BIS committee launches inquiry into university-business links

A cross-party group of MPs has launched a new inquiry into university-business collaboration. 

March 21, 2014

MPs from the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee will look at evidence from academia and industry about the strengths and weaknesses of their collaborations and how competitive these links are compared with other countries.

The committee held a one-off session in January to hear about university-business links from academics involved the UK’s first Fraunhofer Centre at the University of Strathclyde.

Fraunhofer centres are based on a German model for applied technology institutions that offer research and development services to industry.

The new call for evidence seeks written submissions about how well government initiatives support academic-industry partnerships.

Areas the MPs are interested in finding out more about include the Catapult Centres, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, Higher Education Innovation Fund, Local Enterprise Partnerships and University Enterprise Zones.

The MPs are also keen to hear about the effect of the newly introduced impact criteria in the research assessment framework, and whether the weighting given to impact should be increased in future assessments.

The announcement comes shortly after ministers commissioned a review of the future of the Catapult Centre network, and a recent analysis found that the UK has a sustained, long-term pattern of under-investing in research and development.

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (1)

Under the 'duel support system' about 1/3rd of taxpayer funding of university research seems to be mostly QR allocations for peer reviewed academic and curiosity driven research, which then apparently greatly influences the research priorities of the Research Councils(1/4), the rest being mainly Government and Charities contributions to research institutes and other similar bodies. Within this framework the TSB/Catapult centres/LEPs/UEPs/KTNs/ Research innovation funds/doctoral centres etc. seem to be longstanding piecemeal attempts to find an effective way of identifying and turning research into products and services, by combining quite limited public funds with leveraged business finance. Higher level trailblazer apprenticeships are now also anticipated in the mix. Thus perhaps the BIS review needs to be more comprehensive, possibly even warranting a Royal Commission inquiry, directed at formulating proper national academic and strategic research priorities across both the public and private/commercial /industrial sectors, viewed in the context of global competition for markets.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham