On Materials

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” This famous quote is often attributed to one of the greatest innovators of all time, Henry Ford. What Ford alludes to is the frustrating truth that customers will default to their known experience and, if asked in the early 1900s what their ideal future transport would be, they would not have chosen his vision for the car.

And here lies one of the great challenges for the global innovation community. How do you choose the metaphorical horse that is most likely to win, in the highly competitive race to deliver the next ‘Big Thing’?



American pioneers and risk takers

In the wake of Henry Ford we have seen North America produce a succession of brave and determined pioneers who have delivered highly disruptive products and services such as visionary Steve Jobs at Apple, Jeff Bezos the founder of Amazon, and Elon Musk, the technology entrepreneur behind the Tesla electric car. The big breakthrough for Apple was the iconic Macintosh in 1984, the first affordable computer with a graphical interface which was to change the world of publishing forever. And the pace of innovation has continued with the launch of the iMac, the iPhone and iTunes, all of which revolutionised the communications, technology and music industries. While these ground-breaking innovations were massively successful, as Steve Jobs said: “Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly and get on with improving your other innovations.”

Strategy, structure, and the UK approach

The UK approach to innovation is a little different. In recent years we have seen more large scale public-private sector partnerships – and to help pick the winning horse the government has created sophisticated frameworks like the Industrial Strategy. This carefully selects the grand challenges of the future, such as harnessing the power of artificial intelligence (AI), driving new developments in mobility and transport, as well growing our economies while also safeguarding our environment.

I applaud this strategic approach, as it enables the UK economy to apply its resources in a focused way, bringing huge economies of scale and delivering commercially supported solutions that also benefit the wider good. A great example is the Faraday Institution which is looking to radically develop the UK’s capability in battery technology. This ambitious university-business partnership has been funded in part through the government’s £246 million investment in battery technology. It aims to make the UK the go-to place for the research, development, scale-up and industrialisation of cutting-edge battery technology. For me, the real value of the Faraday Institution will be establishing a pipeline of focused, substantial, and managed research projects in areas defined by industry, but delivered by businesses and universities, working in partnership.

The right model for advanced materials?

This classic sequential approach reminds me of the so-called ‘waterfall model’ which originated from the construction industry and was later adopted by computer programmers. Development is essentially segregated into a sequence of pre-defined phases, including feasibility, planning, design, build, test, production, and support. However, for me this may not be the best approach to deliver innovation when it comes to advanced materials which I believe will deliver the most disruptive underpinning technologies of our time. The fast pace of development in this exciting field means it’s perhaps too difficult to forecast an ultimate winner – instead, like those US pioneers, let’s start the race and see where it takes us.

Fail fast, learn fast

The clock is ticking. A range of sectors – including automotive, aerospace and construction – are impatient for the innovation they need to be sustainable, both economically and environmentally. A new generation of advanced materials are the most likely candidates to make the necessary difference to these businesses.

I also believe that we can accelerate innovation without compromising safety, thanks to the advent of increased digitalisation in the industrial and manufacturing sectors - for example, adopting sophisticated modelling techniques, such as digital twin technology, to replicate ideas and quickly help identify and reduce potential risks.

To meet this demand a more agile, ‘fail fast, learn fast’ approach needs to be adopted across the advanced materials innovation community. This method focuses on short-term pilot projects and echoes the advice from Steve Jobs on being prepared to make mistakes, admit them quickly and get on with improving the innovation. It departs radically from the mainstream innovation model, because rather than trying to pick (and spend time and money) on a potential winner, we could instead spend much less time on running say, ten plausible projects all at the same time, but at a much earlier stage of their development. As we learn from our failures, we select or combine innovations that look to be winners.

The productivity puzzle

It all feels counter-intuitive but by making these informed quick-steps, the innovation journey should progress at a faster pace – and without the burden of the huge R&D investment normally required to develop a perfect, risk-free solution at every stage. This agility and speed to market would also improve productivity - perhaps the biggest drag on our economy.

