Lost in translation? Building science and innovation city strategies in Australia and the UK.

Whilst nested in other attempts to generate translational research, knowledge transfer, spin-offs and facilities provision in the shape of science parks, incubators and industry clusters, the Science City concept was clearly broader in scope than these more discrete activities. The idea also drew on strong images from Britain's past economic success by seeking to associate innovation and enterprise in the twenty first century with geographical places, just as the first 'industrial revolution' had done, and through which the nation had gained much of its sense of purpose and identity. According to one recent study, '... the idea of a science city builds on the "science park" concept but makes it more relevant for regions that do not already have dense concentrations of research, development and innovation around their universities which facilitate the new paradigm of open innovation' (Benneworth 2005: 2). As 'Science Cities', with their associated infrastructures of 'financial districts, research hospitals, university campuses, and corporate laboratories.... modern provincial cities can potentially behave like an extended science park' (Benneworth 2005: 2) and offer 'benefits of proximity and collaboration, promoting open innovation, and drawing on the existing advantages of core urban locations to provide the creative people, creative places and creative partnerships that often are missing from less successful regions' (Benneworth 2005: 4).

These views are endorsed by people who have occupied senior positions in the UK government and have indicated the challenges facing the Science Cities. At the second annual meeting of the six Science Cities, Lord Sainsbury (former minister for Science and Innovation) reiterated four key challenges that the respective city projects had to confront. These ranged from the requirement for local planning authorities to 'understand the dynamics' of Science Cities, and to facilitate rather than constrain the efforts of universities and their partners to develop their campuses and other facilities, through to consideration of the human capital and other infrastructural requirements of such ventures, and the importance of cities as places to live, be educated and entertained, to attract and retain scarce human resources and as places with easy access. In consequence, the potential economic impact of science cities lies not just in the creation of economic growth and jobs in science and technology-based industries but also growth in the financial services, creative industries and other sectors necessary to support the concept as a whole. Above all, the concept emphasised the 'key role played by universities', in part as generators of 'spin-off new companies' and in part as agents for technology transfer at a global, national and regional level.

Within this national policy context, Newcastle Science City is being developed as one version of the science city concept, constituting a 'unique approach' to the problem of 'integrating science, business and economic development'. The science city involves the 'creation of an environment where science and business can work and develop together, in a manner and on a scale competitive with any other location in the world'; one element of this involves 'the creation of new world-class facilities for scientific research, teaching and business' (Newcastle Science City Partnership 2005). The North East region of England developed as a traditional industrial area, relying on the coal, steel and shipbuilding industries. The decline and virtual extinction of these industries has led to the long-term decline of the region (Benneworth & Hospers 2007). Newcastle Science City represents a further element in a long term regeneration strategy for the region, and the North of England as a whole (Northern Way 2005), intended to transform it both economically and culturally, and within which the region's leading universities will play an increasingly 'engaged role' as new types of 'regional partner' in the creation of 'knowledge spaces' (Benneworth & Hospers 2007: 160).

The initiative comprises a regional partnership led by Newcastle University, Newcastle City Council and One North East, the regional development agency (RDA). RDAs were established by the UK Government in 1999 as 'business-led' entities, but they include other regional stakeholders and 'are the strategic leaders of economic development and regeneration' in a region. Other stakeholders include the region's other research-led University, the existing International Centre for Life (ICFL, an innovative combination of university life science research centres, associated businesses and public access facilities to promote and deliver greater public understanding of the life sciences, located on a prime city centre site with appropriately 'iconic' architecture, and the National Health Service Trust responsible for running the city's hospitals. These partners identified local research strengths in ageing and health, energy and the environment, molecular engineering and stem cells and regenerative medicine and these strengths now constitute the current 'science themes' of the initiative. In addition, a further theme is 'education and public engagement' aimed at generating and investing in human capital for the initiative in the future (Newcastle Science City Partnership 2005). According to Benneworth (2005), the ICFL campus is of particular significance since it provides an existing demonstration of one 'node' of a potential 'Science City network' where 'scientists, researchers, innovators and inventors' have already 'come together in a creative setting' to build what may be described as an 'extended science park community' (Benneworth 2005: 78), although the physical complex comprises a research institute, incubator and educational visitor facility so is both more and less than a conventional science park. This choice highlights the challenge to other areas of research strength within the region if they wish to be similarly focused around such a 'hub'. In particular, they face 'reorganizing to produce these extended science park effects', and 'integrating effectively within the city to produce the overall innovative culture and atmosphere', what Florida calls the 'tolerance, talent, technology necessary to ensure the sustainability of current investments' (Benneworth 2005: 8).

