Research and analysis

Knowledge Translation: what have we learnt

Published 6 May 2026

Authors: Catrin Hepworth, Zoe Sutherland, Hanifa Ali, Anupama Ramaswamy, Aikantika Das, Chris Barnett, Yasmine Bettine, Fred Carden.

Knowledge translation involves turning research and innovation (R&I) into tangible societal, environmental, and economic benefits. This learning brief draws on the Newton Fund’s final evaluation to explore what works in translating R&I into policy influence and commercialisation outcomes. It highlights lessons for funders and practitioners seeking to maximise impact through evidence-informed decision-making and inclusive innovation.

What is knowledge translation and why was it an important part of Newton Fund?

Knowledge translation is the process of turning evidence, insights and ideas from research and innovation into real-world impacts. This means getting the evidence out of academic journals and into the hands of the people who can apply it – policymakers, industry leaders, business innovators and professionals across sectors. When knowledge translation is done well, it can help strengthen policy systems, providing evidence to support more informed policy design and making. It can boost inclusive innovation^{[footnote 1]} and growth, and support entrepreneurship to turn ideas into market-ready solutions.

Knowledge translation is therefore an essential part of the R&I cycle for any investment seeking to achieve real-world change. The Newton Fund recognised this from the start, understanding that its mission to deliver sustainable development through science and innovation relied on connecting excellent R&I to its intended users. The Fund focused on 2 specific pathways to real-world impacts: (1) policy uptake, and (2) commercialisation. The policy uptake pathway focused on translating R&I to inform public policy and strengthen systems for evidence-based decision-making. The commercialisation pathway focused on translating research into products, services, and innovations to drive entrepreneurship and economic growth.

To achieve its overall objectives, the Newton Fund implemented a dedicated funding mechanism that supported research calls and innovation partnerships focused on solving development issues. It also established government-to-government agreements with the aim of supporting research uptake that addresses national priorities. The Fund sought to prioritise capacity building for researchers and institutions, with a focus on developing the skills needed, not only to produce high quality R&I, but to ensure that evidence and insights translate into policy influence, and innovations realise their commercial potential.

Background to the Newton Fund

The Newton Fund was an investment of around £652 million^{[footnote 2]} made by the UK government, administered through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (formerly the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy), to support partnerships between UK institutions/researchers and 17 middle-income countries^{[footnote 3]}.

Running from 2014-2021, the fund administered grants to 15 research councils, academy partners and other research delivery partners. The Fund aimed to strengthen research through 3 core pillars:

• People (improving research capacity in researchers and their institutions)
• Research (understanding development challenges and exploring solutions)
• Knowledge Translation (translating research into useful products for policy and commercial use).

What was achieved?

The Newton Fund aimed to deliver ‘new evidence [that] influences policy and practice changes in partner countries, regionally and globally’.^{[footnote 4]} In terms of commercialisation, it targeted ‘strategic partnerships [that] unlock opportunities (adoption of new solutions, foreign direct investment, trade) between UK and partner countries’.^{[footnote 5]} ‘Translation’ was one of the 3 pillars of the Fund; however, there was not a clear strategy of how this would be achieved and the pillar had the least resources.

The Newton Fund has shown early signs of progress towards achieving policy influence and commercialisation outcomes, though these efforts remain largely at initial stages. Whilst we would expect achievements in knowledge translation to take place over a long period of time, the extent of progress so far (10 years after the Fund was launched) indicates that it is not yet on track to deliver the sustained impact in knowledge translation that it aimed to achieve within this period.

Summary of methods

To establish the Fund’s achievements, we considered whether it was ‘on track’ to contribute to the policy influence and commercialisation outcomes, recognising that the outcomes were expected to be realised after 7 to 10 years^{[footnote 6]}. Our judgment of whether the Fund is ‘on track’ is based on a qualitative assessment of how far the Fund has contributed to change based on the data collected, analysed and triangulated. Data collection was structured around not only whether change occurred, but also how, why, and under what conditions the Newton Fund contributed to it. Data collection included a rapid literature review, a detailed country contextual analysis, award-level analysis of documentation and key informant interviews.