The UK has experienced a slump in productivity growth since the financial crisis that shows no sign of ending. As a report by the Greater Manchester Independent Prosperity Review explains: “Almost every advanced economy has seen a sharp slowdown in productivity in the last decade. However, the UK has been amongst the most affected, and the gap with competing economies is getting wider. The UK’s output per hour is 76% of that of the US, 78% of the French, and 79% of Germany [...] research by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) highlights a decade of stagnation, with UK output per hour not that significantly different to the level in 2007. This slowdown is often referred to as ‘the productivity puzzle’.”

How do we solve this puzzle? Well, I believe we should be looking at more agile innovation in the various organisations and institutions that support our economies. A special report produced by business thought leader Raconteur and published in The Times newspaper earlier this year highlighted the role of the supply chain in providing leadership in delivering innovation. As well as adopting new technologies, the Supply Chain Innovation report highlighted the need for more agility and collaboration across supply networks. Malcolm Harrison, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply, said: “If an agile and flexible approach can be fostered without too much fear of breaking with the norm, an organisation can respond much quicker when innovations are presented, reaping the benefits fast and without having to wade through layers of process. This can become a competitive advantage.” And this is where The University of Manchester’s lab-to-market model comes to the fore.

The Manchester model

The ‘fail fast, learn fast’ approach should work well for the model innovation community now being led by Manchester, which features a ‘science supply chain’ that runs seamlessly across academia and commercial end-users. For us, this journey begins in research groups based in the University and where blue sky thinking can be nurtured in centres of excellence like the National Graphene Institute (NGI).

When the science is mature enough, we can transition it into projects based in the nearby business-facing Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre (GEIC). The GEIC proactively engages with business partners for whom 2D materials could prove transformational, including lightweighting, energy storage and membrane technology. For example, innovations to ensure your battery-driven car of the future is no heavier than the fossil fuel-powered vehicle it replaces, or your children and your children’s children will access sustainable energy and clean drinking water, regardless of the climatic conditions to come.  

These flagship facilities are also part of a wider innovation eco-system including the Henry Royce Institute as well as Manchester’s Graphene City, an innovation ecosystem featuring a critical mass of scientists, manufacturers, engineers, innovators and industrialists centred around fully integrated lab-to-market capability. This unique advanced materials community will also contribute to the broader vision of ID Manchester - an ambitious scheme that will regenerate the University’s north campus to provide a 26-acre site that will be home to a new Innovation District in the heart of the city. The aim of this university-led project is to nurture a world-class community based around collaboration and enterprise. As the go-to place to discover disruptive technologies and creative thinking it would be an ideal place for ambitious start-ups looking to scale up or an international business wanting to establish a UK HQ. This £1.5 billion project has the potential to create over 6,000 new jobs – some of which, I have no doubt, will require highly skilled people who can work in the new 2D materials economy.

The catalytic role of Graphene City has been highlighted in the Greater Manchester Independent Prosperity Review which identifies innovation and the role of universities as a key driver to boosting regional UK productivity, stating: “...when it comes to the links between universities and business, there should be a role for strengthening the outstanding capabilities in basic research, idea generation and invention, as typified by Graphene City, as well as growing ‘incentives’ for the application of university research results. Here, incentives for increased R&D spending by firms and larger outlays for the purpose by Government should be a priority. The links to the Challenges identified in the Government’s Industrial Strategy and the respective opportunities for growth are key.”

Less fear, more entrepreneurial spirit

It’s important to recognise that the ‘science supply chain’ will not necessarily always mean a smooth transition from lab to market. A project could hit a setback at any stage and have to retrace its steps as the problem is unpicked and looked at again (like that frustrating moment in a game of snakes-and-ladders). This, however, is the potential strength of the Manchester materials model because by responding quickly to failure we can fast-track science-to-product innovation.