One step towards realizing this vision has been the 33m [pounds sterling] purchase in 2005 by the Science City Partnership of a prime 14.4 acre site in the city centre previously occupied by the Newcastle and Scottish Brewery. The Partnership intends this to be the location of the 'Science Central' site and, according to the then Vice-Chancellor of Newcastle University in a press release, a focal point for the regeneration of the North East economy:

Demolition of the old brewery commenced in 2007 and a draft master plan for the site has been completed by consultants. In preparation for the development, the University's Business School is being relocated to a new building on part of the Brewery site which had been sold to a private developer. Other developments within the University include the appointment of 'research stars' to lead translational research within the four 'science themes' and the appointment of four 'professors of practice'--jointly between the science themes and the University's Business School--to act as a 'bridge' between the science base and business community (for a discussion of this concept see Etzkowitz & Dzisah 2007). At the same time, major funding and new facilities (at the ICFL) have been procured for the University's 'flagship' stem cell research activity.

The Science City initiative is still in its early stages, although it builds on an extensive set of existing developments and initiatives that are already having or have had significant impact both regionally and internationally. How it will continue to unfold is not yet clear but the science city label and the adoption of triple helix rhetoric have been effective in enrolling a core set of partners behind a collective vision, including the acquisition of sites for development and the production of planning briefs. Questions remain though as to whether the strong cultures and associated goals of the dominant communities of practice in the established science themes can be engaged with translational research objectives and encouraged to exploit their knowledge for broader economic and social benefit. Will the process of network formation be able to harness sufficient resources and will participants be persuaded to align their activities accordingly, or will the perhaps more reliable sources of necessary resources be more attractive?

The Gold Coast Pacific Innovation Corridor; 'Have it all' Innovation City

The Gold Coast is a 60 kilometre strip of increasingly-urbanised land in South-Eastern Queensland. This urban agglomeration has developed only relatively recently and rapidly to become Australia's sixth largest city, with a 2006 population of 507,439, and the rate of growth has placed enormous pressure on the infrastructure of business and domestic services. It has become a popular area for retirement, leading to a somewhat higher proportion of older people in the population, a proportion projected to increase to nearly 20% by 2026, raising the median age to 41 years. It has also become a popular tourism destination, leading to tourism and tourism-related services dominating the local economy. It has even been argued that 'other major centres of business commerce, industry and government appear to see the region as a tourism retreat rather than a serious place to conduct business activities' (Gold Coast and Region Area Consultative Committee [GCRACC] 2004: 3).

The area's success may thus also have become a problem for future development local authorities, a problem they need to act now to resolve. As in the case of Newcastle, a local strategy for knowledge-based economic development is therefore emerging in the Gold Coast through the joint activities of all three levels of Australian government--Federal, State and local. Each of these has a different approach but the local authority is seeking to draw on national and state resources to support its own economic development ambitions. At the federal level, the Australian Government's Regional Partnerships Programme ('supporting the development of self-reliant communities') is administered on the Gold Coast through the Department of Transport and Regional Services, which has established and funded the Gold Coast and Region Area Consultative Committee (GCRACC), whose stated vision is 'regional development through partnerships and co-operation to create sustainable prosperity' and whose members are drawn from the local business community. By 2004, GCRACC had developed a strategic plan to promote the emergence of a strong and diverse business sector but it had very limited resources and decided to spend most of the money available in the hinterland rather than on the Gold Coast itself. This effectively means that direct national influence is small. At the same time though, a second Commonwealth portfolio has made considerable investment in increasing student numbers at Griffith University's Gold Coast campus, including through the establishment of a medical school. The Howard federal government had also adopted the rhetoric of innovation and stressed the importance of the commercialisation of university intellectual property and the creation of spin off companies in Backing Australia's Ability in 2000 and subsequent policies, although the emphasis was rather on neo-liberal macroeconomic policies to create a climate in which 'innovation can thrive' than on direct investment in innovation support (Garrett-Jones 2007). The investment in growing student numbers could be seen on one level as in contradiction with the same government's regional development strategies.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates