The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency – a positive addition to the UK’s R&D landscape
The Lockheed HAVE BLUE demonstrator, the forerunner of the iconic F-117A Nighthawk. In the mid-1970s, DARPA oversaw the development of HAVE BLUE – the first practical combat stealth aircraft which led to the procurement of the F117 stealth fighter. The possibilities for ARIA are endless. Could environmental technologies be prioritised?
The budget last month confirmed the UK is on the cusp of establishing ARIA. Learning from the DARPA model in the US, ARIA has the potential to help unlock technological innovations by funding research endeavours that do not always have an obvious and immediate ‘real world’ application but that have the potential to be ground-breaking. Focused on both conducting ‘ambitious’ scientific research with a tolerance to failure, and on developing, exploiting and sharing scientific knowledge, such as translating basic scientific research into more commercial technologies, it will occupy a unique spot in the existing research landscape.
The government’s recently released innovation strategy summed up its purpose neatly:
‘Just as the creators of ARPA could not foresee its invention of interactive computing just a few years after its birth, we do not know what ARIA will create. That is the point.’
The reality of course is that many of the projects it funds may well end up achieving not very much. But as we have seen with DARPA, it is a risk worth taking.
An important - but small - part of the UK’s innovation ecosystem…
Something that doesn’t quite add up is the disproportionate amount of focus ARIA has received vis-à-vis the wider research ecosystem. The agency was announced amongst a blizzard of publicity extoling its potential transformative impact. It’s hard not to get excited by it but, with a budget of £800m it’s relatively small fry to the wider research ecosystem.
With this figure UK ARIA will be a relatively small funder of a much bigger R&T ecosystem and have a significantly smaller budget than DARPA’s ~$3bn per year. Even with the £800 million funding proposed it will not be able to do much without spreading its resources too thinly.
Consideration needs to be given to how it will interact with other UK funding bodies. UK ARPA should complement UKRI, which continues to evaluate and refine its business-focussed support. Many organisations, for example the Catapult Networks, are uniquely placed to identify areas of research suitable for ARIA funding.
Suggestions to ARIA could include sprint research/feasibility studies that would quickly verify the viability (or not) of an emerging theme before significant finances are required to mature the technology. Examples such as this might not normally be possible under existing funding rules and assessment but might be more suited to the flexible and speedy funding system envisioned by the government for ARIA.
In addition, while ARIA is getting a lot of focus, it is worth pointing out that the model is being used by other organisations too, right now. Fly Zero is a standout example. Underpinning the government’s aspirations to achieve net zero emissions flight, it is in effect a sprint technical and commercial feasibility study that will identify the pathways to deliver advanced green aircraft of the future. It clearly demonstrates that nimble and agile research can be easily conducted with the parameters of the existing research ecosystem.
From the publicity that surrounds it, you’d be forgiven for thinking that ARIA is being presented as the panacea that will drive UK innovation. It is of course far from a pancea but its creation should be celebrated. Ultimately it is a real statement of intent about the future direction of the British economy. Getting ARIA right would help unlock technological innovations that will drive post-pandemic recovery and help tackle global challenges like reaching net zero.