 I'm very pleased to be here and to talk about the triple helix. I spoke about the triple helix in my interview in the end of last year, and I just joined St. Mary's in January, and I remember that I was asked, what is this? And I realized that being in a Catholic institution, the metaphor of the triple helix resonates very closely with the Holy Trinity. And what you may find from my presentation is that actually the metaphor still represents something which we don't quite understand, what it is. So I hope that with my presentation I will give you a little bit insight into what is this, the triple helix, and how we can benefit from research in the field of triple helix. Now these are the academic origins. These are the science and technology policy research, a field which always has been interested in the government, what the government does in terms of policies, policy instruments, and then the universities being subject to governance. The first triple helix conference took place in 1996, so the community of triple helix scholars has over 20 years experience, and we celebrated our 20 years with our annual conference in Heidelberg, to which I was chair of the scientific committee. Now what is the triple helix? It's the government, the academia, and the industry, and often the academia is understood only as a tertiary sector. However, everybody knows that academia is the knowledge institutions, and much of the writing and the models, the triple helix models, sometimes they talk about universities, but they really think about the knowledge institution, any institution which contributes to knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination. And what the initial thinking was, is that what is the role of government? Subsidies for innovation, paying the universities huge grants to do their research, to do their teaching, the primary mission of the universities to do teaching, the secondary mission to do research, and now within the literature we are talking about the third mission of the universities, to go out, outreach activities, and to do something for the community, or to have an impact on the policy process. The first static model is that the government is using monetary policies, some other instruments, orchestrating behavior, behavior of industries, and behavior of universities. Now, what apparently came about is, and it is acknowledged as the second model, or less a fair triple helix model, that first the government wanted to release this control. And they, to some extent, decided, okay, we have to find financial instruments or other policy instruments not to keep everything under control, but to let the universities develop. And I think from UK perspective, our universities have always been autonomous. We have no problem with that. But the rest of Europe had real problem with that because their university systems in many countries were totally dependent on local governments, local authorities, central authority. So this laissez-faire triple helix model basically acknowledges that the innovation system has three big components, and these components need to be made to work together. We have private sector innovation, we have public sector innovation, academies of sciences in addition to the university sector. So we have a complex stage, innovation stage, and the triple helix became the governance model behind innovation systems. Now the next stage, third stage, which is mode two and mode three. Now this is a model, theoretical model, which says that these disengaged actors and players actually they have to start to coordinate activities and to collaborate in policy settings, in strategic decisions, and it is not so much what the state does and what the academia does and what the industry does in terms of innovation, but it is what they do together. And in this model we have institutional spheres, this is the, ah, I didn't know this is a touch screen, okay, sorry. So these spheres operate independently. What Hefke does, they do by themselves, but they engaged in consultation. What academia does, we do by ourselves, we are autonomous entities, but we actually try to interact with the state, we try to interact with industry and very often this interaction between industry and academia has lots of tensions because we speak different languages. They have much shorter time horizon to commercialization, we just wander around wonderful ideas. And there is a lot of friction in these spaces of overlap, but this is where we see the effectiveness of the triple helix. And this is where we see economies or where we have coordination engagement where we have more efficiencies emerging. Now there is another magic triangle here, which is called the positive overlap. A multi-stakeholder engagement where all these three parties sit together around a table and they make decisions. And even though this looks like a dream world actually does happen in some regions in Europe, the so-called entrepreneurial discovery process. When regional authorities brought their knowledge providers, those that have got some European research funds, they brought some key stakeholders from the industry and they sat together and decided on smart specialization strategies. Where are their competencies, what is their competence base and how to organize the investment process around this competence base, including the universities have actually to introduce new programs that are in demand by the private sector. So we have some positive interaction here. We have many interesting examples, for example in Russia they require all programs, degree programs to have on the validation panel representative from the industry. And the input from industry is critical in terms of who needs this degree. Now what you see here is these interactions are very complex, very complicated and they hold a lot of tensions. Now triple helix has been embedded in a lot of policy thinking. This is the World Bank index for the knowledge economy and what you see