We recognise that the extent to which research has influenced policy can be challenging for researchers to track and report upon. However, we triangulated award-level documentation with country analysis and key informant interviews to mitigate the challenge in establishing links between research and policy uptake.

Policy Influence

Based on our assessment of 50 awards across 10 countries, the Fund has been effective in laying the groundwork for policy influence by improving the enabling conditions - such as enhancing researcher confidence, skills, and the relevance of research to policy needs. This has led to engagement with policymakers across all partner countries, including meetings, presentations at policy events, and the sharing of evidence with decision-makers.

However, credible evidence of sustained policy change is limited. Only 3 countries demonstrated signs of the Newton Fund contributing to more evidence-based decision-making, with 2 demonstrating actual policy change. One notable example is a public health policy change in China, detailed in Case Study 1. These outcomes reflect the political nature of policy change, which often lies outside the direct control of R&I teams. Nonetheless, the relationships and capacity built through the Newton Fund may still yield future influence if windows of opportunity arise.

Case Study 1: Evidence-Informed Policy Reform in China

This example from the Newton Fund partnership in China demonstrates how strategic research partnerships can drive national policy change. Led by Cardiff University and Fudan University, the project explored how colistin, an antibiotic commonly used in cattle rearing, contributes to anti-microbial resistance (AMR) among animal and human populations. Building on the UK-China team’s landmark 2015 discovery of the MCR-1 gene, the key to understanding bacterial resistance to colistin, the Newton Fund project provided clear, compelling evidence that widespread use of colistin in agriculture had a significant, negative impact on public health. Evidence from the award contributed to the evidence base and broader policy inputs that informed China’s 2017 colistin ban – a major reform in better AMR management – through strategically targeted evidence translation and sustained policy engagement, marking a major reform in better AMR management. Bilingual policy briefs played a central role in rendering complex microbiological and epidemiological findings accessible to non-technical stakeholders, thereby strengthening the policy relevance and urgency of the research.

The project’s success in influencing policy was enabled by trusted relationships, credible evidence, and strong alignment with national priorities. Researchers engaged directly with China’s Ministries of Agriculture and Health, supported by institutional intermediaries at China Agricultural University (CAU), whose longstanding advisory roles facilitated access and trust. Bilingual policy briefs and high-level consultations helped translate complex findings into actionable insights. These efforts coincided with China’s National Action Plan on AMR, creating a timely policy window. The strategic framing of AMR control as an opportunity for international leadership further motivated policymakers to act.

A distinctive feature of this case was the way evidence was embedded within China’s existing advisory structures. Rather than being presented as external recommendations, findings were channelled through trusted institutions already integrated into policy processes. This approach fostered broad cross sectoral ownership of the AMR challenge and helped accelerate the uptake of scientific insights. The national ban delivered measurable impact: within 2 years, notable reductions in mcr-1 prevalence and colistin resistance were observed in both human and animal populations, demonstrating the effectiveness of placing rigorous scientific evidence at the centre of national AMR governance.

The model’s strength lies in mechanisms that are readily replicable in other contexts. Working through trusted national intermediaries, deploying clear and accessible communication tools, engaging government counterparts throughout the research process, and aligning findings with existing policy priorities all contributed to sustained policy reform. The project contributed to long-term system change, strengthening China’s science-policy translation capacity and reducing colistin resistance in both human and animal populations. It offers a replicable model for future programmes, demonstrating how research excellence, long-standing trusted institutional relationships, and high-level stakeholder engagement can combine to achieve sustained policy reform in middle-income countries.

Commercialisation

Commercialisation was a smaller focus for the Fund and the Fund has had limited impact against this aim. Progress has largely been confined to early-stage development, such as proof-of-concept work and pilot projects, often within academic settings. While 15 out of 16 partner organisations published articles in collaboration with the private sector, tangible commercial outcomes were modest: intellectual property outcomes (e.g., patents) were achieved in only 6 of 18 countries, and just 11 spinout companies were recorded across the Fund. Only isolated examples went beyond early-stage development to achieve actual technology or idea transfer to markets, such as the example from India highlighted in Case Study 2. While it is expected that not all innovation projects will reach market maturity, the scale of the Fund suggests that greater commercialisation outcomes might have been achievable.

Case Study 2: From Sensor Innovation to Entrepreneurial Momentum in India

A Newton project based in India, focused on the environmental causes of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). It exemplifies early-stage commercialisation success in a middle-income country. Led by Heriot-Watt University and the Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT Madras), the project aimed to co-develop low-cost sensors to detect pollutants linked to AMR in surface water, an issue of national priority in India.

A breakthrough emerged during sensor prototyping, when IIT Madras researchers developed a novel, affordable method for producing paper-based microfluidic sensors using a standard office printer. This innovation transformed a technical challenge into a commercial opportunity. The achievement reflected the project’s flexible and problem-driven research design, which enabled the team to adapt quickly when existing fabrication methods proved either too expensive or technically restrictive. Iterative experimentation and close technical exchanges with UK collaborators helped create the conditions for this unexpected breakthrough.

Institutional support at IIT Madras, including a proactive support for intellectual property, enabled the patenting of the technology and provided training and financial backing for ongoing intellectual property management. The IP Cell played a key role by handling legal drafting, technical documentation, and patent filing, and by framing the patent to cover a wide range of applications. This institutional readiness strengthened the commercial potential of the innovation and reflected a broader shift within IIT Madras toward prioritising intellectual property alongside academic publication. Capacity-building and entrepreneurial activities organised with support from Heriot-Watt University also helped researchers develop practical skills in technology transfer and commercial pathway mapping, while Newton Fund mentorship and exposure to UK innovation practices contributed to growing entrepreneurial confidence.

2 startups emerged from the project, one focused on AMR gene detection and another on fibre-optic pollutant sensors. This represents clear progress toward commercialisation and illustrates the entrepreneurial momentum generated by the award. This success was reinforced by strong alignment with India’s national priorities on affordable innovation and AMR, which created a favourable environment for pursuing low-cost sensing technologies.

However, broader market readiness was constrained by limited stakeholder engagement, which reduced opportunities to test the technology with potential users and slowed progress toward wider adoption. Technology readiness gaps also remained, as the project was designed primarily around research objectives, meaning the product had not yet reached a point where it could be deployed commercially. A lack of follow-on funding further limited the transition from promising prototypes to market-ready solutions, particularly in a resource-constrained context where advancing beyond the research phase requires sustained support.

The project’s success was rooted in strong research relevance, institutional systems that supported innovation, and the ambition of researchers who were encouraged to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities. At the same time, the limiting factors described above shaped the commercialisation trajectory by slowing the movement from proof-of-concept to market readiness.

This case highlights how commercialisation thrives when research relevance, support from innovators’ institutions, and entrepreneurial ambition align. It also underscores the importance of sustained post-award support and flexible research design in enabling innovation to move beyond proof-of-concept. The project illustrates the Newton Fund’s potential to catalyse inclusive innovation in middle-income countries, even within a portfolio where commercialisation was a smaller focus.

What are the key factors that affected these achievements? 

The Newton Fund’s achievements in policy influence and commercialisation were shaped by a range of contextual, structural, and operational factors. Analysis identified several key enablers and constraints that influenced the extent and sustainability of its knowledge translation outcomes.

Enablers of policy influence

• Alignment with national priorities: Newton projects that had clear relevance to existing national policy agendas found it easier to engage with policymakers. There was more evidence of this alignment between research focus and national priorities in higher middle-income partner countries. Higher middle-income governments had more resource to invest in matched funding, as per the Newton model. This meant they had greater ownership of the Newton R&I agenda in their country and could tailor it more closely to national priorities.

• Relationships of trust: Building strong relationships with key decision makers emerged strongly as critical to policy engagement and influence. The most effective examples were where the Fund invested in researchers that were drawing on existing relationships with policymakers, but continued to invest in, and build, them throughout their Newton project.

