Two letters have challenged the way Labour frames Britain’s innovation problem, arguing that economic and technological progress cannot be reduced to lone inventors, university spinouts and shareholder-led companies.
Kate Fleming, director of IDEMS, said the model outlined by Gordon Brown places too much emphasis on an individual genius whose invention is commercialised at scale. She argued that challenges such as social care, education, climate change and artificial intelligence require collaboration, distributed ownership and public accountability. Fleming said her community interest company has faced barriers because UK Research and Innovation does not classify it as a research organisation, while Innovate UK has deemed it ineligible for a knowledge transfer partnership despite earlier work with the University of Edinburgh.
She also questioned whether policies built around uncapped shareholder returns can produce innovation that benefits communities. Fleming said a British alternative to data companies working with the NHS could be developed within five years if trusts and communities retained ownership and agency, but argued that existing policy favours larger technology businesses instead.
Jenny Haigh, head of policy for the creative economy at the University of the Arts London, accepted that Britain has strong universities and research but said Brown’s argument underestimates creativity. She pointed to figures showing that the creative industries contribute £145bn to the economy each year and that nearly two-thirds of creative micro-firms have carried out research and development during the past three years.
Its latest work also says universities play a significant role in place-based creative growth, while creative businesses can struggle to obtain the capital needed to pursue new ideas.
The examples raised in the letters include biodegradable plastic alternatives, tools intended to cut supply-chain emissions, food-waste fermentation and construction materials made from agricultural byproducts. Their argument is that such projects show how artistic and scientific skills can work together on problems beyond the traditional creative sector.
The government is simultaneously pursuing a commercialisation-focused approach. In July, it announced proposed regulatory reforms including statutory “sandboxing” powers that would allow companies to test products in controlled real-world settings.
The letters do not reject commercialisation or scientific research. They instead press Labour to widen the definition of innovation so that public-interest ownership, creative businesses and collective problem-solving receive comparable recognition and support.