1
Table of uses of R&D as guidance for assignment
NOTE: For guidance only, it does not cover all possibilities
Focus of R&D investment
Uses
Strategy
Context
New products and processes
in the neighborhood of core
business
Litigation against potential
entrants and current
competitors
Defensive, secure market
share and competitive position
Industry/market made of a few
big companies with relatively
low barriers to entry
Labour saving technologies
Scale production with less
workforce
Preempt industrial action
Industry with history of strong
union activity
New processes linked to
current core business
Seek internal efficiency
Scale up, capture greater
market share
Emerging company, already in
the market, but a minor player
New product, new design, new
processes
Having a novel product
Enter a pre-existing market,
OR create a new market
Start up company
New products not related to
core business
Enter new markets, industries
by way of technological
breakthroughs OR create new
markets
Diversification to new
sectors/markets, trying to
make use of pre-existing
competencies at the
managerial and other levels
Industry close to maturity with
no promise of growth
Safety and quality control
focus of pre-existing or
developing products/services
Demonstrate high quality
control in a market dominated
by uncertainty
Seek brand appreciation
Industry under threat of heavy
regulation or litigation
2
Difficult technological
problems with no immediate
business application
Technological firsts,
spectacular breathroughts
Seek brand recognition and
brand appreciation
Industry under threat of heavy
regulation or litigation
Marketing innovation
Bringing existing products to
market in novel ways to
increase their market share.
Increasing market share of
existing products.
Where a product line has
reached maturity and requires
new ways to brand.
Forecasting and trend
analysis.
Preempting the direction of
new product research.
Get ahead of competitors in
terms of market trends.
Very general across various
sectors, but more specifically
in highly competitive sectors.
Additional RCTs on drugs and
market analysis.
New uses for older products.
Outlook reports in
collaboration with
consultancies.
Pharmaceuticals based on the
age category of the consumer.
Expanding the market with
pre-existing drugs.
Lifespan of products.
Assignment 2.
The perspective of public policy.
In this essay you are asked to reflect on how elevating innovation as national goal is
reshaping public policy.
Pick one of the three essay topics:
A. Draw the landscape of contemporary government led research and development noting
which national governments spend the most in science and technology and where that
expenditure is directed.
Further guidance: You may wish to start this essay with a statistical examination of the data
series of OECD, complemented by studies of national statistical institutes. However, outlining
a ranking of nations by R&D expenditure would not be sufficient, you must also drill into what
categories of expenditures these innovation public funds are targeting and interpret those
findings. What patterns emerge that help to distinguish nations? You may focus on many
nations and zoom in on a few, or start with only a handful.
B. How has innovation policy change in the UK from 1980 until now?
Further guidance: You will find several academic articles and government white papers that
tell a partial story. The essay is primarily an exercise in synthesis of these various sources
and of judgment over which ones to bring to the fore and which ones to disregard. A
coherent picture might be one that gives us an arc of incremental change, or one that
highlights different epochs, or one that highlights the play of party politics in shaping the
intensify and character of innovation policy.
C. How has policy on higher education been shaped by the demands of innovation?
Further guidance: You are encouraged to think in the near term, maybe the last 10 years, and
examine how funding for academic research and for higher education institutions has
changed to respond to demands for innovation. You are encouraged to think critically and
evaluate what is gained or lost by the innovation emphasis.
Each of these essays asks you to work with slightly different material (data on A, academic
literature on B, policy documents on C). You may wish to pick the essay topic by considering
the nature of the research work involved.
The essay should not exceed 2000 words (+ or – 10%, without references).
HPSC0094
Political Economy of Science
Course Syllabus
2021-22 session | Dr Tiago Mata | [email protected]
Course Information
Science is integral to the production of value and wealth in contemporary capitalism. In this module we
will explore this relationship drawing from literatures from economic history, political sociology and the
economics of research. We will examine how transformations in the political economy such as the rise of
the corporation, the building up of national government bureaucracies and the expansion of financial
markets have transformed how science is administered and commodified.
Basic course information
Course website:
See moodle.
Moodle Web site:
https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=7497
Assessment:
Two essays of 2000 words each
Timetable:
Recorded lectures, Thursday pm face to face meetings
Prerequisites:
None
Required texts:
Readings listed below
Course tutor(s):
Dr. Tiago Mata, Dr. Charlotte Sleigh
Contact:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Web:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/mata
Office location:
Meetings with tutor to be arranged via Microsoft Bookings
1
Schedule
UCL Week Topic
Date
Activity
20
Why STS needs political economy
13 Jan
–
21
Technology and the business cycle
20 Jan
Read Freeman and
Louçã
22
Corporate research
27 Jan
Read Griffard
23
Military managers
3 Feb
Read Leslie
10 Feb
Read Godin
Growthmanship
24
25
Reading week
26
Intellectual property
24 Feb
Read Mirowski
27
Entrepreneurial Universities
3 Mar
Read Slaughter and
Mazzucato
28
Neoliberal regulation
10 Mar
Read Nik-Khah
29
Venture capitalism
17 Mar
Read Stross
30
Future of capitalism (and science)
24 Mar
Read Scott
Assessments
Summary
Description
Deadline
Word limit
Deadline for Tutors to
provide Feedback
1
Essay on perspective of industry
24 Feb, 5pm
2,000
As advised in class
2
Essay on perspective of public
policy
25 Mar, 5 pm
2,000
As advised in class
2
Assignments
The module is assessed by two pieces of coursework submitted via the “Turnitin” function of
the module’s moodle page.
Both assignments are individually written essays on the intermingling of science and economy.
Assignment 1.
The perspective of industry.
In this essay you are asked to reflect upon the uses of science and technology in contemporary
business.
Pick one of the three essay topics:
A. Describe our current technological age.
Further guidance: use the concepts of week 2, Schumpeterian waves and Kondratiev
cycles, identity the key industries, key technologies and how those set the pace of
contemporary finance and business activity, you can mention the role of the state but
that is not as important as the description of the business world.
B. Argue the case that “research and development plays commercial and political roles
in contemporary business.”
Further guidance: think of an industry that epitomizes this type of relationship i.e.
where research and science are used to draw in customers, or to support public
relations campaigns, or to protect firms against regulatory oversight. Demonstrate how
the R&D is aimed at these effects analyzing documents and media from those firms, or
relying on critical examinations by journalists or advocacy groups. Examples may
include: beverages, oil and gas industry, automobile industry…
C. Argue the case that “research and development has transformed the business model
and orientation of industry.”
Further guidance: think of an industry that epitomizes this kind of relationship, i.e.
where research and science and technology transformed the business model and the
practice of production (In particular labor relations). Research intensive industries may
be good candidates. Examples include: chemical industry, electronics, aerospace…
Make the case by reference to the industrial sector’s history of institutional
transformation and examine how much of that is due to technological change. Taking
an historical, long view outlook might be a good strategy.