• Targeted capacity building: The analysis found that, in some cases, the Newton Fund directly supported researchers with knowledge translation and engagement capacity strengthening, including through training and applied research activities. In these instances, researchers had improved understanding of the policy process, better access to policy spaces and greater confidence in engaging with decision makers. Evidence showed these to be necessary steps in progressing towards policy influence.

• Flexibility to use windows of opportunity: Policy influence is affected by a range of political factors outside the researcher’s control. In the most successful examples of policy influence, researchers were aware of evolving policy priorities and were ready to share evidence to capitalise on any windows of opportunity for influence that might emerge. Across the countries included in the evaluation, outcomes related to policy uptake were more likely where research projects had flexible resourcing for dissemination to maximise these opportunities.

Enablers of commercialisation

• Relevance to market needs: The successful examples of innovation projects had clear alignment with market needs and interests, which could be gained through a market analysis. This ensured they were focused from the start on a problem with clear commercial relevance.

• Early involvement with industry stakeholders: Similarly, innovation successes integrated industry expertise and partnerships as early as possible in the innovation process. This helped to ensure continuing relevance to markets, to improve understanding of industry needs, and to build relationships with potential future commercial partners and investors.

• Supportive innovation pipeline: Innovation-focused teams benefitted from access to institutional support throughout the development of their idea or technology. In some countries Newton Fund support included access to institutional IP offices, innovation hubs, or public-sector entrepreneurship initiatives. The Newton Fund also supported access to incubators and support with reaching the right industry connections, including mentors. There was most evidence of this occurring in partner countries with a well-developed innovation ecosystem.

• Access to the right funding models: The isolated examples that achieved transition to commercial scale had access to additional funding after the proof of concept or piloting stage. Targeted funding, in the shape of bridging finance or venture capital, was needed for them to scale up and produce their innovation commercially. Again, this was typically available in higher middle-income countries with a well-developed innovation pipeline, and supportive institutional and policy environments, such as the example from India in Case Study 2.

Constraints and Challenges

Several factors limited successes in policy influence and commercialisation being replicated more widely across the Fund:

• Limited Fund-level investment: Only 15% of the overall funding was allocated to the translation pillar, reducing the emphasis on commercialisation and policy uptake.

• Contextual mismatch: The matched funding model was less effective in lower middle-income countries, where resources were scarcer. This led to weaker engagement from policymakers and industry as they had more limited opportunity to influence the research to align with their national priorities.

• Short project timelines: Projects typically lasted 24-36 months. Those with policy goals often lacked sufficient time to build the relationships and trust needed for influence, especially for newer teams. Innovation projects struggled to navigate regulatory environments and establish industry connections within the available timeframe.

• Academic focus: Institutional and fund-level incentives tended to prioritise academic outputs (e.g., publications) over technology transfer or entrepreneurial activity, limiting commercialisation potential.

• Lack of follow-on funding: Innovation projects frequently lacked bridging finance to support the transition from successful pilots to market-ready ventures, stalling progress beyond early-stage development.

How can funders and researchers maximise knowledge translation?

The key factors identified offer important learning which is relevant to the ongoing management of current funds and programmes, and to the design of future R&I funds. The 4 lessons set out below present guidance for funders, commissioners and R&I managers to consider and tailor in their ongoing R&I work.

A necessary step to enable the 4 lessons and recommendations to be effective is for a Fund strategy to make Knowledge Translation a clear priority with appropriate allocated resources.

Lesson 1: Engage policy-makers early and consistently to foster policy change.

Successful policy translation occurred where researchers involved policymakers from the beginning, aligned research with national priorities, and maintained long-term relationships. Institutional leadership and co-design with stakeholders were key enablers of policy relevance and uptake.

Recommendations for research funders:

• Ensure that the Fund requires a high level of alignment between research goals and national priorities
• Ensure that funded research teams have a specific plan to engage with policy-makers early and consistently

Recommendations for research delivery organisations:

• Develop a stakeholder engagement plan from the earliest stages of research design
• Include key stakeholders (including policymakers) in co-design, if possible

Lesson 2: Tailor funding models to partnership maturity and national contexts to unlock greater impact.