So, what I would encourage national policymakers and public funding bodies to think about is this - failure is nothing to fear – if it’s managed in the proper way. A losing horse one day could be a champion a little bit down the line, if nurtured in the proper environment. Innovation is the same.

Creating an innovation community is also just as critical to facilitate this more entrepreneurial approach. This massively mitigates the risk, but it does require infrastructure (research and scale-up facilities, a supporting supply chain, digital tools, etc) and people (bold leaders from academia and the business world, skilled professional staff, and world-class researchers). 

If we are to remain competitive at a global level, the UK’s strategic innovation community, led by the Department for Business, Energy and the Industry Strategy (BEIS), must not lose sight of the value of true entrepreneurial spirit, while working toward objectives set by the Industry Strategy and all its ambitious planning, consultative workshops and competitions. In a speech delivered in September 2012, one of the early architects of the nation’s economic plan, the then Business Secretary the Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable, stated that “a good industrial strategy allows for failures, and recognises that innovation may strike in an unpredictable place”.

So, what would I recommend the UK’s strategic innovation community to consider in their plans?

• The need to have an ‘innovation stream’ within the Industry Strategy Challenge Fund that introduces and adopts the ‘fail fast, learn fast’ approach.

• A cultural shift in national funding and policy thinking with a recognition that the UK should be nurturing innovation winners based on the ‘fail fast, learn fast’ approach and not just ‘picking winners’.

• The need to identify and support exemplar innovation eco-systems that enable the ‘fail fast, learn fast’ way to innovation (Graphene City would be a good example). 

Our economy, our daily lives and our planet stands to gain, and the sooner we start, the sooner we’ll reap the benefits.

James Baker is the CEO of Graphene@Manchester at The University of Manchester.

20th century advances in chemistry revolutionised material science, fundamentally changing global society. Plastics now underpin every aspect of modern life, from food to fashion, and from mobile phones to medicines. But in recent times we have come to realise that this petrochemical boom is leading to an environmental bust, with plastics now contaminating soil, water and food chains across the Earth. We need a fundamental rethink on the way we manufacture and dispose of materials.

Nature’s catalysts

One of the most innovative and promising routes to tackling these materials challenges is through biology. Industrial Biotechnology (IB) is the application of nature’s catalysts - enzymes - and biological systems, to produce and process materials, chemicals and energy. It is a burgeoning area of science, with recent developments in the field of synthetic biology giving us the ability to adapt biological systems for useful features to apply to a wide range of pharmaceuticals, chemicals and materials, for example meat that ‘tells us’ when it’s going off, reducing food waste and saving money.

Scientists at the University’s Manchester Institute of Biotechnology (MIB) are at the forefront of the UK’s efforts to apply IB to materials science and there are three main avenues for this research: biomanufacturing of sustainable plastics, ‘end-of-life’ degradation and recycling, and next generation bio-inspired materials.

Biomanufacturing of sustainable plastics

Instead of manufacturing plastics from crude oil, IB gives us the ability to produce bio-based materials from alternative carbon sources, such as non-food crops, or even agricultural waste. This is already happening at the industrial scale, for instance international chemical giant BASF switched its global production of acrylamide (the precursor to polyacrylamide, a widely used plastic) to an enzyme-based process, and all the major tyre producers are investigating IB-produced alternatives to natural rubber. But, whilst ‘drop-in replacements’ to traditional ingredients might lower the carbon footprint of the final product, this isn’t an environmental panacea; for example, a polymer derived from bio-based feedstock isn’t necessarily biodegradable. Polyethylene produced via biotechnology has the same chemical properties as oil-derived, non-biodegradable polyethylene. So, a bio-polyethylene bag bought from your local supermarket isn’t necessarily going to be biodegradable simply because the polyethylene used was produced in a different way.