For all of these essay topics you are encouraged draw on module literature but also to go
beyond it using resources from the media (in particular the business press, Bloomberg
Markets, Fortune, BusinessWeek, Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The
Economist) and academic literature in business studies, innovation studies, and political
economy. Occasionally you may find relevant literature issued from think tanks, industry
organizations or firms, you should use that literature but with special caution.
3
The essay should not exceed 2000 words (+ or – 10%, without references).
Assignment 2.
The perspective of public policy.
In this essay you are asked to reflect on how elevating innovation as national goal is reshaping
public policy.
Pick one of the three essay topics:
A. Draw the landscape of contemporary government led research and development
noting which national governments spend the most in science and technology and
where that expenditure is directed.
Further guidance: You may wish to start this essay with a statistical examination of the
data series of OECD, complemented by studies of national statistical institutes.
However, outlining a ranking of nations by R&D expenditure would not be sufficient,
you must also drill into what categories of expenditures these innovation public funds
are targeting and interpret those findings. What patterns emerge that help to
distinguish nations? You may focus on many nations and zoom in on a few, or start with
only a handful.
B. How has innovation policy change in the UK from 1980 until now?
Further guidance: You will find several academic articles and government white papers
that tell a partial story. The essay is primarily an exercise in synthesis of these various
sources and of judgment over which ones to bring to the fore and which ones to
disregard. A coherent picture might be one that gives us an arc of incremental change,
or one that highlights different epochs, or one that highlights the play of party politics
in shaping the intensify and character of innovation policy.
C. How has policy on higher education been shaped by the demands of innovation?
Further guidance: You are encouraged to think in the near term, maybe the last 10
years, and examine how funding for academic research and for higher education
institutions has changed to respond to demands for innovation. You are encouraged to
think critically and evaluate what is gained or lost by the innovation emphasis.
Each of these essays asks you to work with slightly different material (data on A, academic
literature on B, policy documents on C). You may wish to pick the essay topic by considering
the nature of the research work involved.
The essay should not exceed 2000 words (+ or – 10%, without references).
4
Aims & objectives
Aims:
The aim of this course is to introduce students to literatures on the political economy of science.
Students should complete the course with a repertoire of concepts and modes of analysis that allow
them to examine the ways in which science is marshaled for the creation of economic value. They
should be able to demonstrate how many of the discourses underlying the governance of research are
underpinned by economic models and idealizations.
Objectives:
By the end of this module students should be able to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use key concepts from political economy;
Analyze the intermingling of scientific research, economy and politics;
Describe the evolution of the relationship between scientific research and corporate capitalism;
Demonstrate effective researching and critical reading skills;
Be able to conduct a critical analysis and report such analyses persuasively and coherently;
Create relevant and critical bibliographies for research projects on the subject;
Present their work effectively in oral and written formats.
Reading list
Below is a simple abstract detailing the subject of the week’s meeting and a list of core
readings, only the essential and recommended ones, students must read and answer guiding
questions on the readings identified in the schedule on page 2, for ease of reference these
items are * below. Further optional readings will be noted in the Moodle/Library Reading List
for the module.
Session 1. Why STS needs political economy, 13 January
A dominant approach in science studies is to conceive the meanings and values of “science” as
ultimately flexible, subject to continuous negotiation. According to this view, to claim that
science is a source of wealth is an act of “boundary work,” no more true than the support it
gathers from its social allies. This module is setting a different course. In our first week we
define “political economy” to be our aid in tracing the work of science in contemporary
capitalism. That definition must acknowledge that science is a driver in the production of
economic value, and that science is therefore rooted to practices of commercial and financial
valuation.
Edgerton, D (2017) “The Political Economy of Science: Prospects and Retrospects” in Handbook
of Political Economy of Science.
Edgerton, D. (2012) “Time, Money, and History” Isis, 103(2): 316-327.
Calvert, J (2004) ‘The idea of ‘basic research’ in language and practice’ Minerva, Vol.42, Issue 3,
pp.251-268.
Session 2. Technology and the business cycle, 20 January
5
In the interwar period, the Austrian economist and statesman Joseph Schumpeter sketched a
powerful explanation for the convulsive character of capitalism. He noted that the boom and
bust of economic activity, also known as the business cycle, was bound to the birth and
maturity of classes of technologies. Schumpeter was developing themes that can be traced
back to Karl Marx. But Schumpeter put Marx on its head, he held that for science and
technology to function as pacemakers of economic activity a crucial actor was needed, the
entrepreneur. Schumpeter invented the entrepreneur as a visionary risk taker that was able to
translate the insights of science into economic opportunity and “super profits.”
* Freeman, Christopher and Louçã, Francisco (2001) As Time Goes By: From Industrial
Revolutions to the Information Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 257-335.
MacKenzie, Donald (1984) “Marx and the Machine” Technology and Culture, Vol. 25, No. 3:
473-502.
Session 3. Corporate Research, 27 January
For a time the corporate labs of the early twentieth century were legend. In the USA and in
Germany, large-scale investment in mechanical, electrical engineering and biochemistry were
seen as the backbone of those nations’ sudden rise to global hegemony and world war
antagonism. After World War II the reputation of those labs diminished partly because national
governments took on a greater role in funding and managing science. Before we look at more
contemporary patterns we review what we know of the history of corporate research paying
particular attention to how it set priorities and how it evaluated its own success.
Reich, Leonard S., (2002) The Making of American Industrial Research : Science and Business at
GE and Bell, 1876-1926. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. chapters 2, 5, 8,
10.
*Giffard, Hermione (2016) Making Jet Engines in World War II : Britain, Germany, and the
United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, chapter
Session 4. Military managers, 3 February
In 1961 in his farewell speech as President of the United States, the former General, former
President of Columbia University, Dwight Eisenhower, warned of collusion between the
military and industry gaining unwarranted influence upon the American government. The
relationship between science and war is an old one, and in Cold War America that relationship
was institutionalized through industry. We examine how by promising relative autonomy and
abundant resources military industry came to set the research priorities of many eminent
American universities.
Ferrary, M., & Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s
complex innovation network. Economy and Society, 38(2), 326–359.
* Leslie, Stuart W. (1993) The Cold War and American science: the military-industrial-academic
complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia University Press, chapters 1, 2, 3.
Session 5. Growthmanship, 10 February
In the wake of the mass destruction of the Second World War and facing the threat of socialist
revolution, western polities reworked a new social contract. Their promise of expanding
6
welfare provision and moderate income distribution rested on assumptions of continued
economic growth. The expansion of gross domestic product (a metric that came into existence
postwar) through grains in productivity became the fundamental aim of policy. The key
contributor to productivity growth, so explained the economists, was not labour, nor capital, it
was technology. Thus the state took increasing responsibility in incentivizing innovation. We
review what regime of technological management emerged from this post-1945 social
settlement.
