Let commerce, not just inspiration, drive innovation

Why is it that some academic researchers and state funding bodies still regard commercialisation as a dirty word? We have all come across such people: happy to promote the myth that inspiration alone should be the driving force behind scientific labour.

Take the case of the semiconductor industry, a profitable giant that in many ways has changed the way we work, communicate and spend our leisure time. The fundamental scientific discoveries in semiconductor physics were made back in the 1960s. The applications and the impact on society followed later. Yet the silicon revolution was by no means inevitable. It required further time and lots of further investment in a different kind of research ? challenge-led research ? that was focused on specific goals. Without this sizeable middle step that's intent on commercial success, society would never have reaped the benefits.

We're about to go through the same process with graphene. The grand discovery has been made and the scientists duly congratulated; another case study of investment in fundamental research 'paying off'. But what happens now? There has been much debate about potential uses for this highly novel form of carbon, but without further investment directed towards appropriate goals it will remain hot air. Teams of scientists and engineers need to define challenges and be intent on making a commercial success out of this discovery. The applications will be 'out there' but that's exactly where they will stay without properly directed investment.

In the western world, there seems to be an imbalance in the type of research that funders are willing to support. The scales are tilted firmly towards discovery-led work. Let's be clear: it is the challenge-led efforts that will deliver impact, economic benefits and growth in the short term. Much of the future growth in coming decades will depend on it. So are we absolutely sure that we have got that balance right? Contrast this scenario with the type of research coming out of India and China. Given the rapid growth of citations for technological research, is it any wonder that these countries are exhibiting enviable economic growth?

The bottom line

The ongoing battle between bottom-up research and the bottom line is seen all too clearly across the scientific spectrum. It's a tussle that is playing out in the emerging field of regenerative medicine. The promise of therapies derived from stem cell banks is keeping the lights burning in labs across the globe. Cell-based treatments that could re-build our failing organs or bits of our broken bodies would be a dream come true.

But has the hype clouded our practical judgement? It's not that such therapies won't have a place in the future, but more a question of how big a space will they occupy. The clinical trials pathway for commercial cell therapies is long, delivery is tricky and treatments may carry unknown risks. The chance of failure and long-term side effects are unknown.

We wrongly believe that the large-scale revolution in regenerative medicine will come from this approach. But what will surely be more productive in the short term is a simpler approach that works backwards ? identifying problems in doctors' practices, hospitals and operating theatres, then designing innovative, biocompatible medical devices.

It all comes down to idealism versus pragmatism. The simple truth is that without commercial success, societal benefit will not follow. If we want to see those benefits in our lifetime, we have to invest more towards the type of research that will make this happen. In other words, carefully selected challenge-led approaches that have lower risk, lower costs and are likely to have more impact.

It is time to regenerate the challenge of research in our higher education institutions. Many university-based scientists and engineers have paid lip service to the tenet of translational research for too long. They have locked the lab doors and assumed that the pathway from innovation to impact will be lined with investment and regulatory approval. It won't.

There is clearly a place for discovery-led research ? all of us know of colleagues whose path to innovation included multiple diversions, a chance conversation and the classic "eureka!" moment. However, this can't be the only way to advance science ? and to be honest, it never has been.

If you choose your targets carefully, you are more likely to solve the challenge and produce innovations that will benefit society and be economically viable. In other words, if you consider the potential of the applications at the beginning then the chances of producing impact are greater per dollar, per yen or per pound. Surely this is a better route.

John Fisher CBE is professor of mechanical engineering and deputy vice-chancellor at the University of Leeds, director of the university's Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering and co-founder of the spin-out company Tissue Regenix. IMBE was awarded the Queen's Anniversary Prize in February 2012.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

kevin smith kevin smith carlos mencia packers stock sale packers stock sale jason mayhem miller margarito