Written evidence submitted by Norwich Research Park (IGR0028)
Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee inquiry:
Innovation, growth and the regions
Norwich Research Park is one of five BBSRC funded UK Research and Innovation Campuses, and is managed by AIP LLP. It is the only site with three BBSRC funded research Institutes, John Innes Centre, Earlham Institute and Quadram Institute.
The site also has a fourth research institute, The Sainsbury Laboratory, The University of East Anglia, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and a community of over 30 businesses.
1. How does the Government drive research and innovation in our regions?
How effective are the government’s policies in supporting the innovation ecosystem across the UK’s nations and regions, particularly through commercialisation initiatives?
Government policy is extremely important in setting the “mood music” for investment and commercialisation initiatives in the innovation ecosystem. The announcement by the DEFRA Secretary of State at the Oxford Farming conference in January 2025 on a time-table for the implementation of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 is a great example of a positive policy that sets the mood music for this sector, signalling as it does the Government’s welcome to investment here.
The impact of BBSRC/UKRI support, Innovate UK grants and support cannot be understated, but these can be supplemented with local initiatives; at Norwich Research Park, we have initiated Enterprise Tuesday, Innovation Hothouse competitions to highlight innovation and enterprise at this location, and made efforts to ensure start-ups, etc benefit from being in such an innovation ecosystem.
A significant challenge in the UK's innovation ecosystem is the lack of sufficient support for translational research, particularly in sectors like crop breeding and early-stage biotech where you can expect longer development timelines. Ensuring that funding schemes understand and accommodate these extended timelines is essential, as this gap often impedes the progression of promising research from the laboratory to the marketplace.
To address this, more effective, longer-term funding to support academic-industry collaborations is crucial. While funding schemes delivered through UKRI and Innovate UK support translational research, increased integration is needed to accelerate the process, meet industry needs and integrate with commercial value chains. We recommend that Government introduces:
How should devolution be harnessed to support innovation across the regions and nations, and what role should local government play in supporting research and development?
We recommend that Government works with local authorities to ensure alignment with their regional economic strategies. However, it is crucial to consider the needs of regions beyond Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs). Over half the UK population – including counties like Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex – falls outside these areas. It is essential that funding, Local Growth Plans, and the Council of the Nations and Regions do not unintentionally entrench regional disparities solely based on a region's devolution status.
Whilst the recent indecision on whether and how to proceed with devolution in the East of England has not helped in this area, it has been good to see district councils working with the city council to harness resources, directing them towards supporting job creation, plugging skills shortages, etc
How do factors such as the tax system, regulatory frameworks and standards influence the success of start-ups, spin-outs, and other innovation-driven businesses?
What challenges do innovation-focused researchers and businesses face in spinning-out or scaling-up, such as accessing venture capital, infrastructure and intellectual property rights.
Translational research:
It is critically important that we engender the best opportunities and support for start-ups, spin-outs, spin-ins and business relocations. The UK's investment landscape poses challenges for early-stage, high-risk ventures. Where industries are not yet well developed, Government should provide funding beyond primary investments. While initiatives like Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) support angel investment, the ecosystem for pre-seed and seed funding remains underdeveloped compared with the USA and Singapore. Government interventions through tax incentives, pre-seed and seed investments, can encourage business growth and stimulate innovation.
Government could also initiate the formation of ‘industry clubs’ that include breeders, biotechnology companies (both large and small) and food manufacturers and retailers to co-invest in pre-competitive research, thus leveraging private sector resources to challenge areas, without compromising our public good commitment to these areas.
Infrastructure costs: specialised facilities, such as controlled environment plant growth chambers and glasshouses, manufacturing plants and big data centres, are prohibitively expensive for many startups.
Government can address these issues through the creation of regional R&D hubs/clusters that allow the sharing of costly facilities between co-located organisations (including commercial companies). For example, Investment into next generation infrastructure (NGI) projects such as the one at Norwich Research Park (funded through UKRI’s Infrastructure Fund) has been very welcome and will allow the sharing of facilities (such as a new data centre) across the Park. This investment will promote the creation of a Plant and Microbial Innovation Hub; however, what is often underfunded is sustained project management and the high level scientific administrative support to build and maintain communities across the UK and beyond. Initiatives such as the UK Plant Sciences Federation in the past were successful in pulling communities together but lacked funding for longevity.