Collins, Robert M. (2000) More : The Politics of Economic Growth in Postwar America. Oxford
University Press, chapter 1 and 2.
* Godin, Benoı ̂t, ‘The Emergence of S&T Indicators: Why Did Governments Supplement
Statistics with Indicators?’, Research Policy, 32 (2003), 679–91.
Schmelzer, Matthias (2016), The Hegemony of Growth: The OECD and the Making of the
Economic Growth Paradigm. Cambridge University Press, chapter 5.
Session 6. Intellectual property, 24 February
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 triggered a transformation in how University research was valued
and imagined. With the Act research institutions funded by federal funds were no longer
required to relinquish intellectual property to the government. Individual scientists and
universities, sometimes competitively and litigiously, could now appropriate the economic
gains from knowledge funded by the public purse. The new legislative framing, together with
unrelated but coincidental changes to University management, and the financiarization of
western economies, made intellectual property into a crucial arbiter in decisions to allocate
funds and in the career ideals of scientists. The current intellectual property regime has fused
together the quest for knowledge with the quest for personal fortune.
* Mirowski, Philip (2011) Science Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. chapter 4.
Parthasarathy, Shobita (2017) Patent politics : life forms, markets, and the public interest in the
United States and Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, chapter 5. “Human genes,
Plants, and the distributive implications of Patents”
Stiglitz, Joseph (1999) “Knowledge as a Global Public Good” Global Public Goods: International
Cooperation in the 21st Century (ed.) Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg, and Marc Stern.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Session 7. Entrepreneurial Universities, 3 March
The classic view of the entrepreneur was of a capitalist, an individual, who seized an
opportunity. In the past half century entrepreneurship has become a more ample concept that
marks out an attitude. Individuals of all classes and collectives and institutions such as
universities, can be deemed entrepreneurial if they seize opportunities to expand their
commercial activity and their profit margins. Under the icon of entrepreneurship, corporate
ideas have permeated the University administrations and transformed the ways they have
framed research and education. As a result, a managerial culture of audit and economic
valuation has taken root.
7
Ginsberg, B. (2020) The fall of the faculty : the rise of the all-administrative university and why
it matters. New York: Oxford University Press, chapter 6 “Research and Teaching at the
All-Administrative University”
Hazelkorn, E. (2015) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education ; The battle for world-class
excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 1, “Globalization and the reputation
race.”
Kleinman, D. L., and S. P. Vallas (2001) ‘‘Science, Capitalism, and the Rise of the ‘‘Knowledge
Worker’’: The Changing Structure of Knowledge Production in the United States.’’ Theory
and Society 30:451-92.
*Mazzucato, Mariana (2011) The Entrepreneurial State. London: Demos, chapters 5 (find online
at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/30159/1/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf)
Session 8. Neoliberal regulation, 10 March
Neoliberalism identities a movement of intellectuals that distinguished themselves from classic
liberals by rejecting the belief that markets arise unaided from human nature. For these
academics and policy-makers markets are superior information processors that must be
designed and brought into being through state action. Because of their superior regulatory
powers markets are welcomed into all spheres of social activity. In the medical and
pharmaceutical sciences this intellectual program has been extraordinarily influential, and the
global marketplace has come to replace, and undermine, national regulatory oversight. We
examine how greater efficiency and profitability for pharmaceutical firms has been
accompanied by perverse effects on the production of medical knowledge.
*Nik-Khah, Edward (2014) “Neoliberal pharmaceutical science and the Chicago School of
Economics” Social Studies of Science, 44(4), 489-517.
Sismondo, Sergio (2009) “Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences”
Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 171-198.
Session 9. Venture capitalism, 17 March
The rise of finance is the defining feature of contemporary capitalism. In this meeting we look
at two features of finance, and of London finance. Since the 1970s growth in institutional
investors – mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and lately sovereign wealth funds – has
meant an expanding clientele for exciting bets in “start-ups”. Empowered by immense wealth
and the demand of high returns venture capitalists have impelled to success the corporate
giants of our age. We review how VCs changed our understanding of innovation and
technological progress and how they have narrowed the expectation of how long it should take
for a technology to come to profitable fruition.
Lerner, Josh; Pierrakis, Yannis; Collins, Liam and Bravo Biosca, Albert (2011) Atlantic Drift:
Venture capital performance in the UK and the US. NESTA research report.
Powell, Walter W. and Kaisa Snellman (2004) “The Knowledge Economy” Annual Review of
Sociology 30, 199-220.
* Stross, Randall (2000) E-boys, The First Inside Account on Venture Capitalists Work. Crown
Business, chapters tbc.
8
Session 10. The future of capitalism (and science), 24 March
The final meeting is dedicated to looking ahead. We live in a time of endless challenges. To
some the most important concern is an ailing global economy, still recovering from financial
crises and a devastating pandemic, others look further into the future to a climate emergency
of colossal consequences, still others look backward to decades of growing inequalities. To all
of these commentators science and technological change appears as the solution, even those
that seek to transform capitalism look to technology as an enabler of radical institutional
renewal. We use the resources of this module to take stock of these visions of catastrophe and
redemption.
Sundararajan, Arun. (2016) The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of
Crowd-Based Capitalism. MIT Press, chapter 4.
Brett Scott. Heretic’s Guide to Global Finance: Hacking the Future of Money. Pluto Press,
chapter 6, “DIY Finance.
* Mazzucato, Mariana (2019) Governing Missions in the European Union. European
Commission. (find online at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/publicpurpose/files/governing-missions-report.pdf)
Bowles, Samuel, and Wendy Carlin (2020) “Shrinking Capitalism.” AEA Papers and Proceedings,
110: 372-77.
Useful links
Using Moodle: https://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/ELearningStudentSupport/Moodle
UCL Library electronic resources: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/eresources.shtml
UCL Academic Integrity: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/students/exams-and-assessments/academicintegrity
UCL Guide to References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/training/guides/webguides/refscitesplag
9
HPSC0094 – Political Economy of Science
#5.1 Growth economics
5.1. Growth economics
National accounting
[email protected]
a picture of utter devastation: Cologne, 1944
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
One legacy of war: international government
Bretton Woods institutions:
•
International Monetary Fund
•
World Bank
J. M. Keynes and Harry Dexter
White (U.S. Delegate)
(plans for a World Trade Organization)
(rescue of the Bank of International
Settlements)
Marshall plan institutions:
•
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)
… and European Coal and Steel Community
[email protected]
Bretton Woods (NH) Resort
Another legacy of war: national income accounting
Gross Domestic Product
•
Systematic use of macro theory
•
Double entry bookkeeping
•
Policy oriented
•
Outlook on whole economic process
•
International in method development
•
Allowing mathematization and computerization
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
5.1. Growth economics
GDP has a fascinating history, not well known. Despite being a target of
criticism, then and now, it remains the ubiquitous measure of nations.
