Martin Sharp completed his PhD in laser materials processing at Imperial College, London in 1985. From 1985 to 2000 he worked in a number of companies, including Control Laser Ltd., Lumonics Ltd., and Power Beam Technologies Ltd., as well as running his own consultancy / laser service company UK Laser Services Ltd.

In 2000 he became the manager of the Lairdside Laser Engineering Centre at the University of Liverpool. Responsible for the running of the centre, principally in the field of technology transfer and knowledge exchange, he was also responsible for the delivery of several EU funded programmes including the ERDF funded “The Laser Initiative” from 2002 to 2005. This project supported the introduction of laser technology into the Merseyside region of the UK.

During this period Dr Sharp became increasingly involved in the research activity of the Laser Group, and its increasing activity within the Laser Centre. He was instrumental in winning three Technology Strategy Board (TSB) collaborative R&D projects with industrial partners, and instigated a successful bid to the North West Development Agency’s Science Fund for £2.5 M between the Universities of Liverpool and Manchester. This project began in 2005 and brought micro and nano processing to the Laser Centre. Two further TSB projects were received in 2008.

In 2008, Dr Sharp moved to Liverpool John Moores University to take up his first recognized academic post in the General Engineering Research Institute. He set up the Photonics in Engineering research group with Dr Paul French and is undertaking research in a range of applications of laser materials processing.

Throughout his career Dr Sharp has continued to actively support the laser materials processing community in the UK and academic / industry collaboration. He is currently the Vice President of the UK’s Association of Laser Users (AILU) and chair of the steering group for the North West Photonics Association.

Summary
The focus of this interview was based around a number of potential Wild Cards and their associated Weak Signals leading to some future recommendations for European research and development priorities.

Can you envisage any major wild cards (positive or negative) that may occur in the next 20 years?

MS: After giving this subject some thought, there are a number of Wild Cards that initially come to mind such as:

1) ‘Significant’ financial events cause ‘significant’ changes in science and innovation funding. For instance China calling in debts to undermine a G20 economy leading to significant financial difficulties in Europe and social unrest.

2) Significant terrorist action damaging science infrastructure. For example London, Cambridge, Manchester put out of action for a significant period of time (more than 1 year).

3) Pandemic causing significant deaths in G20. There would not only be a huge financial and societal impact but also a “backlash” against science’s failure to prevent the deaths.

4) Evidence of Alien Life. Perhaps this is more of a stereotypical Wild Card, but it would surely boost interest and investment in science. By this I am not alluding to aliens landing here, but some evidence of intelligent signals from deep space for instance.

What would be the dramatic impact of the wild cards you mentioned, and how should it be addressed by future research? In which field?

MS: With the regard to the previous Wild Cards mentioned, there would be significant impacts if they were to occur.

1) There will be an initial significant decrease in science activity, coupled with societal breakdown caused by large scale unemployment and large reduction in personal wealth. In the longer term a self reliance policy will encourage local manufacturing and innovation.

2) With a damaged infrastructure in the UK (or Europe) the loss of research capacity could divert investment to other countries which could have catastrophic longer term impacts on science and innovation progress.

3) There could be an initial boost in vaccines and immunology research, but then the research base itself could be depleted and large scale societal unrest coupled with financial problems will have significant impact. Mass deaths could lead to a breakdown of trust in science damaging the science base.

4) A renewed interest in science coupled with “fear” of alien contact could significantly boost science spend.

What are the weak signals that (if detected) could hint at a growing likelihood (or imminent realisation) of the wild cards mentioned?

MS: A ‘not so’ weak signal has been the financial crises in 2008/9 with the subsequent credit rating issues with some EU countries. Further weak signals could be found in purchasing patterns of emerging companies, and levels of innovation reaching those of US/EU/Japan.

There is the continuing nuclear proliferation and attempted smuggling with ongoing West/“Islamic fundamentalist” causing increased tensions. While closely monitored by security forces weak signals will most probably be identified in changes of country / regional / ethnic group behaviours.

The Bird Flu / Swine flu events are strong signals. But concentrating on the obvious influenza risks may allow rapid development of drug resistant viral illnesses to strike, so it may be better to look for the weak signals elsewhere than flu.

Regarding evidence of other intelligent life, there are a number of signals which have indicated this. SETI generating “false alarms”; Review of historical astronomical data at all wavelengths; A signal originating from intelligence is likely to be very weak – but if proven, it will change mankind.

Are there any causal relationships between the Wild Cards and Weak Signals you mentioned?

MH: Most probably finance and financial resilience. It is likely to be financial failure that leads to large societal changes, with institutions such as science and research being part of the collateral damage.

Looking ahead to the future of European research – which of the WI/WE that you mentioned should be given top priority in the EU research?

MH: Frankly a study into financial risk analysis and resilience that can achieve governmental and public acceptance and is not aimed at maximising financial gain (for the few?) would be beneficial and as with all social science potentially highly subjective and open to criticism. But the financial crises may have been averted if financial models could have predicted the outcome of the western reliance of debt to a level of certainty that governments could not have brushed aside.

Of the ones identified above, pandemic is most probably the priority.

Others are not so much research priorities but more a need to increase EU collaboration, cooperation and integration, so that regional events cannot not cause significant disruption to overall EU research activity / position in Science.