How do breakthroughs at Europe’s big research facilities progress from concept to real-world application? HSRC researchers and their European partners used a six-dimensional framework to examine three projects funded by the ATTRACT initiative. This European programme bankrolls early-stage detection and imaging ideas from leading research facilities so they can be built into market-ready prototypes, to chart their early socio-economic pathways. The analysis tracks factors such as serendipity, knowledge spillovers, skills development, and spin-offs that shape each project’s route toward impact.
Long-term research facilities around the world, also known as research infrastructures, such as laboratories, field stations, or observatories, have repeatedly yielded technological breakthroughs. Many of these breakthroughs have advanced health, driven economic growth, and improved everyday life. One famous example is British scientist Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of the World Wide Web in 1989 while working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN.
In 2018, Europe launched the ATTRACT programme, which aims to accelerate the process of turning fresh ideas from Europe’s top research infrastructures into working prototypes with help from industry.
ATTRACT phase 1, which concluded in 2020, aimed to cast a very wide net for fresh ideas in detection and imaging. Detection technologies, such as smoke alarms, motion lights, and thermometers, can sense whether a particular signal or condition is present and how strong it is. Imaging technologies, such as ultrasounds, X-rays, and thermal cameras, produce pictures of things which cannot otherwise be seen. In 2020 ATTRACT phase 2 began, with the objective to build on 170 proof-of-concept ideas seeded from phase 1.
To understand the socio-economic impact of phase 1, ATTRACT launched the Comparative Analysis of Socio-Economic Impact (CASEIA) study, with the HSRC as one of four partners.
In a recent article, HSRC researcher Michael Gastrow, in collaboration with Sonia Utermann from the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research in Europe, Arne Jungstand from Steinbeis Transfer-Hub Berlin, and Ulrich Schmoch from the Fraunhofer Institute for System und Innovations, used research projects as case studies to identify the utility and socio-economic impact ATTRACT interventions have had at the science/technology interface. This is where new scientific knowledge is translated into practical tools, processes and products.
The first case study used in their analysis was OptoGlass3D, a business-led consortium that aimed to make real glass as easy to 3D print as plastic is. The second, Scintiglass, was university-led, and its objective was to develop glass for physics research equipment (more specifically, radiation-hard glass for particle detectors that could measure the energy of particles with speed and accuracy). The third project, PANDA EMC, was a non-ATTRACT project used as a comparator case, and aimed to produce glass physics research equipment related to that of Scintiglass.
Table 1 shows the differences and similarities between inputs in each case study. For example, only OptiGlass3D incorporated design-thinking students in roles during its development.
Table 1. The three CASEIA case studies and their defining variables, showing points of comparison and contrast
Source: HSRC
Analysing impact
In their analysis of the three case studies, HSRC researchers used six analytical dimensions to identify pathways that enabled or prohibited positive social and economic impact:
Serendipity – unexpected applications of a technology outside its original purpose.
Knowledge spillovers – transfer of know-how and capabilities between organisations.
Spin-offs – new industry applications, intellectual property or other economic outcomes.
Skills and learning – development of human capital and new competencies.
Social structures – formation of fresh relationships, collaborations and networks.
Broader socio-economic impact – wider benefits to society that fall beyond the other five dimensions.
Table 2. Impacts in each of the six analytical dimensions, by case
Source: HSRC
As seen in Table 2, only OptoGlass3D demonstrated positive outcomes across six dimensions. “For both Scintiglass and the PANDA project with which it is closely related, the primary positive impacts were in the areas of knowledge production, knowledge spillovers, and skills development,” wrote researchers.
Research versus business
Researchers identified that although Scintiglass aligned more with ATTRACT’s initial expectations, as it was embedded in research infrastructure, it was OptoGlass3D, which is more closely associated with industry, that yielded the most impact. “Being embedded in industry cultures and incentives, it ultimately had an impact on the industrial sector,” the researchers wrote. In contrast, because Scintiglass was more closely tied to the world of research infrastructures and universities, the support provided by ATTRACT was not sufficient to bridge the innovation gap.
The researchers concluded: “If the route to impact is primarily via the market, higher impact may be achieved by business-led initiatives. But if the goal is to unlock underexploited knowledge in research infrastructures, ATTRACT interventions must prioritise projects with strong links to those facilities.”
Open innovation
ATTRACT understands “open innovation” as developing technology where the final use is still undecided. When paired with tools that encourage lucky, unexpected discoveries, this openness can speed up breakthroughs. “If the envisioned path to impact is via disruptive innovation, interventions like ATTRACT need to choose projects with open outcomes or coach innovators to seek open outcomes,” wrote researchers.
Beyond innovation
“If an intervention like ATTRACT is measured only by its innovation outcomes, valuable positive impacts can be overlooked and hence underreported,” they wrote. The article highlighted that a failed attempt at creating glass beads led to lasting positive knowledge spillover effects within the Scintiglass consortium. “Any future intervention needs to decide whether to foster innovation or impact, or, if both, to commit to impact pathways leading from innovation outcomes to socio-economic impact largely via the market.”
Measuring impact
The CASEIA framework is meant to push forward how we measure the socio-economic value of projects that sit between science and technology. Its first use – comparing three small case studies – shows that it works at that scale. With more cases or new settings, the tool could reveal wider patterns. For instance, researchers could use the six dimensions to probe outside factors such as technology-readiness levels or whether a company or a lab leads a project, allowing the method to adjust as new questions crop up. A larger dataset would also let analysts look at how the dimensions overlap—for example, how skills growth links to spin-offs—giving policymakers a flexible way to explore many issues around impact at the science/technology frontier.
Research contacts and acknowledgements
This Review article was written by Jessie-Lee Smith, with inputs from Dr Michael M. Gastrow, research director in the HSRC’s Research, Development, Science and Innovation Division. It was based on the paper Attracting Serendipity: The Impact of Investment at the Science/Technology Interface in Fundamental Physics Research Infrastructures, which was written by Gastrow in collaboration with Sonia Utermann from the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research in Europe, Arne Jungstand from Steinbeis Transfer-Hub Berlin, and Prof. Ulrich Schmoch from the Fraunhofer Institute for System and Innovations Research. For more information about this work, please contact Gastrow at mgastrow@hsrc.ac.za.
This study was commissioned by ATTRACT.
If you enjoyed reading this article, please click here to subscribe to the HSRC Review quarterly magazine.