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
why is growth so
important?
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
The surprise of affluence
“I drive my car to supermarket,
The way I take is superhigh,
A superlot is where I park it,
And Super Suds are what I buy.
Supersalesmen sell me tonic Super-Tone-O, for Relief.
The planes I ride are supersonic.
In trains, I like the Super Chief.
Supercilious men and women
Call me superficial – me,
Who so superbly learned to swim in
Supercolossality.
Superphosphate-fed foods feed me;
Superservice keeps me new.
Who would dare to supersede me,
Super-super-superwho?”
One year of food, a DuPont employee in Better Living (1951)
Surprise of postwar prosperity, celebration of consumer
affluence, peace in labour relations
[email protected]
John Updike “Superman”
New Yorker, 1955
5.1. Growth economics
Khruschev and Nixon, the “kitchen debate” of 1959,
American National Exhibition, Moscow
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
The (Robert) Solow growth model
“A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth” (1956)
•
specifies a national production function made of (aggregate)
capital and labour as substitutes
•
explores (with no data) the growth paths of various functional
forms: accelerating then dampening, slow to take off, etc..
•
constant or decreasing returns to scale
Working out two examples,
explosive vs meek growth paths:
[email protected]
–
r is interest rate
–
n is natural growth
–
s is ratio capital/labour
.
5.1. Growth economics
The (Robert) Solow growth model
“A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth” (1956)
standout conceptual developments
•
growth is defined as increased productivity of resources (more
stuff for less)
•
technology is a public good
•
non-rival – use by one consumer/ producer does not prevent its
use by others, i.e. it does not extinguish itself in use
•
non-excludable: the owner of the good cannot exclude others
from obtain it free of charge
•
under normal market conditions, technology is not only an engine
for growth it is also a leveller, since it is available to all, all nations,
firms will eventually converge to maximal productivity
.
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
The (Robert) Solow growth model
“Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function” (1957)
Q = A(t)f (K, L)
(1)
Dataset, GDP 1909-1949
“1. Technical change during that period was neutral on average.
2. The upward shift in the production function was, apart from fluctuations, at a rate of about one
per cent per year for the first half of the period and 2 per cent per year for the last half.
3. Gross output per man hour doubled over the interval, with 871/2 per cent of the increase
attributable to technical change and the remaining 12 1/2 per cent to increased use of capital.
4. The aggregate production function, corrected for technical change, gives a distinct impression of
diminishing returns, but the curvature is not violent. “
.
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
[email protected]
5.1. Growth economics
The endogenous growth model
Contradicting the Solow model: no evidence of convergence,
technology is non-rival but partially excludable, firms are large.
Paul Romer (often controversial)
Endogenous growth: firms choose to produce or to research; individuals choose
to work or invest in human capital;
i.e.(K,
technology
becomes a side product
Q = A(t)f
L)
(1) of
production function.
[email protected]
Y = A(H)F (Kj , Hj )
(2)
Y = A(R)f (Rj , Kj , Hj )
(3)
Some key language
Technology is non-rival and non-excludable/excludable. (we will return to this)
Growth model (classic)
Technology is beyond the scope of economic inquiry, but it nearly 90% the source of rising productivity, and
key to prosperity, the promise of free market capitalism.
Growth model (upgrade)
Technology is a result of firm investment, and individual investment (human capital) and it can accelerate the
growth of nations through the success of monopolistic firms.
HPSC0094 – Political Economy of Science
#5.3 Growth governance
UNESCO, Paris, founded 1945
OECD, Paris, re-founded 1961
[email protected]
5.3. Growth governance
5.3. Growth governance
[email protected]
“Investment in science […] is investment in growth. Analogously,
investment in education is investment in growth.”
— Piganiol report “Science and Policies of Governments” (1963)
The Frascati Manual was written
by the British economist
Christopher Freeman.
[email protected]
AND bibliometrics (counting scientific publications, or publications
in trade and technical journals), the technology balance of
payments, and performance of selected “hightech” sectors
(investment, employment, external trade).
5.3. Growth governance
National systems of innovation: knowledge, learning, interaction
OECD is the institution that enables NSI’s to
move around the Western world.
OECD is the organisation that will record
knowledge FLOWS, and most statistics on
national R&D, patents, IP, etc…
innovation surveys, cluster analysis, regional and supranational analysis
[email protected]
5.3. Growth governance
5.3. Growth governance
National systems of innovation
Schumpeter (1937): innovation as new combinations, commercialisation of an invention,
led by an individual
Freeman (1987): NSI “the network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose
activities and interactions initiate, import, modify, and diffuse new technologies”
Lundvall (1992): NSI “all parts and aspects of the economic structure and the
institutional setup affecting learning as well as searching and exploring” “interact in the
production, diffusion and use of new, and economically useful, knowledge … and are
either located within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state.”
Nelson (1993): NSI “a set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovative
performance of national firms”
[email protected]
National systems of innovation: knowledge, learning, interaction
A late version of NSI. Everything feedbacks.
The knowledge system (at the core) includes
science but also firms
Learning is an important concept. In the
growth models, learning is trivial, automatic, in
NSI it is the central task. Performance is to
enable learning, the movement of ideas.
Managing National Systems of Innovation, OECD 1999
[email protected]
5.3. Growth governance
5.3. Growth governance
Research accounting: the soft
power of public numbers
Numbers become key actors in the political process.
Numbers score, rank, indicate, monitor, evaluate…
[email protected]
5.3. Growth governance
“Commensuration transforms qualities into quantities, difference into
magnitude. It is a way to reduce and simplify disparate information
into numbers that can easily be compared. This transformation allows
people to quickly grasp, represent, and compare differences. One
virtue of commensuration is that it offers standardized ways of
constructing proxies for uncertain and elusive qualities. Another virtue
is that it condenses and reduces the amount of information people
have to process, which is useful for representing value and simplifying
decision-making.”
Research accounting: the soft
power of public numbers
“The legitimacy offered by numbers diminishes autonomy, because
discretion is replaced by disciplined methods. This is why quantitative
technologies are the province of weak elites and why they are
resisted by those whose authority depends on expert judgment,
character, or informal knowledge.”
from Espeland and Stevens “Commensuration as Social Process” AJS
[email protected]
Growth accounting and its models
Technology is classless, raising productivity of capital and labour, external to economic activity
Hierarchy of nations is a (temporary) outcome of their innovation record
National systems of innovation
A European story, born out of the reconstruction settlement, through the Marshall Plan – OECD
Technology is not mana from heaven, it is a result of a complex institutional fabric (the state is fundamental!)
