UK microelectronics research - an alternative approach

The current debate about how, where, when and what the microelectronics programme should look like raises some interesting dilemmas and issues regarding the fine line between pure blue sky research and applied research which has direct relevance to the industry’s needs. Various industry bodies and institutes have been rallying support in order to present a common voice to the Government, which is increasingly frustrated by a lack of cohesive, well thought out strategy from the industry, the academia, and lack of enthusiasm from regional development agencies.

University researchers rightly feel that their role is to carry out pure research, some of which may prove to be fruitful, but that should not be the main driver for academic research; industry bodies feel that university research should be more coordinated, guided and influenced by inputs from industry so that it is more relevant for their needs.

It is important though to understand here whether they are saying this just because they want to share a piece of the university research budget, or if they are indicating that there aren’t sufficient numbers of university researchers that can meet their needs. This distinction is critical to make so that a national programme is not built on a false premise.

The government point of view is that it has put in substantial effort and resources in knowledge and tech transfer infrastructure from university labs, industry and academia collaboration via programmes like the KTP programme. So if industry wants to guide and influence, then the mechanism for doing so is there as long as industry is willing to put some money where its mouth is.

We believe that this fragmented approach will not work, due to dilution of effort, lack of focus and dispersion of key research skills over a wide base.

So, what are the alternatives? IMEC, the microelectronic research centre, part of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, may provide a suitable model. Although IMEC currently gets 70% of its funding from industry and 30% from the government, this was not always the case. Initially the institute was almost 100% government funded for many years, but its focus - and that is a key word here - on advanced microelectronics research and marshalling of key researchers and expertise, not necessarily from the same region or the country, was its unique selling point. IMEC became an international hot house for microelectronics technologist and researchers.

Industry started using IMEC as a pure body shop, until IMEC got sufficient resources and started creating its own IP, which could be licensed to industry - if they also participated in the collaborative research. IMEC went further, helping its researchers with support and initial grants to spin out and start up their own companies in which IMEC takes an equity stake. Initially it has not got many hits as yet (with the exception of Fill Factory), but the programme is still at an early stage.

The good thing about the IMEC project is that it works, and has attracted global multinational corporations as research partners, and is no longer a body shop for non-strategic industry research. Today, IMEC produces some of the most advanced research in microelectronics.

So back to the UK programme. Assuming that the government has limited funds, it would be unwise to spread it across various locations and fragment the programme.

This may be a golden opportunity for the Welsh, the Scottish and the North of England regions to show their colours and clout, assuming they have some and use one of those grand but empty, incubator or fab buildings that were built with haste and are desperately looking for a purpose and a clear goal.

Maybe they should donate one of the buildings to the programme, as this has a better chance of generating a whole new set of spinout companies; some of them may even become globally successful and return their original owners a massive return on their investment just like the VC model.

Of course, there would be much resistance for such a plan from the various interested parties. One thing is sure: there will be many players who will want to put in early stakes - if they don’t, many international companies would take the chance. But in the first place, such a centre must be given the right support for the early years, so it can earn its international spurs.

In case the DTI or the regional development bodies are a bit short of cash, they may want to borrow another lesson from abroad. The State of Michigan will ask voters to approve a plan for the state to issue a $2 billion bond which will allow the state to invest in alternative energy and the biotech industry, as well as attract more national and international firms to locate their new programmes there.

Meanwhile, in the State of California, the Governor has already got approval to raise a $3 billion bond for a national stem cell research programme and is planning to create 70,000 new high-tech, highly paid jobs, (government policy makers, please note, this does not mean burger bars or pizza joints: they don’t need your support). New York State has attracted many companies with lucrative tax breaks, purpose-built research infrastructure and buildings.

Maybe the RDAs can lobby and get special dispensation and partly use some of the public employees’ pension funds to participate in a such a programme.

We hope that someone or a body from the regions will rise to the challenge and fill a great national and international need. As for the university labs and researchers, they already have the mechanism to get additional research grants from the appropriate research councils to carry out their advanced research: they just have to fight for a bigger share of the pie or lobby to make the pie bigger. Once a national centre is established, they can still participate, as sizeable parcels of research can be farmed out to the various universities in a coordinated fashion.

What about governance and stakeholders? We are sure, once the decision is made about the location and facilities, that equitable arrangements can be hammered out so that all major parties are equally represented.

So we look forward to seeing which RDA has got its act together for this one-off opportunity.

Comments on this story? Send an email to the editor at Editor@TheChilli.com