Tropic Biosciences, an agricultural technology start-up developing gene edited crops, was attracted to locate to Norwich Research Park partly due to the opportunity to use the John Innes Centre’s plant growth facilities. Tropic and the John Innes Centre now benefit from working together in a much broader capacity, highlighting the value of shared facilities in attracting regional investment and supporting collaboration.
However, shared services and facilities are currently subject to VAT, which can be a disincentive to collaboration, investment and commercial interaction. Removing the VAT on shared services (e.g. for back-office functions) and facilities for publicly funded organisations could encourage greater collaboration and efficiency savings.
Regulatory challenges: complex regulations surrounding genetically modified crops, novel foods and plant protection products can stifle innovation and hinder investment. For example, the lengthy approval process for plant protection products, often taking seven to nine years, is both costly and time-consuming.
To foster innovation and support SMEs, the government could:
2. How does research and innovation in our regions drive growth and prosperity in those regions?
How effective are regional innovation hubs and clusters in supporting regional growth and prosperity for local communities?
To foster innovation and regional growth, we recommend that Government invests in regional R&D hubs that can attract talent, catalyse innovation, and strengthen links between research organisations and the industries and value chains that they support. R&D hubs should be centred around existing centres of research excellence where they will encourage commercial enterprises to co-locate, creating self-perpetuating clusters of growth.
Where R&D organisations are co-located, significant efficiency savings can be made through the sharing of services and facilities. Regional innovation hubs and clusters also support new ways of working, relationship building, coordination of cross-sector dialogue, knowledge exchange and collaborations to deliver a step change in our capability to translate scientific knowledge into innovative solutions.
Recognising the strength of regional research clusters and encouraging additional funding for research to be focused in these areas, can create the critical mass and capability to attract more businesses to co-locate within these innovation ecosystems.
For example, Norwich Research Park is one of the largest single-site life science and agricultural research hubs in Europe and a key asset in driving the UK's ambitions in health, sustainability and innovation. It forms a vibrant cluster comprising four world-leading research institutes (the John Innes Centre, the Earlham Institute, The Sainsbury Laboratory and the Quadram Institute) as well as the University of East Anglia, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and over 40 innovative companies.
This cluster boasts a remarkable concentration of expertise encompassing plant sciences, agricultural biotechnology, human genomics and microbiology. By uniting nearly 3,000 scientists and clinicians, a pipeline of highly skilled graduates and a thriving community of businesses, Norwich Research Park is a fertile ground for innovation, where cutting-edge research translates into real-world applications spanning areas such as biotechnology, precision medicine, health and nutrition, sustainable agriculture, environmental health and food safety and security.
Norfolk and Suffolk are also home to over 1,000 food and beverage manufacturing businesses employing over 35,000 people. They already have a strong track record in developing nutritious food products, which complements our world leading status in plant science and agri-food production. Alongside a large and innovative agri-food sector and developments like the Food Enterprise Park, the region has the building blocks required to create a world-renowned food-focused plant science cluster which can compete with international hubs, including St Louis (Missouri), Memphis (Tennessee) and the Wageningen Food Valley (Netherlands).
Norwich is a relatively low-income area, so Norwich Research Park presents a strategic investment opportunity for Government. By expanding its existing life sciences cluster and connecting it with Cambridge’s complimentary R&D capability, we can create both high-technology jobs as well as employment for those servicing those roles, the combination of which can present a dynamic innovation ecosystem, and drive economic growth for the entire region.
Should there be region-specific innovation and growth policies, and what should local government’s role be in this?
Large infrastructure projects often face significant challenges in securing investment before obtaining planning approval. This uncertainty can create substantial risks, as delays or outright project cancellations can lead to significant financial losses.
The John Innes Centre and The Sainsbury Laboratory’s Next Generation Infrastructure (NGI) project (currently underway) has experienced significant delays with getting planning consent and we have little certainty this will improve as the project progressed. Problems include:
Consequently, delays and lack of certainty are increasing investment costs, which may ultimately lead to the failure to deliver all of the benefits.
Government support for local planning offices to progress planning applications and approvals for infrastructure projects, would reduce the time, costs and risks imposed on research organisations and businesses delivering them.
3. How is research and innovation diffused or supported to drive productivity and growth in the regions, wherever it may come from?
What more can be done to ensure that innovation investments deliver tangible outcomes for both local and national economies, in terms of productivity and growth, and how should this be assessed?
