NOVEMBER 2019 | IN ASSOCIATION WITH

THE SCIENCE OF LIFENADHIM ZAHAWI

BRITAIN AND THE FUTUREMARK WALPORT

DEMOCRATISING SCIENCECHI ONWURAH

THE SHOCKOF THE NEWWhat can science do for Britain?

NOVEMBER 2019 | PROSPECT 1

SCIENCE MATTERSCan Britain keep up? JAY ELWES ASSOCIATE EDITOR, PROSPECT

You will have noticed it. It’s inescapable. New technologies are sprouting up everywhere—just as they have been for the past two decades. Some of

them are perhaps somewhat cosmetic—the fundamental difference between a first generation iPhone and the latest model are not really that great. Both do essentially the same things.

But other changes are more fundamental. A story in the Financial Times in September related to a quantum computer under development by Google. A report seen by the newspaper has indicated that the computer had managed to carry out an operation that a classical computer could not. Google gave no comment on the newspaper’s story and the original report was quickly removed.

If true, this is one of the most extraordinary technological breakthroughs of our time. The potential of a computer that operates by use of quantum circuitry

THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

CONTENTS 2 BRITAIN AND THE FUTURE

An interview with Mark Walport, chief executive of UK Research and Innovation JAY ELWES

6 THE SCIENCE OF LIFE A bright future NADHIM ZAHAWI

10 DEMOCRATISING SCIENCE The benefits of innovation need to be felt by all CHI ONWURAH

12 INNOVATION: THE NUMBERS Who spends the money?

14 BRITAIN’S SUPER POSITION Our quantum future NORMAN LAMB

15 THREE RISKS TO PROGRESS Innovation doesn’t happen by accident—government must play its part TIM MINSHALL

19 AI THINK, THEREFORE AI AM Artificial intelligence can sift data for correlations—but will it ever produce original ideas? PHILIP BALL

Follow Prospect

twitter.com/prospect_uk www.facebook.com/Prospect.Mag

This report forms part of Prospect’s work on energy and the environment. For more information on this report and our wider programme of activity please email: adam.kinlan@prospectmagazine.co.uk

is colossal. Several of the pieces in this publication address that potential.

There is an interest here for businesses and government. Who will come up with the money to keep the laboratories open and functioning at full capacity? That’s a question that occupies Mark Walport, head of UKRI, who is interviewed on p2.

In life sciences, the government can claim some successes as Nadhim Zahawi makes clear (p6). But despite these exciting advances, what is the benefit for the country—and does science feel especially democratic? That’s the question on Chi Onwurah’s mind (p10). And on the subject of minds, is it possible to create an artificial one? And if so, could it ever come up with an original idea? Philip Ball gets to grips with that hard question of consciousness on p19.

How fortunate we are to live in an era of such dramatic scientific progress. The benefits for Britain could well be enormous—so long as we don’t get left behind, of course.

COVE

R IL

LUST

RAT

ION

CH

RIS

TIL

BU

RY

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 20192 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

The UK Biobank was an unusual project, not only for being so huge, but for the fate of the human samples that it collected. From 2006 to 2010, half a million people were recruited to give blood. They were also asked to grant the

project access to their medical records. The original idea was to build a large-scale study of why certain people get ill when others don’t. One of the participants in that scheme was Mark Walport. As a former Chief Scientific Advisor to the government, he was perhaps an appropriate object of medical scrutiny.

Now, as Chief Executive of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), he regards the project with something like awe. The rate of progress in biomedical science has been so great that what started as a wide-scale medical study has developed into something much deeper and more complex. “It didn’t occur to me when I signed up that it would be possible to sequence my genome as part of it,” he told Prospect. “But now all half a million participants are being sequenced.”

The rate of modern scientific progress, both in the UK and abroad, is nothing short of remarkable. Developments in life science, communications, quantum technology and green energy are coming at a dazzling speed, and the body that Walport heads is right at the heart of that action. UKRI is a government-backed body that funds research and businesses looking to develop innovate scientific ideas and products.

The creation of these new ideas is of the utmost importance because the challenges that governments face are so huge. These include questions concerning the waste we produce, both visible and invisible, and demographic shifts such as the aging populations in some parts of the world and burgeoning young populations in other parts. New ideas are needed to confront these problems.

And those ideas must be multi-disciplinary. Take energy—the science is about climate change, but the policy response is an engineering one, which must involve clean energy, storage mechanisms and so on. All that engineering is based, fundamentally, on physics. And the whole thing can only be done if we understand the social science of it all. If the aim is the wide-scale adoption of new green energy, then that must include a grasp of how people think about energy to start with.

So how do you pick a winner out of all the prospective technologies being developed in Britain at any one time? Simple, says Walport. You don’t. Picking winners, he explains, is a “disaster.” Instead, the future is in the fusion

An activity monitor being worn by a participant in the long-term health study conducted by UK Biobank. Monitors were worn for a period of seven consecutive days

BRITAIN AND THE FUTUREAn interview with Mark Walport, chief executive of UK Research and Innovation

JAY ELWES ASSOCIATE EDITOR, PROSPECT

“HOW DO YOU PICK A WINNER OUT OF ALL THESE PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES? SIMPLE, SAYS WALPORT. YOU DON’T”

© D

AVID

GEE

3 /

ALAM

Y ST

OCK

PH

OTO

; ALA

MY

STO

CK P

HO

TO

Mark Walport, chief executive of UK Research and Innovation

NOVEMBER 2019 | PROSPECT 3THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

of new technologies, he says. “It’s a very strong argument for funding smart people.”

And once you have developed the new ideas, there comes the crucial question of the relationship with business—only then can society access this new technology on a wide scale. “We have Innovate UK as part of our organisation,” Walport says, explaining that it’s a body that funds businesses when the risk for investors is still too high. “This means we can de-risk investment.”

So what are the technologies that Walport is looking at now? “Quantum physics has been supported as a basic science for decades,” he says. “We’ve now had an £800m programme of quantum hubs around the UK. They’ve been going for four years and have been very successful.”

“One hub is based on sensors and metrology,” the science of measurement. “There is also quantum enhanced imaging, so single photon imaging, where you can see through smoke and round angles and in what appears to be pitch black. That’s a very powerful technology”

“There is also quantum computing, where one of the UK’s strengths is the development of algorithms. It’s one thing to have hardware, but you need the software too, and quantum computing requires completely new forms of algorithms.”

The next phase in developing quantum technology is to encourage relations with industry. The government is spending £153m to support the early stages of the industrialisation of quantum technology, which will be supported by £205m from industry.

“It’s not the job of taxpayers to substitute for industry funding. It’s our job to increase it. Quantum is a good example. The science goes back to the 1930s and before. But we are only now beginning to see the potential of, for example quantum sensors—gravity sensors—which could give us all sorts of powerful ways of looking underground.”

