they are really difficult to get high quality ones in the research innovation system particularly dynamically.
And the relationship between the inputs and the impact of real outcomes at the other end is quite complicated.
And so although there are incredibly robust arguments that demonstrate that public sector investment
really does both crowd in private sector investment and drive up productivity and all of these things,
the the the instant returns are definitely what is very hard to do that falls.
And so essentially the arguments that we need to be making all this once in a generation opportunity,
in the context of the instability of the pandemic and economic instability to invest in that long for high quality,
high productivity economy, which will only come from or an innovation that and it's I agree it's incredibly challenging
to make because it's in the context of massive national debt and and social inequality.
So there's an obvious desire to invest much more straightforwardly in in short term things.
But these short term things like short term and they will not last and they will not build the long term.
Ambitions of a more equal and inclusive innovation led economy,
which is a positive feedback loop that it will build on itself unless you start that feedback and you will go nowhere.
So it's a it's a moment of it's really a key moment of opportunity to shift to that long term.
Long term, productive, inclusive economy rather than a short term approach, which has attractions.
You can see why it's attractive and it's not. It's just people that tend to propose that we need.
So it's time to do our best to make sure that it's an investment in the future.
Excellent. Thank you. I've got one question from the audience.
We've obviously talked today about international collaboration, in particular focussing on the opportunities between the UK and the US.
And there's been a lot of discussion actually and results of the G7 meeting about
international collaboration in partnership with the rest parts of the world,
especially on vaccine taste.
I wonder what both of you thought about and the sort of international outlook and how we sort of almost use research and innovation,
science and technology for good on a global stage?
We're meant to do this to a new lead, the batting this time.
So this is a number of lines for international collaboration and as a funding agency, we we we have this issue in this one.
On the one hand,
there's the researchers and innovators and folks who are very motivated to collaborate to access the best ideas that there are around the world,
and that looks at what drives something that's really important and and builds
networks internationally that have both direct and indirect consequences,
incredible cooperation, all the things we need to foster. We need to do that in a way that is mindful security talks.
And that's in some ways a particularly complex part of the equation to navigate because it is very spontaneous and Bottom-Up generated.
And then there's something that you can think of is more top down where there are a national priorities,
either to build specific collaborations or to drive particular on all objectives.
And from that again,
I think this is a very interesting navigation between where a bunch of countries who are very aligned values and interests in a particular area.
How can we most effectively use our on joint assets,
both in terms of public investments and expertise and infrastructures to move all the benefits forward?
That's great. But then there's a huge amount of discussion about just how can you use these research and innovation collaborations
in the context of both nations with humans trying to build relationships and investigate the alignment of values?
And that's what's also interesting domain to explore because again, balancing the science and innovation objectives,
we've actually have something that's more of a diplomatic objective.
And and how one carefully marries these things.
But I think we, as I said this from funders of research,
innovation and mission collaborations are all in constantly trying to balance these various priorities,
particularly again in the context of specific budget and how you decide to invest them to meet all of these multiple pages is quite so much.
Definitely us. I agree wholeheartedly.
I think it's a delicate balance of trying to. This is science diplomacy at its best, right?
Where we are, we are doing a pandemic this. There's nothing more precious than human life.
And to want to protect that using the results of R&D, be it public or private.
I think it's it's it's a goal of everyone. But how do you how do you balance that against other R&D considerations?
And you know, you know, a debate that has come up prior to the G7 was, you know, what was that?
What was the world of intellectual property? And how do we how do we look at that?
And does it does it even? Should we be talking about that, right?
So it's it's a delicate balance between what science is there to do, which is to do good right?
And and what does what are the larger implications should there be another pandemic?
And where does one draw the line, even if it's clear in this case?
Are there other cases that we would need to? We would need to think about this delicate balance.
But but but I also do know that during the G7,
there was the commitment that was reiterated in very specific terms about reaching out and making sure that countries are committed.
The G7 countries are committed to to providing vaccines to other countries as well.
So, yeah, delicately well put by both of you.
I'm just with five minutes to go my my e-mail questions coming in, but I would just like both of you to just help me set up the breakout sessions.
And we've we've we've tasked this esteemed audience to think about both the opportunities and challenges
from international collaboration and and and I'm hopefully going put some words in your mouth,
but it feels to me that both of you have all very eloquently articulated.
Actually, this is an immensely exciting time when governments are really putting us.
Both governments are putting a spotlight on this on this agenda, both of science, research technology.
It's also about opportunities for collaboration, both at home and abroad.
I guess my hope is that both the breakout groups will give you lots of ideas.
I guess the might my ask of you is what do you want?
What would you like to hear from those groups? You know all the. Are you looking for more ideas?
Are you looking for radical ideas? Are you looking for?
But also, do you want to hear about some of the challenges?
Invariably, these could be very closed questions, and so I'm hoping that you will elaborate a little bit.
But I it feels to me that there is a lot of opportunities here, but it will require us to probably think differently, act differently.
Over to you. I'll start with our colleagues from the US and Iceland to wrap up.
So I certainly would be very interested in hearing about the challenges and and to be able to separate what challenges or myths,
because sometimes we think something is a challenge because it wasn't done before.
We believe that it can't be done right. So what are the myths in the challenge category and what are the actual challenges?
What are the things that we actually need to think about? What are the, you know, are these challenges that are so to give you an example,
you know, there is there is belief on funding that most funding cannot be.
There is funding that is within a certain jurisdiction. So, you know, you know, agencies that fund within a certain jurisdiction.
Is that necessarily the case? Can one collaborate if one is a is not combat jurisdiction, they might not be the grant recipient.
But does that mean they can collaborate? And the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.
So to make sure that we limit the scope of our challenges to what the challenges actually are,
rather than to expand it to include the things that might not be.
So that would be my ask do not not just identify them,
but maybe even explore what are true challenges and what are myths or things that we culturally believe in in the in the R&D,
in the R&D world and might not necessarily be a hindrance or could be worked out?
Absolutely, I would. I would agree with that. And I think another one of the reasons this is an exciting time and it's exciting
for all kinds of things are extraordinary opportunities in research innovation,
just amazing breakthroughs and and and new tools and technologies.
Huge at what's the government alignment research innovation is crucial.
That's the kind of massive instability caused by the pandemic, which allows for the first and the change in a very positive way.
And I think the other thing that we've learnt from the pandemic is exactly that a lot of our assumptions and incense and if we want to.
And so taking that moment of opportunity, I think, is great.
But so, yes, to do everything already suggested in the context of challenges.
But I'm also very I would be also interested in opportunities that specific opportunities that people
see that we can with the commission and the how you how you do the job that we've all talked about,
how you manage to balance some of the amazing ambitions for collaboration with the concerns about security,
but anything that associated with this lack of bedtimes?
Excellent. Well, thank you to you both. And this has been a fantastic session in terms of insights and others.
I'm going to on behalf of both the conference organisers and all the delegates here today.
Thank you for your presentations and your insights.
And I will I will ask you now you can both segments successfully kind of exit off the stage, but thank you to you both.
If if we wrote the Oxford College of Choice,
we would have been collecting you and saying thank you very much and inviting you for a drink at some point.
But hopefully we can do that next year. So thank you very much, device. And then I'll pick up the second.
I'll set up the breakout session, so thank you. Thank you.