here, very clear vision of the role of the state, very clear vision of the role of the knowledge institutions and unfortunately what they see in terms of contribution to the knowledge economy from the private sector is to build the infrastructure, to develop our internet. And somehow if we have the internet, magically we can build the knowledge economy. However, there was something very important here which emerged at very early stage in the late 90s called innovation systems. And the vision of what an innovation system should contain has evolved quite nicely. And this is the global innovation index. I don't know whether you are familiar with it. Anybody heard of the global innovation index? Yes? No? Okay. Now it's a wonderful catalogue of performance, innovation performance. And this is their matrix, how they actually measure innovation performance. And this is the innovation output by the public, the private sector. This is the innovation input and output. That comes out our publications, patents, citations and including online creativity. Which means how many videos we upload on YouTube. If we upload these videos, UK will score higher. So I think we need a commitment from all of us to generate content, knowledge content. We want UK to score higher, don't we? Okay, so what we see here is the concept of innovation system which has input and output. And the question of efficiencies. Now we have innovation efficiency ratio calculation which gives a country a very particular score. And based on their performance, the countries go up and down the innovation index. Now this is another instrument to measure innovation performance. Which is developed by the European Union. And this is called innovation union scoreboard. And the indicators are defined similar but different. And again we have a very clear view that there is a role of the state, there is a role of knowledge institutions. However, what we have here is very clear distinction what the private sector should do. And not very clear distinction between the knowledge institutions and the state. What the state should do. So somehow the role of the state became blurred. What is the state responsibility? And in one of my last slides I will comment on that. Everybody expects the state just to pay for our innovation and creativity. Now the interesting thing about the triple helix is that it needs something to drive these interactions. It needs driving forces. And there is a question, who drives the triple helix? Is it the state through financial instruments? Is it the university through particular community action? Or is it the business with particular critical innovation, key enabling technologies? And this question hasn't been answered. What these different helixes should do to optimize the communication and the conversation. And what is critical here is that the drivers of the triple helix are still individuals. So it's not the institutional spheres by themselves. That's what the state does or state institutions such as Hefke or UKRC or institutions like that. But it is individuals that circle through spheres and circle across spheres. So the magic of the triple helix is in the hands of a few people that actually can make sense of these complex relationships. Two very quick definitions of innovation, very complex. What we know is that innovation is magic. It's purposeful, but it requires open mindset. And when we create borders and boundaries, these are all barriers to innovation. This is another very complex diagram, just very briefly. That the innovation process is entangled in market process, particularly which drives the private sector, and in political process. And what we see all of this political process behind our REF, which is critical for the functioning, for the short-term and long-term horizon of the university sector. Now, the final two, three slides. Where does this lead us? The triple helix model. The old model, how we support innovation. The old model suggested that you should invent. These are the factors of production, whether the public sector or the private sector. If you put these factors of production, somehow innovation will spur. The new model says that even if you put more money, you don't necessarily get more innovation out of the system. So you should create enablers to drive this innovation. And what the final model is talking about is leadership. So free flow of information, open boundaries, global platform outreach, cross-border mobility of researchers, people traveling across borders. So anything which puts boundaries will have a negative impact on innovation. And I will finish with the final slide, which is basically their critics of triple helix model. And this is coming from one of my favorite institutional economists, Mark Casson, for those that know him. He honestly tried to believe in the triple helix. But he raised some very important questions. So why do we need three-way collaboration? Is it more cost-effective? Or basically we need to make sure that each of these actors do what they are supposed to do. And what exactly is the role of government from economic policy perspectives? Talking about subsidies to higher education or intermediation in these triple helix engagements, RCUK, or some subsidized intermediation and what this may look like. And what are the unintended impacts of the triple helix? And he raised an issue that there are many unintended impacts of the current engagement of the state with the functioning of the universities, prioritizing applied science, which puts pressure on basic science. And these kind of distortions which we see in the university sector being direct impact of inappropriate state intervention. So the critics of the triple helix are there. But this raised the question is how can we do more research on this topic? Thank you very much for your attention. I don't know how much I managed to bring this back to ground level understanding. But I hope you get my passion about the triple helix.