“It’s a very difficult technology for most private investors to understand. Financial technology doesn’t have problems raising money because people can actually understand it. But when it comes to quantum technologies or some of the more advanced life sciences, people have real trouble understanding them.”

As for green technology, “there’s a huge amount of work going on there,” especially with the Catapult network, the series of

centres set up across the country to help science interact with business. There was also the Faraday Challenge, which was an invitation to scientists to work on new forms of more efficient battery technology. “We are going to need good storage,” for energy created by green, renewable energy sources, Walport says.

“And you can either store it in batteries or other stores of energy.” He thinks that lithium ion batteries will remain the dominant storage technology for now, although there “clearly are other technologies that are emerging, though they are a long way from the market.”

So far, so innovative. But the advance of science isn’t always smooth, and as well as that, the public perception of the

consequences of progress can be problematic. “For most people, artificial intelligence appears to be something that is going to eat their job,” says Walport. “But technology is intrinsically neutral. It’s how we use it that matters. It’s then a balance between a highly regulated world and where people avoid the need for regulation by behaving in responsible ways.”

There’s a parallel to be drawn here with the explosion of financial innovation that took place in the early-2000s. Back then the development of new forms of complex financial asset went at such a rate that the market ran way ahead of the regulators who were meant to oversee that activity. The result was disaster. Is there not a danger that the advance of current innovative technologies will do likewise?

“This isn’t simply a question of whether to have government regulation or not, this is about people being thoughtful in businesses—being thoughtful about what it is that their technology teams are proposing to do.”

Now we are seeing the development of new technologies that give reason for deep public concern. One example is facial recognition technology, which has already been deployed on the streets of London. Another police force, in the northeast, has tried out a scheme where algorithms are used to determine whether prisoners should be granted bail or not. These technologies are highly sensitive and are currently deployed with no specific regulation concerning their use.

“There’s nothing new in that,” said Walport and by way of example, he cited the story of a council that had used surveillance cameras to establish whether a girl was in fact living in the catchment area of her school. “It turned out she was, but there was outrage about that because everyone thought it was disproportionate use of technology. So there clearly is a judgment, which to some extent is a societal judgment, about what is proportionate use of technology and what isn’t.”

“The counter example to that was when the images of the 7/7 terrorists emerged from the Underground. There was certainly no outrage over that. So the question is the extent to which rules are necessary as opposed to the application of good judgment.”

Instead of the direct regulation by government of the use of new

“PEOPLE HAVE REAL TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING QUANTUM TECHNOLOGIES”

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 20194 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

technologies, Walport would prefer mechanisms that look out for new and disruptive innovations. “The example of where the UK has been very good on this is on embryo technology. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was set up with a horizon-scanning function and a public consultation activity. This meant getting legislators involved when they saw issues which went beyond their ability to easily regulate.”

Walport cites the process that’s used to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease. These are inherited diseases where the mitochondria, which are the “batteries” of cells and have their own DNA, don’t work properly. This causes terrible ill health, typically in the central nervous system.

These mitochondria are inherited entirely from the mother and that creates the opportunity to get rid of mitochondrial diseases. The method involves taking a fertilised ovum, removing its nucleus and putting that nucleus into the ovum of a woman with healthy mitochondria. Then you have a baby with the DNA from its mother and father, but the mitochondria come from a third person.

“That was, you would not be surprised to hear, ethically contentious. After work by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), it went to free votes in the House of Lords and House of Commons and both voted in favour of it.”

“These are issues of how values coincide or clash with technological advances. It comes down, to a certain extent, to the divide between libertarian philosophies and utilitarian philosophies. You will never get complete agreement on the extent to which it’s legitimate to breach people’s privacy in different circumstances. And that’s where society has to make decisions. The way it does it is through legislators.”

There will always be people who believe it’s wrong to fiddle with nature, and who are suspicious of technological advances. There is nothing in science that will change their view. “That’s why we live in a plural democracy and it is our plural democracy that will decide whether or not this is acceptable.”

We may live in a plural democracy, but plenty of our competitors do not. The degree of investment by the Chinese government in new technologies is much greater than ours. Is Britain at risk of being left behind by international competition? And if so, does that bring with it the risk that others will use technology in ways that are prohibited in the west and gain a competitive advantage from doing so?

“There are no new principles here,” said Walport. “When fire was discovered, it clearly had the potential for good use and bad use. And we also live in a plural world where people have different governance value systems. We must be true to our values in terms of how we responsibly innovate. Can we stop people doing bad things—no we can’t.”

Perhaps there are no new principles, but there are new commercial challenges. When the argument broke out over Huawei, a Chinese company with links to the Beijing government,

and its new offering of 5G technology, the worry was that the installation of new Chinese-made communications systems in the west would pose a security risk. The uneasy truth behind this argument was that Chinese

technology was simply better than its western equivalents and was the most advanced on the market. Does that suggest that the west is somehow slipping behind in the development and commercialisation of new technology?

“But that’s taking a hundred year view of the world rather than the 2,000 year view of the world,” Walport countered. “We have gone through a phase where a great deal of technology has been developed in a relatively small part of the world. But it hasn’t always been thus, and there’s no reason to think it will always be thus.”

“We are globalised in a communications sense as we never were before. And so the rate at which technology—and also infectious diseases diffuse—is the fastest it’s ever been.” The expectation that technological progress can remain confined to small zones such as Silicon Valley is now gone.

When it comes to the development of new ideas and technologies, Britain will face more global competitors, not fewer. In addition, the country’s political identity is undergoing a turbulent transformation, which may have consequences for our relationships with other countries. Could Brexit act as a drag on Britain’s scientific ambitions?

“Our most important national resource is our collective brains and ability to work,” Walport replied. “We are very good at research and innovation and it will be very important for the future of the country in any scenario.” Touching on Britain’s relations with the EU, he noted that, “the creation of UKRI predated any referendum or anything like that.”

“For us, that future of research and innovation depends on people, and on people from all around the world. The best people are highly mobile, and they will go to where they can do their work in the best possible way. So a really important part of our future is that we are a welcoming place for people from all over the world.”

“Because that,” said Walport, “is what creates such a vibrant atmosphere in the laboratories and businesses round the UK.”

A quantum computer on display in Hannover, Germany, in 2018. One of the UK’s strengths is in the development of algorithms to enable quantum computers to function

© J

KN

AUB

/VIV

ATEC

HN

OLO

GY/

SIPA

/SH

UTT

ERST

OCK

It can sometimes be difficult to find consensus in today’s politics. But one thing nearly all our politicians agree on is the importance of research and innovation to our future. The home of many cutting-edge sectors, the UK will need world-class research institutions and innovative businesses if it is to continue to lead in

a changing global marketplace.There is also consensus on some of the policy approaches needed

to keep powering research and innovation. All the main political parties included a target to increase UK R&D spending in their 2017 manifestos. Both of the main parties support the idea of an industrial strategy to drive forward research and innovation, and there is a growing recognition about the importance of this to regions across the country, especially outside London and the South East.

