Credit: ILLUSTRATIONS BY DANIEL MACKIE

The severity of the current economic downturn is much greater than when Britain last experienced a recession in the early 1990s. Yet there may be lessons to learn from that downturn. Now more than ever, government has a role in focusing strong, directed efforts to boost the translation of scientific ideas into useful technologies, and to reinforce the base of science skills that drives this innovation.

The United Kingdom cannot rely on the formerly dynamic financial services sector as the engine of growth, so a rebalancing of economic activity is vital for recovery. The ability to capture ideas and discoveries that flow from research will be the test of whether we can recover growth and prosperity, and will influence the degree of public support for investment in science.

Online collection.

I was UK science and technology minister in 1994–97, as we were emerging from the last recession. The 1996 budget was a vigorous attempt to rein in public expenditure, which had been rightly boosted during the early 1990s. Everyone was asking who had performed well during the tough times, and which budgets could now be cut. I held off efforts to raid the science budget, but scientists themselves were not the most helpful in persuading my fellow ministers. Scientists thought it was self-evident that they should remain immune to cuts, but too often failed to articulate how they could help the community through tough times. I accused one organization of “whingeing” on public radio, as that is how it sounded.

There have been improvements since then. The Royal Society, for example, has become more realistic and more focused on the practical. I now sit on the Advisory Council for the Campaign for Science and Engineering — the organization I accused of moaning. But we need to go further.

Applied science should be raised to the status of basic science. From my visits to universities, I know how many scientists are frustrated that they are not given financial incentives to take projects beyond publication of an outcome. Yet this is exactly what is needed to help solve today's most pressing problems.

In the early 1990s, the Conservative government launched a lot of worthy schemes, including some to stimulate small spin-off companies. But we were too scattergun in our approach, and missed the point slightly by focusing on ideas coming out of universities as if innovation always followed a linear path.

We have learned from that. The Conservative Party's Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics task force, which I chair, proposed the creation of a powerful Innovative Projects Agency (IPA) alongside the Research Councils to refocus spending on innovation into areas of national interest, and to better bridge the gap between the birth of an idea and the development of a commercially attractive technology. The IPA would recognize that good work comes not just from university labs but from industry too, and would encourage collaboration and creative engineering. It would recognize that innovation entails uncertainty, as opposed to quantifiable risk. This would mean a radical shift in the government approach to science funding and innovation, with more stress on fulfilling demand rather than to funding supply.

What are the key problems of national interest that need addressing? Revolutionizing transport technologies, meeting climate-change targets and securing diversity of energy supply, to name a few. Both nuclear and clean-coal technologies require more directed research, and more courses to teach these skills. The United Kingdom does not at present have the workforce needed to enact these technologies.

The country is generally exposed to risk by not producing enough domestic talent. A recession creates opportunities in this regard. Surveys show that science students are more employable: the Leitch Review of Skills predicts that the demand for science and technology professionals and associated staff will rise by 18% and 30%, respectively, between 2004 and 2014, compared with 4% for all other occupations. Now is a great time to increase recruitment into science study.

It is also a good time to reverse the outflow of graduates from careers in science. In 2002, 6% of physics graduates entered the world of finance; by 2007 that was up to 19%. The downturn in the financial services sector should make it easier to keep science students in science.

When we inevitably come out of this financial crisis, the science and engineering communities will need to be able to highlight their practical successes during this period, not least to protect their funding as the government claws back on public spending to reduce debt. This means unleashing a real enthusiasm in the science community to facilitate more mission-driven science, and real support from the government to allow that to happen.