Hierarchy of nations is an outcome of their policy inventiveness
HPSC0094 – Political Economy of Science
#6.3 CRISPR
6.3. CRISPR
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/doudna/lecture/
PAT E N T S
6.3. CRISPR
Mojica et al.23 classify
interspaced repeat sequences
as a unique family of clustered
repeat elements present in
bacteria.
Jansen et al.24 start to
use the CRISPR name
and defined specific
Cas genes.
Deltcheva et al.26 report
that tracrRNA forms a
duplex structure with
crRNA in combination
with Cas9.
Barrangou and Horvath show
Ishino et al. identify that CRISPR–Cas functions as
29 nucleotide repeats a microbial immune system
against viruses in
downstream of the
Streptococcus thermophilus.
iap gene.
22
CRISPR–Cas
First patent on
CRISPR identified,
US7919277
Detection and typing
of bacterial strains,
held by Danisco and
invented by
Barrangou and
Horvath.
May
2012
Caribou Biosciences, a UC
Berkeley spin-off,
established, targeting
agriculture applications of the
CRISPR–Cas technology.
Exclusive license from UC
Berkeley and University of
Vienna CRISPR patents.
MIT and Broad Institute/F. Zhang:
filed patent application on
CRISPR–Cas system in
eukaryotes, claiming a December
2012 priority date. Also filed at the
same time an accelerated
examination request.
US leading scientists call
Zhang et al.28 use
for a moratorium on the use
CRISPR in mouse and
of the technology in human
human cells.
embryos.
Doudna and
Charpentier report
how CRISPR–Cas9
can be used in
genome editing.
First CRISPR patent in the US
awarded to Feng Zhang et al.
(US8697359B1) as a result of
an accelerated prosecution.
Dec
2013
UC Berkeley/J. Doudna and
University of Vienna/E. Charpentier
filed first patent application on
CRISPR–Cas system prokaryotes.
Priority date of May 2012. Idea was
to use the system as a genome
engineering tool.
Editas Medicine, an
MIT/Harvard/Broad Institute
spin-off, established. Exclusive
access to CRISPR technology.
Both Zhang and Doudna on the
advisory board. CRISPR
Therapeutics established. Based on
access to IPR from E. Charpentier.
Intellia
Therapeutics
established.
Doudna, a central
scientist on the
board, withdraws
from Editas.
US NIH
38
Zhang reports
approves
findings of smaller
first clinical
enodnuclease, Cpf1, trials with
that cuts DNA more CRISPR–Cas9
efficiently.
on cancer.
June
2016
UC Berkeley files
interference
proceedings and the
USPTO starts their
review.
The Berkeley team
asks the USPTO to
begin an
interference
proceeding to
determine which
team was the first to
invent the
technique.
Caribou/Doudna
obtain a US-granted
patent on a
CRISPR–Cas9
system.
(Feb-Sept 2016)
Editas, Intellia
and CRISPR
Therapeutics file
for IPOs
UK’s Human Fertilization
and Embryo Authority
(HFEA) approves use5 of
CRISPR to permanently
change DNA in a human
embryo.
Sep
2016
USPTO will decide the
interference issue and
award one (or none) of
the parties his or her
respective patents.
Losing party may appeal
a negative decision to
the US Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
Thus, the final
determination of priority
could take years.
Figure 1 CRISPR–Cas scientific and regulatory milestones (upper strand) as well as milestones in patenting activity (lower strand). IPR, intellectual property
rights.
[email protected]
“The emerging patent landscape of CRISPR–Cas gene editing technology” Knut J Egelie, Gregory
D Graff, Sabina P Strand & Berit Johansen, Nature Biotechnology, October 2016.
The legal dispute:
US ruling in February 2017: “Broad provided sufficient evidence to show that its claims, which are all limited
to CRISPR-Cas9 systems in a eukaryotic environment, are not drawn to the same invention as UC’s claims,
which are all directed to CRISPR-Cas9 systems not restricted to any environment. Specifically, the evidence
shows that the invention of such systems in eukaryotic cells would not have been obvious over the invention
of CRISPR-Cas9 systems in any environment, including in prokaryotic cells or in vitro, because one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected a CRISPR-Cas9 system to be successful in a
eukaryotic environment. This evidence shows that the parties’ claims do not interfere.” September 2018 US
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholds ruling.
EU ruling in January 2018 in favour of Berkeley and Doudna, because Harvard’s Zhang and Luciano
Marraffini of The Rockefeller University in New York City submitted conflicting, identical patents.
US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled on 10 September 2020 in favour of Broad Institute, the
Broad Institute has “priority” in its already granted patents for uses of the original CRISPR system in
eukaryotic cells, which covers applications in lab-grown human cells or in people directly. But the ruling also
gives the UC group, a leg up on the invention of one critical component of the CRISPR tool kit.
Science reports: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/latest-round-crispr-patent-battle-has-apparent-victor-fight-continues
[email protected]
6.3. CRISPR
6.3. CRISPR
PAT E N T S
Early-phase CRISPR–Cas9 platform patent control and access
Non-exclusive licenses. Field-ofuse-specific for development of
research tools and reagents.
Exclusive license.
Field of use specfic
for therapeutics.
F. ZHANG
Non-exclusive
license.
For academic
research only.
Exclusive
license
E. CHARPENTIER
IPO
Exclusive
license
Non-exclusive licenses. Field-ofuse-specific for developing
research animals/models.
Exclusive sub-license within
therapeutic development.
Non-exclusive licenses. Field-ofuse-specific limited in vivo
therapeutic applications of
CRISPR systems.
Exclusive cross-license.
Field-of-use-specific for
agriculture.
Possible merger and
transfer of license rights.
Non-exclusive sublicense.
Field-of-use-specific.
Non-exclusive sub-license.
Field-of-use-specific for
research tools.
Exclusive
license
Figure 5 CRISPR–Cas9 initial platform patent holders, licensors, licensees and partners. All three main inventors, F. Zhang, J. Doudna and E. Charpentier
and their institutions of employment, are involved in several commercial startup companies. Editas is directly linked to Harvard, MIT and the Broad Institute
while Addgene is a nonprofit independent organization linked to MIT and the Broad Institute through a partnership program. Addgene provides access
to public and nonprofit research while Editas provides access to commercial companies. UC Berkeley has ownership interests in two startups, Caribou
Biosciences and Intellia. University of Vienna was E. Charpentier’s employer at the time the initial platform patent was filed, and has licensed its patent to
Caribou. E. Charpentier has also licensed some of her patent rights to a Swiss company, CRISPR Therapeutics. Some of the licenses are exclusive, but field
of use specific while others are on non-exclusive terms. Source: company and institution websites and van Erp et al. 40
[email protected]
diversified IP portfolio that complemented their
business strategy enough so that the loss of a few
patents, even key ones, could be withstood. As
a current example, Zhang and colleagues have
discovered and filed patent protection for a possibly smaller and better alternative to the Cas9
enzyme, the enzyme called Cpf1, reported in
September 2015 (ref. 38). This shows that the
pace of discovery and development is likely
to continue, with a high probability of further
improvements. Such portfolio building and
diversification is already being used by the
MIT/Broad/Harvard group both to position
them for the possibility of losing the interference proceeding and to strengthen their overall
position if they win.
Another more extreme possibility is that
altogether other gene editing technologies may
yet emerge to compete with or possibly even
supersede CRISPR–Cas. Again, history has
precedents. The strength of the patent position held by the University of Wisconsin and
the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
(WARF) over human embryonic stem cells was
significantly diminished with the discovery of
induced pluripotent stem cells. When an area
Jorge L. Contreras and Jacob S. Sherkow “CRISPR, surrogate licensing, and scientific discovery”
Science 355 (6326), 698-700.
likelihood of other follow-on breakthroughs can
increase.
Control of and access to the CRISPR–Cas
technology system
As the CRISPR–Cas toolbox becomes more
widely used, how is access being provided and
managed? One pragmatic question at this point
is, how could any of the patent holders actively
restrict access to CRISPR–Cas for research
use, as it is already widely used in academic
laboratories? Scientists routinely pass around
tools that they find helpful in the laboratory,
often flaunting legal restrictions or institutional
requirements. This practice by scientists may
be supported by commitments to ‘open science’, but it may be also be due to the pragmatic
awareness that no company, let alone university, would like to go down in history as having sued every other university in the US for
patent infringement, a strategic dilemma that
Cook-Deegan calls “rational forebearance”39.
Moreover, the leading academic institutions
involved, including the Broad Institute and MIT
as well as UC Berkeley, already offer free use
of the technologies they control for academic
Generally, we see the technology protected
by patents being put under structured control
for development of commercial uses, with provisions being made within that structure to
allow for broad dissemination for research or
non-profit uses40. CRISPR–Cas control positions are being used by the leading universities
to structure the allocation of access to a range
of different commercial entities and non-profits
(Fig. 5).
The institutional cluster of MIT, the Broad
and Harvard have granted exclusive licenses for
therapeutic applications of their CRISPR–Cas
technologies to their joint commercial effort,
the spin-off company Editas. In addition, they
offer academic researchers access through
Addgene. The UC Berkeley group similarly have
granted exclusive license to the startup Caribou
Biosciences, which has in turn made exclusive
sublicenses to Intellia and Novartis for therapeutic applications, and to DuPont for agricultural
and food applications. Also like Broad and MIT,
UC Berkeley offers their CRISPR–Cas technology free of charge for academic research, with a
range of plasmids from the Doudna lab available
via Addgene.
ude
Cas
each family represents one unique invention. The unit is the ‘number of inventions’. It counts
ing CRISPR–Cas are mainly taking place at
US families,
as welleach
as Canada,
Australia and
Most patents as well as published patent
patent
of which encompasses
theKorea.
set of granted
organizations. The years 2004–2011 sawapplications
only patent
appear to be pursuing a strategy
for aholders
given invention.
te of Technology (MIT) followed in
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
strategies must be established, off-target effects
0
20 8
09
20
1
20 0
11
20
1
20 2
13
20
14
07
and Harvard . USPTO interference proceed-
20
20
06
20
05
20
20
04
Number of patent documents—applications and grants
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
20
04
Number of patent records
their patents as already examined and granted.
However, by the time the dispute is resolved,
the outcome288could prove largely inconsequenOriginal filing on invention
the practical value of the technolThe key patents
dispute tial. Most of298
of keeping a worldwide option open for their
und
600 in the interference
1 Methodology
Subsequent foreign filings
at the USPTO were categorized by this analysis ogy may be realized in patent filings protecting
patent portfolios.
tent
Table 3 Sub-categories of main technology
categories
452
follow-on
refinements,
designed to minimize
into
different
technology
segments.
The
patent
A
technical
analysis
of
the
documents
in
the
ked
Doudna/
23
500
entified all inventions filed in all jurisdictions around the world with a priority date
Charpentier/UC
data set divides MIT/Harvard/
the CRISPR–Cas
technology granted Broad/MIT/Harvard33, US8697359, dependence upon the claims of the initial patand
2000 that refers to any aspect
oftechnical
CRISPR and
Cas9 technology,
including
uses, Dow/
Berkeley–Vienna
Broad/Zhang
Detailed
Total
landscape into five high-level categories: (i) combines multiple
technology categories ents, precisely because of the uncertainty over
ding
400
group
DuPont
group
Technical
categories
categories
inventions
ods of preparation and compositions of matter.
The main
intention
to identify what
CRISPR–Cas9
components,
(ii) is
CRISPR–Cas9
(Tables 2 and 3), including the gRNA and Cas9 the validity and provenance of those claims.
ired
CRISPR–Cas9
CRISPR
RNA
139
14
4
6
es
CRISPR–Cas9
platform,
as well
as theenzyme components, Cas cleavage activity, viral This kind of situation has been seen before. For
35,36are in a position to control access to the
activity,
(iii) vectors, (iv)
delivery and
(v) applicomponents
300
tracrRNA
63
11
0
0
51
example,
cations
(Table
2).
Of
these,
CRISPR
components
expression,
liposome
and
nanoparticle
delivery,
of
geographical
jurisdictions
and
technical
areas
in
which
the
breakthrough
and
184when the US Supreme Court finally
d of
gRNA
212
38
7
3
dominate follows
the patentfour
landscape
terms of sheer and, finally, targeting and gene therapy applica- ruled against the BRCA gene patents of Myriad
w-on
majorin
med inventions are being filed.
200
PAM Our methodology
56
8
2 steps:
0
the impact on the market value of
numbers,
with
591
inventions
(priority
applications.
The
Berkeley/Vienna
patent application Genetics,
Pont
25
Cas9
enzyme
121
25
0
0
h. Using Thomson Innovation’s Data Analyzer
anguide
initial
search
acquired
78
was modest. Myriad had built a
tions). software,
Among these,
RNAs
(gRNA)
are ina the dispute32, US20140068797, is categorized the defendant
m of
Total
591
100
31 25
,king
high-relevance sample including core known
CRISPR–Cas9
patent
documents
17
the most
common type of
component
of the both
more narrowly within our schema,
involving
2
10
2
8
4
CRISPR–Cas9 activity RNA-Cas complex
54
6
0
4
3
7
2
2
1
CRISPR
technology
platform
with
a
total
of
212
just
one
component—a
protospacer
adjacent
ng and granted. This sample
was
analyzed
by
text-mining
algorithms
to
identify
key
2
1
with
Spacer integration
10
1
0
3
0
3
inventions
(Table
3).