But what about business? What are major UK companies – especially those in our financial services sector – doing to keep our country at the forefront of industrial change? MPs and their constituents rightly want to know what contribution business is making to their long-term prosperity.

At Octopus Group, we share the view that business needs to play its part in delivering the benefits of economic change to the whole of the UK. We are a group of businesses dedicated to investing in the people, ideas and industries that will help to change the world. We back and build entrepreneurial firms that put the needs of society at the heart of everything they do.

This ethos underpins our approach to investing in research and innovation. It is particularly important for Octopus Ventures, which invests in pioneers across health, money and deep tech. Among Octopus Ventures’ many success stories is Swiftkey, the world’s leading mobile keyboard based on artificial intelligence technology. The company grew from 10 members of staff to 150 in six years,

INVESTING IN THE INNOVATION NATION

before being sold to Microsoft, and its app is installed on over 300m devices.

Our investment in future-looking industry has been made possible by a successful and established financing ecosystem here in the UK. Innovation-led businesses are so important for the UK economy. However, we know that supporting innovative small businesses carries risks for investors, especially considering the time it takes for investments to mature. This means tax incentives are required to offset the risks and unlock investment in innovative, knowledge-intensive small businesses. In particular, Enterprise Investment Schemes (EIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) are hugely successful in enabling crucial early stage investment, allowing these businesses to become established.

Some have argued that VCTs do not sufficiently support high-risk businesses that can deliver innovation. But that is incorrect. Data shows that over 93% of businesses invested in by members of the Venture Capital Trust Association since 2015 are targeted to match the Government’s drive for investment in high-risk and innovative businesses.

We hope policymakers will continue to recognise the value of this financing ecosystem to innovative businesses in the future. Doing so will enable us to support them in their efforts to put the UK at the heart of transformative industrial change – and to ensure the benefits of this are felt by people in every corner of the country.

ADVERTORIAL 5

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 20196 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

When Boris Johnson delivered his inaugural speech from the steps of No 10, he heralded life sciences as one of “the

enormous strengths of this economy.” As the minister with life sciences

in my portfolio, I could not agree more. With close to 250,000 jobs and almost £74bn in annual turnover, it is a crucial pillar of our economy. The global top 25 pharmaceuticals and top 30 medtech businesses have a UK presence. The sector is responsible for almost a fifth of R&D spending, at £4bn each year. Patients benefit from access to the best new treatments and technologies.

The 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy helped to link government with industry, charities and the NHS. We have invested around £1bn, creating new industries in early disease detection and genomics, digital technology and data analytics, and advanced therapeutics. Around £3bn has come from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, UCB, MSD, Johnson & Johnson, and Amgen.

We recently launched the world’s largest genetics project, backed by £200m, to sequence 500,000 genomes with the Wellcome Trust and industry partners. The Accelerating Detection of Disease Challenge is bringing together the NHS, industry and leading charities such as Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and Alzheimer’s Research UK. As the largest ever programme of its kind, it puts the UK at the forefront of research into early diagnosis.

We’re also using advances in data to accelerate research for new treatments. We have pumped an extra £50m into digital pathology and imaging with artificial intelligence, and set up seven new Digital Innovation Hubs.

The government’s determination to remain at the forefront of scientific endeavour, to get innovation into the NHS and change people’s lives has never been greater.

And for me, life sciences companies tell an exciting story of growth, and I am passionate about supporting such companies to expand and stay in this country.

Greater investment in life sciences will increase the possibility of improving disease detection and genomics

THE SCIENCE OF LIFEThe future of life science is bright—and British

NADHIM ZAHAWI MP FOR STRATFORD-ON-AVON AND MINISTER OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY

Back in 1953, the structure of DNA was discovered in the UK. Ever since then, we have been the source of innovative DNA technology. Oxford Nanopore, a spin-out from the University of Oxford, is developing technology that’s so cutting edge they have raised over £450m in investment, including £100m from global investors, allowing them to expand within the UK.

Their fellow spin-out and now FTSE-listed company, Oxford Biomedica, has developed a platform technology for advanced therapy. This is a component of Novartis’s revolutionary cancer treatment, Kymriah, for which the NHS successfully agreed a deal in one of the fastest funding approvals in the NHS’s 70-year history.

Life sciences companies are attractive for investors. They push forward our advanced therapeutics industry and cement our position as the prime destination for research, development and commercialisation. In 2018, Freeline Therapeutics raised significant finance, and Autolus, a University College London spin-out, initially supported by UK venture capital and government grants, raised over £120m in a successful listing on the NASDAQ exchange in New York. Autolus continues to grow and make significant investments in the UK, having recently opened a new global HQ in London. The company plans to expand

its manufacturing base in the UK, creating 100 high-value jobs.

Maintaining leadership in life sciences is a crucial step to ensure organisations continue to invest here, and UK patients continue to benefit from their innovations. We are regarded as one of the best countries in the world for clinical trials, and we are ready to capitalise on research opportunities now available at every NHS trust across England. Statistics from the Office for Life Sciences show that government spending on health R&D is second only to the US. This is essential to meet the major challenges of our time, from the changing nature of disease to an increasingly aging population.

But while I am proud of our many strengths and achievements, I am determined not to be complacent. This is why, as minister of business and industry, my vision is for the UK to become one of the most pro-innovation healthcare systems in the world. Where the life sciences sector thrives, innovators can succeed, scale up, and list on the London Stock Exchange. Industry and the NHS can collaborate to give patients access to the best new technologies and treatments and do it faster than ever before.

The UK is an excellent destination for investment. Our future is bright, and the life sciences sector is well on the way to making it even brighter.

© K

LAU

S O

HLE

NSC

HLA

EGER

/ AL

AMY

STO

CK P

HO

TO

One in four people die in the UK from heart or circulatory diseases and the figure is even higher - one in three – globally. Research is central to our mission to win the fight against these diseases. We believe that research is the only way we will make advances that will ultimately save and improve more lives.

BHF-funded research has contributed to many of the advances that are giving people with heart and circulatory diseases longer, better lives. For example, from uncovering what causes heart attacks, to testing the earliest clot-busting drugs to treat them, and the research that laid the foundations for using statins to prevent them. The impact of BHF research is global.

We fund research at every step of the scientific journey- from laboratory-based discovery science to clinical research with patients and epidemiological research on whole populations. We also fund research to ensure that the findings are translated into benefits for patients.

Our funding is competitive - we fund the best people and the best ideas. In 2017-2018, the BHF awarded 230 new research projects worth £108.4 million - from large programmes that span five years to smaller projects looking to answer a specific question over one to three years. We fund people at all stages of their career–from promising PhD students to our 31 world-leading BHF Professors.

We are keen to work in partnership. We contribute to major national research initiatives such as UK Biobank and the UK Prevention Research Partnership. To foster collaboration and get added value, we have established new funding schemes with equivalent organisations in Germany and the Netherlands.

The nature of the challenge in cardiovascular diseases is changing and so are we. Heart failure, multi-morbidities and vascular dementia are on the increase. So, for example, we have made significant investments in regenerative medicine to see if we can reverse, rather than just manage, heart failure.

We also recognise the potential of data science and artificial intelligence to transform the way we prevent, diagnose, treat and support those at risk of or living with heart and circulatory conditions. BHF has committed £10 million over the next 5 years to develop a new BHF Data Science Centre. This Centre will improve access to the huge data sets that we have in the NHS that will drive future improvements in care and improve health outcomes.

We are bold. This year, we have launched the Big Beat Challenge, a global grand challenge to identify a major problem in any heart or circulatory disease and propose a transformative research solution. The purpose is to bring together the world’s greatest researchers and innovators to unlock fresh thinking and accelerate revolutionary scientific breakthroughs. The BHF has committed £30 million to this initiative, making it one of the largest single grants of its kind worldwide.

Over the coming years, we will continue to build on our current strengths and stimulate research in areas that we know are in need of more support, including congenital heart disease and vascular dementia. But, we need others to do more also. Despite their immense burden, which touches every family, the level of research investment in heart and circulatory diseases lags behind other conditions. UK Government, charity and industry all have a crucial role in ensuring that the fight against heart and circulatory diseases through research does not lose momentum.

Nilesh SamaniBritish Heart Foundation, Medical Director

Research is the

bhf.org.uk

answerBeating the heartbreak caused by heart and circulatory diseases

The Catapult Network helps to bridge the gap between research and commercialisation, enabling innovation to deliver economic success and productivity in the UK.

Introduced in 2012 by Innovate UK (part of UK Research and Innovation), the Network is now composed of nine

Catapults operating from over 30 different locations. Collectively, the Network covers a wide range of sectors of strength in the UK, from manufacturing, through to digital, electronics, energy, life-sciences, transport, urban planning, space and many others.

By offering open-access, world-class, unique R&D capabilities, expertise and specialist tools, Catapults are helping organisations de-risk innovative technology and systems solutions, driving the rapid development and deployment of new products and services. Catapults also enable scalable, efficient and knowledge intensive environments to be developed, helping industries and markets to grow and prosper.

Catapults facilitate, galvanise and support a large number of private and public sector organisations and are uniquely placed to understand the opportunities that exist in relevant technology areas, acting as neutral, trusted authorities, helping overcome barriers to adoption, unlocking demand and shaping markets.

Through this work, the Catapult Network is enabling an attractive R&D environment that makes the UK an ideal location not only for domestic companies but also for international organisations to place their specialist capabilities and anchoring inward investment, benefiting the nation and its regions.

Catapults are helping bridge the UK’s productivity gap

Catapults create ideal environments for business to engage in R&D. Since 2012, collectively, Catapults have collaborated in over 12,000 industry collaborations, attracting many millions in direct leverage from private investment. Across the network, over 4000 SMEs have been supported, directly creating value through job creation, returns from commercialisation, end-user, community and regional benefits.

• High Value Manufacturing Catapult, HVM Catapult’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Rotherham helped to transform Rolls Royce’s productivity in disc machining – reducing the time taken to manufacture each disc by 50% – helping improve cost competitiveness and to secure a £100m investment in a new advanced aerospace disc manufacturing facility in Tyne & Wear. That same machining know-how also attracted Boeing to establish its only European manufacturing facility to the UK where it is now producing aerospace components more cost effectively than at its Mexican operation.

• Developments driven by the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult has led SME collaborators to raise £1bn in investment, whilst the sector has

ENERGISING MARKETS, ENABLING BUSINESSES AND EMPOWERING TECHNOLOGIES

8 ADVERTORIAL

seen the creation of over 1500 jobs, company numbers grow from 22 to 70, clinical trials move from 21 to 93, all of which are driving new therapies to become closer to reality and on track to creating 18,000 jobs by 2035. TCR2 Therapeutics (a US company) has established operations at the Catapult manufacturing centre in Stevenage to produce its novel therapies for patients suffering from cancer.

How Catapults benefit society

Here are just a few examples of how the work of the Catapult Network is benefiting society, communities and individuals.

Catapults are helping create the new medicines and personalised treatments of the future, which will help advance the current status of healthcare and assist the ageing society.

• Jointly, the facilities at the Centre for Process Innovation (HVM), Medicines Discovery Catapult and Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, form a unique global capability for biotechnology manufacturing, helping companies and supply chains to advance patient-specific approaches and accelerate the adoption of new treatments to help tackle rare conditions, diseases and infections.

• Satellite Applications Catapult has helped develop a small video capsule for endoscopy to detect bowel disease using satellite technology to upload data and images. This work with Highlands & Islands Enterprise and SME Corporate Health International has led to a £10m follow up with NHS Scotland to introduce managed tele-endoscopy services rolled up to 350 patients, raising to 7,000 in 2020/21.

Catapults are accelerating the transformation of the UK’s energy system through integrated approaches and demonstrating clean energy technologies, helping capture the opportunities for clean growth, which are critical for the survival of our planet.

• Energy Systems Catapult is leading a £10m project that has spawned a ‘Living Lab’ with a 100 homes trial, helping businesses test and develop new products for domestic heat decarbonisation and other energy provision applications. Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult has one of the world’s most sophisticated open access testing platforms and grid emulation systems for wind energy and is delivering a £100m offshore wind supply chain growth programme on behalf of the industry.

Much is being done across several Catapults to progress advanced solutions for mobility, such electric vehicle technologies, new energy storage, intelligent mobility systems, also systems for connectivity and connectedness, enabling better flow of people, information, goods and services, all which are vital components of economic success.

9ADVERTORIAL

• Connected Places Catapult has been instrumental in the UK developing world leading Connecting and Autonomous vehicle technology, including overseeing the ground breaking LUTZ pathfinder Pod project, generating £435m in additional investment and £110m worth of global media coverage, and supporting a successful City Region Deal in Belfast which was awarded £500m and is expected to deliver £2 billion in additional GVA and 10,000 new jobs, including over £150m of private investment from major companies in the region.

• Digital Catapult’s open access low-power wide-area networks (LPWAN) testbed is helping UK Sigfox operator, WNDUK roll-out its narrowband network to achieve 95% UK population coverage by 2019. This partnership has accelerated access to deployment sites, funding and connections, benefiting over 50 startups and scaleups. Digital Catapult has been critical in fast tracking development of the resulting Internet of Things (IoT) products and services.

• Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, having just established their facilities, is working with industry partners to create a unique UK Silicon Carbide supply chain for electrification of vehicles from fabrication to deployment.