Flexible and context-sensitive funding enables stronger collaboration, more relevant research design, and better dissemination. Differentiated funding timelines and mechanisms can support both equitable partnerships and scalable innovation, including commercialisation based on a recognition of the stage at which the research itself and researchers’ relationships and partnerships are at upon receipt of the Fund’s support.

Recommendations for research funders:

• Consider the use of Fund-level incentives to promote technology transfer or other entrepreneurial activity
• Develop different funding models for research partnerships that are at different stages in their knowledge translation process. The selected funding model for a research partnership should account for other funding opportunities that the partnership can access within their own contexts. Recognition of the availability of other funds to the research partnership can help to inform whether matched efforts might be more appropriate than matched funding.
• Ensure that funded research partnerships have access to the necessary follow-on funding to support transition from pilots to market-ready ventures, either through provision of funding, facilitating introductions or signposting alternative funding sources

Lesson 3: Build translation strategies into research design from the outset.

Partnerships that achieved policy influence or commercial traction had clear goals and pathways for translation embedded from the start. This includes longer timelines aligned with translation ambitions, structured engagement with end-users, and mechanisms for tracking progress toward uptake.

Recommendations for research funders:

• Require applicants for research funding to outline their knowledge translation goals at application stage and to develop these into a strategy during research design
• Ensure that funding periods are aligned with the translation goals
• Ensure tracking and active management of progress against knowledge translation strategies by research delivery organisations.

Recommendations for research delivery organisations:

• Ensure that knowledge translation goals and strategies are informed by an analysis of market needs / policy alignment
• Identify effective, light-touch means to track and report against knowledge translation strategies to allow for learning and course-correction, where necessary.

Lesson 4: Strengthen commercialisation pathways through ecosystem engagement and specialised support.

Commercialisation was more likely where partnerships accessed innovation ecosystems (such as incubators, IP frameworks, and investor networks) and brought in technical and business expertise. Collaboration is needed with organisations that can help bridge gaps between research and market readiness.

Recommendations for research funders:

• Assess the institutional capacity of research partners to foster innovation and tailor support to partner organisations accordingly, including facilitating introductions to, or signposting, complementary existing support mechanisms for innovation.
• Signpost – or provide – funding for potential innovation or commercialisation opportunities which show demonstrable success (within a year of development, for instance). The funding can be used to further develop the innovation or to strengthen the necessary connections for success. It would be valuable if this additional funding could be used beyond the end of research funding. For example, this may be used to help establish relationships with private sector partners and demonstrate commercial viability.

Recommendations for research delivery organisations

• Engage relevant industry stakeholders from research design stage to better understand the industry’s research needs and actors in the innovation ecosystem
• From early development stage, build in resources to engage with investors, the private sector and government agents to ensure both relevance and commercial opportunities for the innovation.
• Identify opportunities to leverage other funding sources to bridge the gap between research and market readiness. For example, this type of funding could be used for prototype development, market analysis, innovation incubation.

1. In Itad’s scoping report for this evaluation, we defined inclusion within this evaluation as ‘assessing how the Fund fosters a research environment that is inclusive and welcoming to all participants. This includes investigating measures taken to promote collaboration between researchers from different backgrounds and countries.’ Inclusive innovation integrates these principles and actions either into the process of innovation or into the results of the innovation itself. ↩

2. Between 2014 and 2024 ↩

3. Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam. Kazakhstan was intended to be the 18th country in the Fund (and approximately £3 million was invested in early partnership development), but arrangements could not be finalised between the UK and the government of Kazakhstan. Not all Newton Fund partner countries remain ODA eligible today, as ODA classifications and policies evolve over time. Chile left the Fund when it achieved high-income country status. ↩

4. As one of its long-term outcomes ↩

5. Also as one of its long-term outcomes ↩

6. According to the Newton Fund Theory of Change ↩