CRISPR–Cas9-mediated
motif—and
an
expression
vector.
and terms of art as well as
candidate
technology
classification
codes,
and
tested
6
ned
Cas cleavage
31
3
1
5
genome editing relies on gRNAs that direct
The technology focus of the combined corpo7
ces,
for appropriateness.
Those were then used to95seed iterated searches that assembled
Total
5
Year
site-specific DNA cleavage by the Cas9 protein. rate portfolios of Dow and DuPont is different
9
elop
Vectors
Expression
vectors
94
7
4
0
-balanced
collection that covers
the
fieldThe
of interest
robustly
while
unwanted
gRNA is composed
of two keeping
RNAs termed
from that of the two main academic groups, with
18
Dow
Bacterial
12
0
0
2
s to a minimum. This search strategy resulted
in RNA
an initial
set of
patent
300
55
CRISPR
(crRNA)
and2,356
trans-activating
more relativeFigure
emphasis
around
CRISPR–Cas
France
2
The
number
of
CRISPR–Cas9
inventions,
Cas
Viral
97
28
1
2
170
Australia
crRNA, whichwas
can be
combined by
in aremoving
chimeric activity, but also
involving
CRISPR
RNA
comes. Once the data set was built, further ‘de-noising’
performed
3
as represented by patent families, by year of Germany
weed
Plasmid
132
27
2
7
2
single guide RNA
(sgRNA)
specifically
designed
ponents and original
plasmid vectors.
t recordsTotal
through manual review and algorithmically,
based
upon
occurrence
of nonKorea, Republic of
250
priority filing for each patent family,
7
335
ons,
for its target and purpose. Currently, tens of
Japan
3
together with a count of subsequent foreign filings
ant
and/or technology
classifications.
the final
collection1to
Delivery
Liposome
30 This narrowed
10
0
tionkeywords
7
Denmark
thousands of such gRNA libraries have been How important is the outcome of the
that expand already existing patent families.
15
Nanoparticle
33
16
0
0
UK
6 patent publication records
(93 patent grants,
patent
application
con200
created. 1,363
As suchpublished
these are both
distinct
from patent interference to the future of gene
145
From 2012 there is notably increased activity. EPO
16 patent families
12
0
0
both
ng to CRISPR–Cas9, whichExosome
collapsed intoand
604
as
determined
by
complementary to most other targets in editing?
China
The apparent decrease in 2014 of original filing
Microvesicle
16
11
0
1
omUS
patentincludes
landscape, all
which
explains whypatent
there The claims by both parties in the dispute cover
erwent World Patent Index (DWPI) patentthe
family
‘equivalent’
150
Total
95
ofthe
inventions
is due
to the
18-month
publication
nch
would
be
many
distinct
patent
applications
filed.
adaptations
of
CRISPR–Cas
system,
for
use
1
cations and
granted patents
worldwide
that represent
the
same invention).
Application
Gene
editing
78
19
2
1
1
lag
for
patent
applications.
For
this
reason,
the
f its
The second most prevalent category found in both prokaryotes and in eukaryotes, includ1
Gene
therapy
105 documents
23
3
1
100 for the
ycluclean-up. Assignee names appearing onare
patent
are
often
inconsistently
numbers
of
original
priority
applications
74
applications, and the most heavily patented ing mammals, broadly. However, at the time of
discovery
10
4regularized.0
mosthad
recent
teurand/or formatted. To theDrug
ed
extent
possible,
were
are these
targeting
applications.
The CRISPR–Cas9 0filing only Zhang
been18
ablemonths
to showare
usenot
in observable.
Diagnosis
79
11
0
0
gene
and
appurtenant
gRNA
are
used
to
obtain
and
eukaryotes explicitly. There are four scenarios
50
1
orization. Patent records were
placed manually
into technology
categories,
according
Regulating
70
6
3
3
ctis’s
facilitate more precise targeting to perform bet- of what might
follow
from the
USPTO
office of Vienna appli- 1 1
UC
Berkeley
and
University
1
1 5
axonomy
developed
by
the
authors,
using
the
information
present
in
patent
titles,
Targeting
167
24
3
5
1
2
2
2 2 1
lant
1
ter DNA cleavages.
action:
cation,
received
granted
US
patents
while
the
0
Total or technology classification codes.
509
acts, claims
wide
The
invention portfolios by technology
(i) UC Berkeley and University of Vienna are
We have divided the five main technology categories into sub-categories to analyze which specific technical areas are
Berkeley/Vienna
application
was still pending.
the
category
from
the
two
competing
academic
favored
in
the
interference
proceedings.
The
controlled
by which of Analyses
the different patent
holders. PAM,
a protospacer
motif.
sis of patent
families.
to address
the
primaryadjacent
questions
of interest count the
noticing
this, UC Berkeley then filed aYear, earliest filing
and
groups, in Cambridge and Berkeley, and the USPTO thenUpon
examines
the Berkeley/Vienna
er of inventions, as represented by DWPI patent families in the data, which ensures
corporate portfolio of a potentially merged patent. It is granted,
both
prokaryotes and
requestforfor
interference
proceedings against
single invention is not counted multipleDow
times
when
represented
by
different
patent
and DuPont, are quite different (Table eukaryotes, as
broaderpatent,
claim is arguing
consid- on
Figure
Geographical distribution of patent
thetheir
granted
the4 grounds
cations in different jurisdictions.
VOLUME 34 NUMBER
OCTOBER
2016 inNATURE
3). Yet10there
is similarity
the highBIOTECHNOLOGY
volume ered to be sufficiently supported. MIT/Broad/ family filings by date of filing of the priority
that it makes some of the same
claimsforaseach
theinvention in a given
application
areas of each, particularly the “CRISPR–Cas9 Harvard lose their initial patents.
patent office. Most inventions are
Berkeley/Vienna
and, moreover,
components” segment, and specifically in
(ii) UC Berkeley
and Universityapplication
of Vienna jurisdiction’s
in the United States, followed by China and
andproceedings.
Charpentierfiled
had
come up
diting tool, a number of in vitro proof- “gRNAs.
remain
towhile
be overcome
realize
the tool’s
full that
” But
the Zhang to
group
has filed
are favored
in theDoudna
interference
the European Patent Office (EPO). The apparent
19potential
inventions for
in the
‘Delivery’
segment,
The
USPTO then
the
Berkeley/Vienna
withexamines
these
aspects
of
the invention
prior
in is due
nciple studies by Zhang and colleagues “The
gene
therapy
and the
other
applidrop inKnut
filings
in
2015
to the 18-month
emerging
patent
landscape
of
CRISPR–Cas
gene
editing
technology”
J
Egelie,
Gregory
does
not have delivery
patent. It is granted,
but
only forand
prokaryotes,
lag
and publication of a patent
time
to
Zhang
the team
at between
Broad,filing
MIT
Broad [email protected]
and the Massachusetts Doudna/Charpentier
cations. Among group
these,
appropriate
D
Graff,
Sabina
P
Strand
&
Berit
Johansen,
Nature
Biotechnology,
October
2016.
any.
as their broader claim for eukaryotes
is not application in most jurisdictions.
