There’s two unanswered questions after day one of
How do you measure value, and who is doing the measuring?
So far the closest thing to an answer is that of course basic research, or blue sky research, isimportant, and so is applied research.
From a country trying to make money from turning a good idea into income though, the answers arefew and far between. In fact, it is totally unanswered.
Perhaps the reason is that there’s no industry representation among the 180 or so peopleattending – with the result that speakers are preaching to the converted.
The following notes of interest are provided, given a dearth of innovation and commercialisationfocus. In no particular order, or even themes:
•The process of researchers justifying their research can provide linkages, which in turnmakes a case for the research (Andrew Kibblewhite, The Treasury)
•The world of connectionsgained doing research is where unexpected outcomes occur. There needs to be an ability for researchprogrammes to change as a result (Richard Blaikie, Canterbury University)
•Is there arequirement/need for scientific consultancies (similar, but different to engineering consultancies)?(Richard Blaikie again)
•In the U.K. there’s a move towards freeing up of universities’IP. It’s not a way to make money (though universities haven’t been that successful at thisanyway), but in a sense it is a kind of community service (Nigel Thrift, vice-chancellor, WarwickUniversity, UK)
•The public can be ‘brought alone’ with regard to difficult scientificissues, “as long as universities don’t appear to be snotty” (Nigel Thrift again)
•Theaverage 100 trillion cells in a human body would have 182 billion kilometers of DNA if all laid outend to end. That's about 610 times from the sun to the earth. (Justin O'Sullivan, MasseyUniversity)