Warwick Manufacturing Centre (HVM) has been at the forefront of developments to drive the next generation of battery systems in the UK which helped unlock a £126m investment (Industrial Strategy and CWLEP) for a scale-up facility in the Midlands (UKBIC). These developments are likely to anchor high volume-battery and EV manufacturing (Gigafactory) and mobilise a £2-3billion industry in the UK.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Together, the Catapults are supporting the UK’s economic growth through innovation to create a better world.

UK Catapult Centres

The Catapult centres are a network of independent world-leading centres designed to transform the UK’s capability for innovation in specific areas and help drive future economic growth

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 201910 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

DEMOCRATISING SCIENCEThe benefits of innovation need to be felt by all in society

CHI ONWURAH LABOUR MP FOR NEWCASTLE CENTRAL

Today the northeast has some of Europe’s most productive industrial plants, that provide high-wage and high-skill jobs. Nissan Sunderland is home of new automotive technologies. Hitachi is building a new generation of Azuma locomotives in Newton Acliffe. Our industrial history helped promote a culture that takes pride in making and building things—it’s one of the reasons I went into engineering. Integration with European Union supply chains provided efficient access to rich markets.

In the northeast, as in the UK as a whole, we have world class scientific and educational institutions, and a history of engineering and manufacturing. But we don’t connect them. Instead we remain wedded to the idea that education and the ability to participate in innovative work is for the few.

Innovation and politics are the twin engines of human progress. From stone hand axes to mobile phones humans have innovated to improve their

environment, their chances of survival and their wellbeing. Today humanity faces challenges that include climate change, aging, growing populations and food supply.

The UK also faces the challenge of inequality and a wide productivity gap. Politics defines the social and economic framework and guides the way in which the wealth and opportunities generated by innovation are shared.

Science is not political—but its impact is. Science and innovation are not something that happens to us, but a

Visitors to Newcastle are often surprised by how beautiful our city centre is—the fine Georgian streets and imposing civic architecture do not sit well with

clichés of northern grimness. Newcastle does have some of the highest levels of poverty and inequality in the country, but its streets were built on wealth created by science and innovation, from Stephenson’s invention of the first commercial train engine, to Swan’s invention of the light bulb to Parson’s Turbinia—the iPhone of its day. The northeast powered the first industrial revolution. Until the deindustrialisation of the Thatcher era, it was also visible in our economy. Coal, steel and shipyards were all a direct consequence of the innovation and science of the first industrial revolution.

But the wealth this generated was not shared equally. Political structures with their roots in feudalism made sure that in Victorian Britain the wealth accrued to a tiny minority of people. The Victorian class system ensured few had access to the education necessary to participate in the late 19th century engineering revolution.

spectrum of possibilities we make real and their social impact is something that we can shape. So that for example instead of taking people’s jobs, robots and artificial intelligence can be deployed to make existing workers more productive.

That’s why one of Labour’s Industrial Strategy missions is to make the benefits of scientific innovation more widely felt.

We mustn’t and won’t accept the Conservative government’s vision of a low-wage, low-skill economy, that serves as a dumping ground for US agro industrial exports in return for access to their financial markets. We want to add value on the world economic stage and ensure high paid jobs for our workers in the process.

To achieve this, a Labour government would increase research and development as a proportion of our economy. Currently it accounts for around 1.7 per cent of GDP, significantly below the OECD average of 2.4

per cent. Labour is committed to raising this figure to 3 per cent of GDP. That will require greater investment in public sector R&D but the private sector must also play its part—and a larger part than it plays today. Our “National Transformation Fund” of £250bn over 10 years will help bring UK infrastructure investment up to OECD levels. The lack of decent transport, broadband and housing is a serious barrier to regional economic integration and growth. Labour’s fund aims to change that.

We have also announced our National Education Service to ensure that we have the skills across our country to support a more science-based economy. It should also promote greater diversity in science at a time when the proportion of female engineers is still woefully low.

And we will not just focus on the “photo-opportunity” sectors. We want to put technology and innovation at the heart of the lowest-paid and least-productive sectors—retail, for example. The high street employs three million people in the UK, the country’s largest private sector employer. The Conservatives have ignored its troubles.

Labour has committed to a United Kingdom that has the highest proportion of highly skilled jobs in the OECD by 2030.

We want to democratise science, connect education and industry, ensure that everyone benefits from increased productivity and the good jobs it can help create. We will do this not only in Newcastle but across the country. That is a future worth fighting for.

“THE LACK OF DECENT TRANSPORT, BROADBAND AND HOUSING IS A SERIOUS BARRIER TO REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND GROWTH. LABOUR’S NATIONAL TRANSFORMATION FUND AIMS TO CHANGE THAT”

Left: A Hitachi Azuma train, one of those being built in Newton Acliffe, in front of the Newcastle’s Discovery Museum

Above: An illustration depicting the fitting shop of Stephenson’s Locomotive Works in Newcastle

11NOVEMBER 2019 | PROSPECT THE SHOCK OF THE NEW©

RIC

HAR

D N

IXO

N /

ALAM

Y ST

OCK

PH

OTO

; WO

RLD

HIS

TOR

Y AR

CHIV

E / A

LAM

Y ST

OCK

PH

OTO

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 201912 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

UK gross domestic expenditure on research and development1990 -2017, £bn

Constant prices

Current prices

0

10

20

30

40

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

Composition of UK gross domestic expenditure on research and development by performing sector2017

Business

Higher Education

Government and Research Councils

Private Non-ProfitOrganisations

68%

23%

6%

2%

Gross domestic expenditure on research and development by sector, country and region2017, £bn

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Southeast

London

West Midlands

Scotland

Southwest

East midlands

Wales

Northern Ireland

Yorkshire and the Humber

East of England

Northeast and Northwest

Business

Higher Education

Government and Research Councils

Private Non-ProfitOrganisations

WHO SPENDS THE MONEY?R&D in numbers

As the figures here show, spending on research in the UK is going up. That’s to be welcomed. But look closer and you’ll see that the bulk of that is being driven by the private sector, some 68 per cent. By contrast, a mere 6 per

cent is coming from government. This poses a question—if we are indeed facing a

revolution in technological progress, as several of the writers in this publication suggest, then is it possible for the private sector to take quite so much of the burden? That question becomes especially significant when you consider the enormous volume of state aid being put into new technological research by the Chinese government.

The consequences of falling behind in the development of new technologies became acutely evident with the issue of new 5G technology. China had developed this new capability faster than its western competitors, causing diplomatic tensions between governments who were keen on adopting new Chinese-made 5G systems and others who were less so.

If that were to be repeated with, say, unbreakable new quantum communications systems, then the ructions—both in political and security circles—could be even more severe. The UK government is committed to new technology. But is it committed enough?

SOURCES: “GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, UK: 2017,” GOV.UK

Each year, thanks to the generosity of the general public, we fund around £100 million of life saving research.

