Viewpoint: Science Cities: refreshing the concept for 21st-century places

Abstract

In 2005 the government designated six cities in England - Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham and York - as 'science cities'. This new status did not come with a prescription as to its meaning nor a set of targets for delivery, but rather was presented as a challenge to those places to step up their economic performance. In announcing the designation, HM Treasury (2005, Box 3.8) stated that the cities were selected because they were places 'that have strong science-based assets such as a major university or centre of research excellence and which have particular potential to use these assets to attract a critical mass of innovative businesses and become drivers of regional growth'. No additional funds were initially identified to support development. This Viewpoint explores the thinking which lies behind the designation and the potential implications for these cities and their residents. The concept of a science city is not new. Many places adopted the term in the late 1960s and 1970s and today's science cities come in many shapes and sizes. A recent review (Anttiroko, 2005) has characterised them into three groups: * science-based new town construction, such as Tsukuba in Japan, Daedeok in South Korea or Akademgorodok in Russia; * local or regional development projects, such as Kansai in Japan and Science City York in the UK; and * extensions of science parks - focused on high-tech industry, such as Kista in Stockholm. In addition there are many 'technopoles' within larger urban developments, science museums and theme parks for recreational learning such as Valencia's City of Arts and Science and Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri and even specific research sites and virtual networks which have been named 'science cities'. The variety is considerable. Each of the designated English science cities therefore has the opportunity to examine which model they should adopt and it is argued here that each city should take advantage of the lack of prescription to foster an approach which suits not only their uniqueness, but also takes emerging global best practice into consideration. A sense of laissez-faire, however, should not be seen as a reflection of unimportance. There can be little doubt that this designation lies at the heart of economic policy in the UK. Science cities combine two powerful threads of economic thinking, one well established, one emergent. First, there is a firm belief that the UK economy will be able to remain successful only if UK businesses innovate and if economic activity moves up the value chain. Principally this is seen as being linked to the ability to draw on the UK's excellence in science, technology, research and knowledge, with highly educated workers in growing innovative and globally competitive companies. These firms will drive future growth (this can be loosely described as the basis of endogenous growth theory). Secondly, while cities have until recently been regarded as problem places, characterised by industrial decline, deprivation and high unemployment, they are now increasingly being seen as the places which are driving growth in the economy (the new economic geography). The reasoning then follows that by challenging six cities to step up their performance, the UK as a whole could benefit. What's in a name? The importance of 'science' for future economic growth is undeniable, but I contend that the name is not sufficient to describe the conditions under which growth might flourish in the six cities. The name is not sufficient in three respects: * economically - growth is being driven in the UK by many sectors which do not have their roots in 'science' as such; * spatially - the physical environment in which science may thrive is neither necessarily appropriate nor attractive to the many individuals and firms that are needed to drive the UK's future economy; * socially and culturally - the creative individuals of the 21st century knowledge-based economy include many who have limited or no connection to 'science'. …