Low cost, sustainable production of common plastics is challenging, but this is a priority area for the Future Biomanufacturing Research Hub (Future BRH). A new UK national centre, the Future BRH is developing innovative biotechnologies for high-value manufacturing to sustainably produce pharmaceuticals, chemicals and materials. Scientists here are developing robust industrial microorganisms that can be grown in non-sterile environments, such as in seawater, both reducing costs of getting from lab to product, and reducing freshwater demands.

‘End-of-life’ degradation and recycling

The microbes that live alongside us are starting to adapt to the waste that we’re putting into the environment. Some have naturally evolved to produce enzymes that can use plastic to create energy. MIB researchers, in partnership with the Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials, are seeking to ‘supercharge’ these natural evolution processes to engineer enzymes orders of magnitude faster by using a directed evolution approach. What would this mean in practice? It could mean much better recycling and far less environmental damage. The material used to make many ‘degradable’ coffee cup lids looks the same to the sorting machinery at the recycling depot as the plastic used to make clear soda bottles. But they can’t be recycled in the same way, and any contamination – if you put your coffee cup lid in the wrong bin – could mean that the whole batch is spoiled. Using enzymes to degrade these contaminants so they don’t have to be sorted by hand could lower the cost of recycling as well as creating better recycled products.

Next generation bio-inspired materials

From the sticky, stretchy or stiff kinds of silk found in spiders’ webs to the resilient properties of nacre (mother of pearl), the natural world has evolved an enormous variety of materials with desirable mechanical properties, such as enhanced strength, flexibility, adhesion and transparency.

Scientists are now taking a fresh look at nature to feed the development of new bio-inspired advanced materials. By drawing on knowledge gained in more established IB fields, such as pharmaceuticals, we have a toolbox of new enzymes to access novel chemistry that is difficult to reach with traditional methods. When combined with the latest computer-aided design software and laboratory automation, this IB approach gives a powerful platform to create exciting new biomaterials for a wide range of applications. Already, MIB research has led to optical coatings that can manipulate light, lightweight spider-silk derived composites with enhanced strengths, and new healable materials that can form protective coatings.

Cross-working and managing risk

The biomanufacturing of materials requires cross-disciplinary research, bringing together chemistry, mathematics, microbiology, synthetic biology, process engineering and materials science. But the transition to a sustainable bio-based future cannot occur in an academic vacuum, it also requires collaboration with industry, across multiple sectors.

The step-out nature of this R&D will require co-investment from Governments and international bodies to reduce the risk of investment for companies, especially SMEs. The UK Government’s Bioeconomy Strategy (published December 2018), outlined a vision to double the size of the bioeconomy by 2030. Government recognition of the importance of IB in delivering this vision is welcome but there must also be financial support for companies who want to develop biomanufacturing knowledge and capabilities.

Looking to the future: barriers and opportunities

In 2014-15, a dedicated research council fund was established, the IB Catalyst, which proved to be a highly effective way of sharing of risk in commercialising biotechnology; sadly, funding is currently on-hold. It is vital that this or an alternative dedicated funding source be reinstated to support academic and industrial partnerships to develop IB into sustainable real-world applications.

The UK is well positioned to become an international industrial biotech innovation and commercialisation hub, and a major contributor to clean economic growth. Manchester has the potential to be right at the heart of this – especially with the opening of the Future Biomanufacturing Research Hub. Industrial biotechnology was singled out in the Greater Manchester Independent Prosperity Review as being a ‘fast growth opportunity’, where Greater Manchester’s ‘assets and capabilities’ offer scope for future development.

To fully realise this potential, Industrial Biotechnology needs the establishment of its own Sector Deal – just as the Nuclear, Offshore Wind and Artificial Intelligence sectors have received from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. These deals demonstrate a clear direction and priority from the UK Government and would give investors and industry the certainty they need.

With the right investment, biomanufacturing could support the UK’s Clean Growth aim to take pollution out of economic development and allow us to transition to a new sustainable ‘Materials from Biology’ era.

Dr Kirk J. Malone is the Director of Commercialisation at The University of Manchester's Manchester Institute of Biotechnology.