For the arts graduates in government I think that it is a lack of exposure to science-as-creative endeavour that is the problem. Science is the boring stuff, while English is where one talks about ideas. An American style first year where scientists take some arts courses and arts students some ideas-driven popular science courses would really help here.

For the science graduates in industry I think that it is a lack of exposure to science-as-creative endeavour that is the problem. They gain a scientific training similar to that in school but at a more advanced level, but their exposure to the original literature comes, in general, too late and is insufficient for them to develop a critical and creative approach to science without higher study. Hence, the notion of innovation- or ideas-driven science is problematic for them.

With the demise of funding to support a strong tutorial system in all but Oxbridge, this has to be done by throwing students in at the deep end and getting them to engage with the original literature from year 1 at the same time as they are supported in learning the fundamentals. Individual academics and individual departments strive to do this, but in a culture where the comparative analysis of National Student Survey scores dictates that you must keep students happy and give them what they think they want, it takes a brave university, department and/or academic to do this. (I was very pleased to find my new department assert very strongly that it wished to place greater emphasis on these aspects from this year).

More lobbying of government concerning educational policy and leadership in general from UUK, relevant position statements from the Russell Group as well as changes to QAA benchmark statements would help to ensure that we foster a view of science-as-ideas across industry and goverment. From such a culture, the conditions for the emergence of the right kind of capitalism are in place.