We fund research into all heart and circulatory diseases and their risk factors. Diseases such as heart attack, stroke, vascular dementia, heart failure, congenital heart diseases and many more. Our work is dedicated to discovering better ways of preventing, diagnosing, treating and curing these diseases.

©British Heart Foundation 2019, registered charity in England and Wales (225971) and in Scotland (SC039426).

Beat heartbreak foreverbhf.org.uk

The British Heart Foundation is the largest independent funder of research into heart and circulatory diseases in the UK.

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 201914 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

In the strange quantum world found at very small scales, the laws of classical physics break down. Quantum states cannot be “measured” in the conventional sense. Quantum particles can be in two places at once and can interact with one another

at a distance. Research throughout the 20th century developed a full understanding of quantum mechanics, which ushered in a generation of technologies that have changed the world. Computers, lasers and satellite navigation systems all depend on quantum physics to work. Now, we are on the cusp of a second “quantum revolution,” as we begin to control this quantum behaviour rather than work around it.

Quantum sensors offer capabilities at the fundamental limits of detection, for gravitational and electric fields, air pressures and chemical traces. Such sensors could be used to find natural resources, map pipes hidden underground before construction work or allow more accurate brain scans than are currently available.

Quantum communication technologies such as Quantum Key Distribution systems will provide messaging capabilities that cannot be decrypted by conventional means. Quantum-enhanced imaging will allow us to see around corners and through fog. The benefits of this as we develop driverless cars are clear.

And quantum computers, the flagship quantum technology, will be to modern computers what modern computers are to the abacus. Their uses could include simulations that allow the discovery of new materials and medicines, problem-solving to improve logistics in the haulage industry or the NHS, or step-changes in the abilities of artificial intelligence.

Overall, the economic potential for quantum technologies is comparable to the current global market for consumer electronics. The impacts, however, are not only economic. Just as computers and smartphones have changed the way we live, so too could the next generation of technologies. The ability of quantum computers to break most current forms of encryption used online and by companies including banks, has already led to warnings of an imminent “crypto-apocalypse.” It is critical that the UK is at the forefront of the coming quantum revolution. We must benefit from the economic growth, guard against threats—and guide the development of these technologies responsibly, for the benefit of society.

The UK has made a good start. In 2013, the then-Government launched the £270m National Quantum Technologies Programme. Following my committee’s encouragement, this was extended into a second phase with £315m of additional funding. But other countries are catching up. In 2018, the US Congress passed a National Quantum Initiative Act, the EU launched a €1bn Quantum Flagship programme and China announced a $10bn National Laboratory for Quantum Information

BRITAIN’S SUPER POSITIONQuantum technology might change the world. If so, Britain must not be left behind

NORMAN LAMB LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MP FOR NORTH NORFOLK AND MEMBER OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Sciences. We must collaborate with these international projects, but we must also be careful not to fall behind.

Staying ahead of the game will require strategic leadership across our national programme. My committee recommended the establishment of an Executive Board for the national programme, charged with delivering the economic, national security and societal benefits on offer. Clear metrics and membership spanning the government, big industry, SMEs and academia should help to guarantee success.

Turning technologies from lab-based prototypes into working products will also require the development of supply chains that can integrate quantum components into a useful end-product. Shared innovation centres, managed by the national programme, could provide the facilities and staff around which these supply chains can grow. Commercialisation will also require demand from the companies that could make use of these products, in turn requiring increased awareness. Government departments should lead in the use of quantum technologies, whether for building new infrastructure, planning flood defences or developing military capability—demonstrating the business case for quantum technologies, supporting the UK businesses supplying them and improving government performance at the same time.

This will require a workforce with the right skills, the lack of which is a growing problem across the UK engineering sector. The national programme should co-ordinate partnerships between companies and universities to provide students with the experience needed by the job market.

Knowledge of quantum technologies must not be restricted to new graduates however. Existing members of the workforce and new technicians need to acquire those related skills too. The national programme must ensure that apprenticeships and continuing professional development courses in quantum technology are also available and successful.

The UK has made a good start in developing a world-leading quantum technologies sector. As quantum technologies sit poised to revolutionise our world once more, let’s make sure the UK leads the way.

“THE NATIONAL PROGRAMME SHOULD CO-ORDINATE PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN COMPANIES AND UNIVERSITIES TO PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH COURSES THAT OFFER THE REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE NEEDED BY THE JOB MARKET”

Product groups with the largest

expenditure in 2017

Pharmaceuticals£4.3bn

Vehicles and parts£3.6bn

Computer programming*

£1.9bn

Aerospace£1.5bn

Miscellaneous business activities;

testing and analysis£1.5bn

*Excluding softwaredevelopment

Source: “Gross domestic expenditure on research

and development, UK: 2017”

Product groups with the largest

expenditure in 2017

Pharmaceuticals£4.3bn

Vehicles and parts£3.6bn

Computer programming*

£1.9bn

Aerospace£1.5bn

Miscellaneous business activities;

testing and analysis£1.5bn

*Excluding softwaredevelopment

Source: “Gross domestic expenditure on research

and development, UK: 2017”

THREE RISKS TO PROGRESSInnovation doesn’t happen by accident—government must play its part

TIM MINSHALL JOHN C TAYLOR PROFESSOR OF INNOVATION AND HEAD OF THE INSTITUTE FOR MANUFACTURING, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

nature of many technologies emerging from the science base, could be exposing some potential weaknesses.

To take three potential weaknesses: first there must be a balance between spending on marketable innovations and investing in the longer-term research that could underpin future inventions. Near-market activities could be seen as more attractive for public sector attention as they offer a short-term impact. But without sustained investment in longer-term research, the pipeline for future innovations will dry up. Near-market activities could be left to business, without the need for public funding. The balance is, in reality, much more complex. The formation of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), whose funding and support activities span fundamental research to application through innovation, is a key mechanism for ensuring this balance is maintained.

The second potential weakness is that successful innovation rarely relies on a single technology or idea. A range of supporting resources, including supply chains, are needed to get an invention to market. Critically, the process needs the right people with the right qualifications, ranging from funding for PhDs at the early stages of scientific development, to support for the specialised technicians, through to the need for more generic skills

across the workforce. This requires cross-government collaboration, such as the need for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work with the Department for Education.

Third, there needs to be support for the way in which the outputs of science are translated into new products and services. A UK example is Humira (used to treat arthritis and other conditions), one of the best-selling medicines ever, which had a 20-year journey, involving multiple organisations and diverse sources of investment. This is way beyond all normal political timescales.

An effective innovation system can help to sustain economic growth. The UK has an extremely strong track record for both invention and innovation but in these turbulent times there is a risk that these strengths could be weakened.

The three issues highlighted above are examples of where co-ordination across government is vital. Without such co-ordination, there is a risk that the UK’s long-standing strengths as an inventive and innovative nation will be lost.