We welcome the Government’s focus on stimulating investment and activity in sectors with high growth potential, taking into consideration both the UK’s current and emerging strengths.
However, we recommend that the Government’s approach includes not only the immediate growth potential but also the potential costs of inaction in critical sectors. By broadening its criteria, the Government can build a more resilient, long-term economic base that aligns with social and environmental objectives.
For example, innovation investment strategies should recognise benefits in terms of cost savings to the NHS and the wider economy. Both malnutrition and overconsumption of highly processed foods cause an unsustainable burden on health services and impact productivity and quality of life. According to the Institute for Government, estimates of the annual social costs of obesity to the UK range between £29 billion and £58 billion. A healthy diet protects against a variety of diseases including diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer. Therefore, the burden of healthcare can be significantly reduced by improving the nutrition of the population through investments to increase the nutritional density of food. Investment in food improvement can be achieved at relatively low cost and offers the potential for sustainable long-term gains through improved health and well-being.
Similarly, Government should consider the economic costs of failures in the UK’s agri-food sector and environmental sustainability. For example, a single plant disease, potato late blight, is estimated to cost UK industry around £50 million per season and farmers are left with increasingly limited options to prevent this disease from devastating their crops. A weak and unsustainable food system can lead to increased food imports, job losses in rural areas and higher food prices. Furthermore, environmental degradation such as soil erosion and water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, can have long-term detrimental economic consequences. By investing in sustainable agriculture and food production, the UK can ensure a resilient food supply, protect the environment, and boost economic growth.
In the end, the market will indicate what works; it might be a farmer in East Anglia recognising the usefulness of a new technology, or a new variety of a crop plant that emanates from a new technology. But not all outputs from innovation will be benefit the local or national economy; there may be opportunities in other countries commercially, especially where regulatory regimes in the UK preclude their uptake locally, and some may not be commercially viable but will have a sizable impact in, for example, agriculture and food security in sub-Saharan Africa.
Our key recommendations are to:
Regarding the high costs of infrastructure for start-ups: Government incentives such as subsidies or low-interest loans for the development of research facilities and infrastructure, or voucher credits to access academic facilities and expertise, would reduce barriers to entry for emerging companies.
We recommend that Government further enriches and expands the use of UKRI’s Contracts for Innovation scheme (formerly named the Small Business Research Initiative, or SBRI). This scheme offers funding for collaborative processes where solutions are co-created by industry, academia and the public sector, allowing small businesses to explore new ideas and technologies and access markets such as healthcare, defence, and infrastructure.
How well are universities and businesses coordinating efforts to develop and commercialise research, including the role of spin-outs and collaborative R&D projects?
The UK’s world-class universities and research institutes are at the forefront of groundbreaking research, generating fundamental knowledge that underpins innovation across all eight growth-driving sectors.
These institutions play a vital role in bridging the gap between academia and industry. They support the translation of research into practical applications, leading to the creation of new spin-out companies and the commercialisation of cutting-edge technologies. This not only drives economic growth but also contributes to a more resilient and competitive economy.
The UK's higher education sector is also a powerhouse of talent and knowledge, producing highly skilled graduates who contribute to a strong and resilient workforce. These institutions are also major employers, contributing significantly to local economies. For every £1 of public money invested in the UK higher education sector, £14 is put back into the economy. The total economic impact of the UK higher education is more than £265 billion.
At Norwich Research Park we have initiated a series of ‘Explorer Forums’ to address an industry-led global challenge with representatives of the research community, industry, funders, policy makers, and stakeholders. There are a number of outcomes from these events from exploring the future applications of research all the way to a spin-out opportunity or a collaborative project.
This was the case representatives from DEFRA, British Sugar, John Innes Centre, Earlham Institute and Norwich Research Park businesses British Beet Research Organisation and Tropic were looking at the potential of precision breeding. As a result of the facilitated discussion, British Sugar secured Innovate UK Farming to develop innovative gene editing approaches to protect the British sugar beet crop against potentially catastrophic losses to Beet Yellow Virus disease.
Coordination is critical to ensure the maximum benefit is obtained from an innovation, but spin-outs and partnerships are particularly well nurtured and supported in communities such as Norwich Research Park, where new ideas can access the research and the experience of those who have already been through “the pain” of starting up.
13 January 2025