34
6.3. CRISPR
6.3. CRISPR
[email protected]
Martin-Laffon, J., Kuntz, M. & Ricroch, A.E. Worldwide CRISPR patent landscape shows strong
geographical biases. Nat Biotechnol 37, 613–620 (2019).
6.3. CRISPR
[email protected]
Martin-Laffon, J., Kuntz, M. & Ricroch, A.E. Worldwide CRISPR patent landscape shows strong
geographical biases. Nat Biotechnol 37, 613–620 (2019).
CRISPR is a unique case, possibly unprecedented in history in the scope of possibilities
it might afford (which we often know to be hyped).
It is also a case study of contemporary regimes of intellectual property management of
science and technology: aggressive patenting and litigation to establish priority in the key
jurisdictions of USA and EU, and on human applications; focus “research tools” and
“platform” technologies that promise its licensers to reach out to other centers of
innovation. CRISPR is already associated with a dizzying proliferation of patents.
HPSC0094 – Political Economy of Science
#7.3 UCL
7.3. UCL
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
Timeline of main University reforms in UK
1981. Introduction of tuition fees for international students. Universities suffer the largest cuts of
public services.
1986. Introduction of Research Assessment Exercise (1986, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2008),
replacing government grants.
1988. Elimination of tenure system.
1992. Polytechnics with same status as Universities. Research funding unified in Research Councils.
1998. Tuition fees of 1000£ a year. Teaching grants maintained. Maintenance grants scrapped.
2006. Tuition fees at 3000£ a year. Teaching grants maintained. Maintenance grants reintroduced.
2012. Tuition fees at 9000£ a year. Teaching grants cut.
2014. Research Excellence Framework.
2016. Maintenance grants replaced by loans.
2017. Fees at 9250£ and TEF to determine raising of fees.
[email protected]
UCL’s “Statute 18” (“academic freedom”?)
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/policies/2019/jul/statute-18-redundancy-discipline-dismissal-and-removal-office-academic-staff
Meaning of “redundancy”
6.
For the purposes of this Statute dismissal shall be taken to be a dismissal by reason
of redundancy if it is attributable wholly or mainly to:
(a) the fact that the College has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the activity
for the purposes of which the member of the academic staff concerned was
appointed or employed by the College, or has ceased, or intends to cease, to
carry on that activity in the place in which the member concerned worked; or
(b) the fact that the requirements of that activity for members of the academic
staff to carry out work of a particular kind, or for members of the academic
staff to carry out work of a particular kind in that place, have ceased or
diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
7.3. UCL
Former Provost Malcom Grant (L), took over after failed
merger with Imperial, led the rebranding of UCL
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
D o es UCL ma ke a profi t?
Profit
200
150
100
50
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
-50
-100
-150
-200
Profit are revenues not spent on research or investment. 2010, a change in orientation?
2019 dip reflects settling changes to the Universities Pension scheme (USS)
[email protected]
2018
2019
7.3. UCL
W ha t are UCL’s mai n reve nue st re a ms?
2000, total: 387M
2010, total: 765M
12.4
5
52
133.8
75.6
150.5
123.8
201
275.1
123.8
Tuition fees and education contracts
Tuition fees and education contracts
Funding body grants
Funding body grants
Research grants and contracts
27
other income
Research grants and contracts
48.4
other income
Invst+ Donati ons
Invst+ Donati ons
2015, total: 1022M
246.5
2019, total: 1487M
179.2
364.2
564.9
481.1
427.3
195.2
213.5
[email protected]
Tuition fees and education contracts
Tuition fees and education contracts
Funding body grants
Funding body grants
Research grants and contracts
Research grants and contracts
other income
other income
Invst+ Donati ons
Invst+ Donati ons
Funding body grants: Higher
Education Funding Council, Office
for Students, Research England,
Higher Education Innovation Fund,
Capital Grants. Research grants
and contracts: Research councils,
Charities, Central Government,
Industry, EU…
7.3. UCL
W ha t a re UCL’s mai n reve nue st re a ms?
600
Dip was effect of changes in tax law
making Universities not eligible to
tax credits for R&D, and end of a
one off favourable adjustment the
previous year (about 80M)
500
400
300
200

100
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tuition fees and education contracts
•
•
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Research grants and contracts
“tuition” doubled in 1999 to 2008, doubled again by 2012, and nearly tripled by 2019
“research contracts” doubled 1999 to 2009, double again by 2016
[email protected]
W ha t a re UCL’s mai n reve nue st re a ms?
“Boom times”? 2,5x the number of postgraduates 0.6x number of undergraduates in 10 years
More info on: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/what/key-statistics
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
W ha t is UCL’s s trateg y?
UCL’s new campus
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
W h a t is UCL’s fi nanci al bal ance ?
UCL East will cost 1,25b over 10 years, funding includes 100M development
grant by the Government and a 280M loan from the European Investment Bank,
largest loan ever taken by a British University, to be paid by 2048.
“The university does not face immediate financial meltdown, with net assets of more than pound(s)1bn,
but it faces a fierce cash flow squeeze as its capex [capital expenditure] programme ramps up and
its staff and pension costs continue to rise.”
—FT in 2016
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
W h a t about c ul ture ?
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
W h a t about c ul ture ?
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
W h a t about c ul ture ?
“And I think that the pandemic has
demonstrated that student appetite for
a rich student life is really huge. UCL
has a great student tradition, but it
hasn’t really invested in
student life and in student
experience. And I think that the the
universities with $40 billion
endowments, they’re going to continue
doing what they do. Many of the
teaching intensive universities, I think
will go online. But for the large,
comprehensive metropolitan
universities, having a really rich oncampus student experience is going to
be important. … create that for
students in an environment …. where
we are city bound with both the
tremendous opportunities that that
offers, but also with the constraints
that it offers.” —- Michael Spence,
UCL’s new Provost
[email protected]
7.3. UCL
A University with a long (complicated and distinguished) history but with a weak
identity and weak brand.
A University that is operating at its limit, in terms of estates, staff, and finances.
A University trying to compete in a boom time for British HE, whose foundation is high
fees (government backed), and high foreign student numbers, trying to imitate (and so
far failing) the models of US Universities (business engagement, alumni engagement).
A University that is selling (and building) its reputation and London!

Purchase answer to see full
attachment