Economies that support innovation are likely to grow: those that do not risk stagnation. But innovation can mean many different things. At its core,

innovation is the successful application of new ideas. Invention is the process of generating those new ideas.

The old cliché is that “Britain is good at invention but poor at innovation” but we are actually pretty effective at both. Even so, there is a balance to be managed between the two, particularly when it comes to public funding, and the need to show the impact of that funding within short political timescales. Given current turbulence, the importance of strengthening our innovation system has never been greater.

The scope of innovation is vast: it encompasses new products and services, new business models and production processes. It can involve small steps or giant leaps. It can support existing ways of doing things or be disruptive. It can be—but is not always—linked to new technologies derived from scientific research.

The way scientific research leads to innovation is complicated. There is a body of research that attempts to model the process but, as mathematician George Box said: “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” Simple, so-called linear models that imply a series of manageable steps between research and application have been replaced by models that reflect the complicated, dynamic nature of innovation: it has numerous interconnected actors and activities and often long timescales and tortuous routes to success. Cultural and behavioural challenges permeate every aspect of these systems.

UK innovation has undergone major developments over the past two decades, and the role of universities and their interaction with business has been at the heart of it. Drawing upon lessons from elsewhere (particularly the US), previous UK governments funded commercial programmes at universities. This has brought together researchers, investors, start-ups and large companies.

However, multiple interlinked economic and political issues, coupled with the fast changing and systemic

“THE WAY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEADS TO INNOVATION IN COMPLICATED”

Tim Minshall: “There must be a balance between spending on marketable innovations and investing in the longer-term research that could underpin future inventions

15NOVEMBER 2019 | PROSPECT THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

Gary Elliott is Chief Executive of the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI). The Institute was established as a collaboration between Government and industry; to create the UK’s aerospace technology strategy and create a portfolio of challenging R&D projects worth £3.9 billion

up to 2026. The Institute exists to ensure the UK retains its globally competitive position in a vital industry, able to capture a valuable share of the growing civil aviation market.

What is the ATI’s role in UK aerospace, and how does it drive up levels of innovation?

One key role we play is setting the strategy to ensure the long-term future of the UK industry. We convene the various stakeholders and challenge them to identify opportunities, threats and areas for collaboration.

That leads to our other main function - to encourage businesses, universities and other organisations to work together and engage in ambitious R&D, which we can support. This is a key factor in driving innovation across the industry and beyond – spillovers from aerospace R&D create over four times as much value again to other sectors such as automotive, rail, materials and scientific R&D.

LEADING THE WAY IN AEROSPACE RESEARCH The Aerospace Technology Institute is at the heart of maintaining Britain’s globally competitive position

ADVERTORIAL16

How important is aerospace to the UK?

Very important. Aerospace represents high-value manufacturing par excellence and has been a big UK strength since the dawn of aviation over 100 years ago. It is worth circa £35bn per year to the UK economy, virtually all of which are exports. It employs over 100,000 people directly, including 4,000 apprentices. We have great companies across the industry, leaders in critical areas from wings (Airbus, Bombardier) through engines (Rolls-Royce) to avionics (BAE), and a supply chain of around 3,000 companies.

The industry is important in many UK regions and cities, such as South West England, the East Midlands, North West England, North Wales, Belfast and Glasgow.

It is essential that we maintain this by fostering an environment that values what we as an industry – and the UK generally – are good at: innovation, ambition, collaboration and an openness to risk.

Open Flight Deck, led by GE Aviation, is a £26m project in the ATI Programme looking at next-generation flight deck technologies based on open systems

© G

E AV

IATI

ON

ADVERTORIAL 17

What do you see as the key challenges facing the aerospace industry?

One important challenge is to ensure that the industry in the UK remains competitive globally. A strong aerospace industry offers many benefits to an economy – not least sizable tax revenues. Other countries have noticed this.

We also must ensure that we minimise our environmental impact. 90% of the money that we have invested has had a positive environmental impact, including some very exciting projects such as the E-Fan X hybrid-electric aircraft, and Accel which aims to set the air speed record for electric flight. We must move the dial dramatically on the environment.

What is the current state of aerospace research in the UK?

Excellent. The UK is an innovative nation and a positive environment for commercialising new ideas.

Since the ATI was created in 2014 it has brought focus and long-term vision for our industry and we have seen the number of organisations applying for research funding grow. There are now more than ever. Many international companies are choosing to invest in the UK to benefit from the skills that we have here.

Where is the innovation for next-generation aircraft going to come from?

Along with the rest of the high-value manufacturing sector, aerospace is moving into the digital world in a big way. This is transforming many aspects of aviation, from manufacturing and supply chains to flight operations.

Electrification is generating a lot of attention and this will only continue. The potential benefits from reduced environmental impact and noise pollution are greatly prized.

Increased autonomy is another key area, moving towards single pilot operations, and even pilotless aircraft eventually.

The market for smaller aircraft will be particularly changed by these innovations. For larger aircraft electrification is much harder, but there is scope for a raft of improvements in engines, aerodynamics and systems.

What is the Future Flight Challenge, and how does this fit with ATI?

This is a new project, conceived by the ATI and funded by the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF). It is run by UKRI with ATI in support. It will model a radically different aviation future enabled by new technology, featuring new air vehicles, new infrastructure, new business models, and new regulations.

The project sits neatly with our vision, encouraging industry and academia to develop the key elements of the future of aerospace such as drone technology, ultra-low environmental impact, and new urban and regional aircraft. And all contributing to UK exports. We aim to ensure that aerospace has the capability to realise its aspirations for its own future.

How important are the international aspects of aerospace research?

International collaboration is not just important, it’s simply the nature of the beast in our industry. We work, for example, in a research partnership with the Swedish aerospace industry.

Beyond research and development, we have to work with organisations across Europe and beyond around issues like supply chain, movement of people and regulation. We will continue to take this internationalist approach.

Does government “get” aerospace?

They do get it. They work in partnership with the industry – 50% of the ATI’s funding comes from government, the other 50% from the industry – and they recognise the significance of aerospace to the economy.

The ATI is now five years old – what can we expect to see from the ATI in the next five years?

We are funded until 2026. We want to take a broader approach to innovation, including working with other sectors. We want to be more ambitious and proactive with everything that we do and contribute strongly to the UK’s overall ambition to raise its level of productivity and innovation. We need to continue to demonstrate that the work we do provides excellent value to the industry and the wider economy to ensure that the ATI will be able to drive innovation and improvements beyond 2026.

www.ati.org.uk

Gary Elliott, Chief Executive of the Aerospace Technology Institute

octopus.indd 35 11/04/2018 16:52

19NOVEMBER 2019 | PROSPECT THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

There is barely a scientific discipline today that is not making increasing use of artificial intelligence. But it’s hard to see beyond the hype and figure out if these computer technologies are truly going to transform the

rate of discovery and innovation, or whether they will be merely another tool, useful for routine number-crunching and data-mining but creating few fresh ideas.

Already AI is proving its worth in areas where discovery hinges on the analysis and assimilation of bodies of data too vast for the human mind to encompass, such as in the processing of biomedical and genetic data or the identification and synthesis of new drugs and materials. The potential of AI to identify, generate and even test new drug candidates could potentially accelerate drug discovery immensely—molecules made previously only after many graduate-years of effort might be made in a few days. Some researchers are developing “closed-loop” automated experiments in which AI and robotics combine to plan and execute experiments, given a particular goal, in an iterative way, with each new experiment using the experience of the previous ones to do a better job. There is a hope that AI will become capable not just of efficient data-mining but of theory-building: that it will be able to draw on experimental findings to pose and test scientific hypotheses. Perhaps it will eventually be able to spot the kinds of connections between disparate ideas that mark genuine creativity, or to make imaginative leaps beyond the strict confines of the data it has to hand.

But that remains very much to be seen. Today’s AI is restricted mostly to interpolating and generalising what we already know. It is of greatest value to research that needs to handle and extract useful knowledge from vast swatches of data. Most AI systems perform the process called machine learning, in which computer algorithms learn to spot patterns and correlations in large bodies of information. The “learning” is conducted with a subset of the data for which the search targets are already known – the “training” data. Once the algorithm has been trained to perform well with that, it is set to work on the rest of the data.

A classic example is the automated classification of digital images. If an AI system is being trained to recognise images of cats, it is trained on a set already categorised as “cat” or “not cat,” and the system is fine-tuned until it performs the job reliably, whereupon it is

AI will be able to spot connections or correlations in data without prejudice, potentially identifying relationships that humans will not see

AI THINK, THEREFORE AI AMArtificial intelligence can sift data for correlations—but will it ever produce original ideas?

PHILIP BALL SCIENCE WRITER

ready to comb some image database for more cats. This is an example of “supervised” learning: we decide what we’re looking for (cats), and then evaluate the AI for how well it does the job. Unsupervised learning, meanwhile, makes no prior judgments about what the AI should find, but allows the system itself to spot connections or correlations in the data without prejudice, thereby potentially identifying useful predictive relationships that humans will not see. This approach can be particularly useful for data sets with many variables—many axes to the graphs on which they can be plotted.

The learning process can be visualised as occurring between a network of nodes loosely akin to the neurons of our brains. A given set of input data becomes an output (cat or no cat) via the exchange of signals between the nodes, and the strengths of these exchanges for each pair of nodes are adjusted until the system performs well on the training data. This performance has vastly increased over recent years thanks to the advent of so-called “deep learning,” which essentially entails adding more layers of nodes in the network. It is because of the introduction

“THERE IS A HOPE THAT AI WILL BECOME CAPABLE NOT JUST OF EFFICIENT DATA-MINING BUT OF THEORY-BUILDING”

© A

LEK

SEI G

OR

OD

ENKO

V / A

LAM

Y ST

OCK

PH

OTO

PROSPECT | NOVEMBER 201920 THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

“AI IS IMPRESSIVE IN MANY WAYS, BUT ALMOST COMICALLY DUMB IN OTHERS”

of deep learning, for example, that Google Translate works so much better than it did in its early days: deep learning enables it to figure out grammatical rules and resolve ambiguities that are context-dependent and hard to systematise.

In scientific research, deep-learning AI is being used fruitfully to extract knowledge from past experiments and studies, embedded in the scientific literature and in databases. Even the most experienced researchers can carry only a tiny fraction of that information in their heads. AI can dive deep into the pool of collective knowledge and bring up pearls much more efficiently. For example, it is being used to find new candidates for drug molecules, based on the attributes that have been found to have pharmaceutical potential in other molecules. All major pharmaceutical companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly, consider AI to be an essential component of drug discovery. And by scanning the literature in materials sciences, such systems can spot relationships between the kinds of chemical elements a complex material contains and the useful properties it

might display, such as the ability to emit light, turn sunlight into electricity, or act as a battery electrode. In this way it can suggest new families of materials worth making and probing for such applications.

In one recent example of how “creative” such AI systems can be, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported a system that could plan a many-step process to synthesise some target molecule—a drug candidate, say—from smaller, commercially available ingredients. Designing such synthetic strategies has long relied on the knowledge and inventiveness of chemists, and is considered a key part of the art of chemistry. But with appropriate training, an AI system can now ingest the vast body of prior experience in synthesis and use it to devise a new strategy overnight. What’s more, the MIT team have coupled their AI scheme to a robotic machine that can assemble standardised parts for conducting the experiments and making the actual molecules, without human intervention. At this stage the scheme still needs some expert human input to refine the planned synthesis before it is handed over to the robot—but as the

algorithms improve, some of this expert-level refinement could be automated too.

To be effective, however, this sort of innovation relies on the availability of huge amounts of data. Notoriously, machine learning is only as good as its training data and struggles to make any useful predictions that lie outside the range of that data set. One challenge is simply to get all of the existing literature into a format that can be readily mined by AI. Another is to develop computer methods that can make accurate and reliable predictions about properties—drug performance or toxicity, say, or materials behaviour—purely from theoretical calculations, without the need to carry out experiments. That might help to broaden the knowledge base on which machine learning can draw.

Perhaps the biggest challenge, however, is to create AI systems that can go beyond mere blind searches for correlations. Today’s AI is impressive in many ways, but almost comically dumb in others, as hilariously off-target automated image captioning sometimes illustrates. AI lacks the human ability to apply a common-sensical reality check: to evaluate its output so as to exclude “obviously” nonsensical results. We may need to build that capability explicitly into the algorithm—for example to give AI the sort of intuitive physics-based reasoning that we acquire, which understands for example that airplanes cannot park balanced on their wingtip. A part of that capacity may demand that AI exhibits causative reasoning: that it be able not just to see that X correlates with Y but to evaluate whether X causes Y. Researchers are also striving to make AI for which the reasoning is transparent, so that its recommendations can be understood and explained rather than just emerging from a black box. This could be an important attribute for systems that users will trust.

Even advances like these might serve only to avoid absurdities and dead ends. They would not guarantee that AI will develop the kind of genuine creativity, the hunches and instinctive leaps of faith, on which innovation often depends. In the near-term, it seems wise to expect that AI-based innovation will happen only in collaboration with humans. No one knows if computer algorithms will ever get further than that—but it’s reasonable to suppose that, if they are going to do so, they will need something more than deep learning.Drug companies including GlaxoSmithKline consider AI to be a major component of drug discovery ©

RAP

ISAN

SAW

ANG

PHO

N /

ALAM

Y ST

OCK

PH

OTO

NOVEMBER 2019 | IN ASSOCIATION WITH