* At the V&A the conclusion of the debate on China and Creativity was that the creative industries can only really thrive in a free society.

* At the National Portrait Gallery the participants agreed that sport and arts could live together and the benefit of the London 2012 Olympics should be a more active population.

* At Urbis in Manchester the panel concluded that museums matter when they give people meaningful experiences, helping them to explore their place in the world or make sense of contemporary issues.

* Accelerated carbonation was voted the best innovation for the future at the Dana Centre debate at the Science Museum.

*Design can save lives in the health service and elsewhere, but we need to encourage innovative designers more, said the panel and audience at the Wellcome Collection.

Ylva French and Zoe Nasatyr sum up the debates:

Victoria and Albert Museum: China and the Creative Industries

A discussion on China and the future of the creative industries took place on Friday May 9. It was linked to the V&A exhibition China Design Now and included political commentator Will Hutton, author of The Writing on the Wall: China and the West in the 21st Century, Philip Dodd, Chair of Made in China and C.J. Lim of Studio 8 Architects Ltd and was chaired by Dr Kerry Brown, Associate Fellow, Chatham House.

This topical debate in the V&A Lecture Theatre focused on whether creativity and the creative industries are thriving in China as part of its economic growth. Will Hutton’s view was that it could not without a truly free public realm, free of censorship and in fact creative industries represented only 1 per cent of GDP.

Philip Dodd on the other hand felt that we should look in less traditional areas to see the real growth in creativity, eg entertainment filling the screens of mobiles; and he described the growth of artists’ quarters in Beijing. CJ Lim illustrated his argument from commissions is company had competed for in China, a museum, a memorial park and an eco-city. The government responded to creativity.

Dr Brown introduced the question of political and economic sustainability. Will Hutton mentioned China’s history in developing early technologies. Why had these not taken off? Why had Venice as a city state been so successful? The answer again was freedom of the public realm where ideas could be tested. CJ Lim raised the question of sustainability in terms of the building of modern cities across farmland, where farmers no longer had a role. It was also stated that social and traditional values must be sustained. Philip Dodd felt that the Chinese will find their own level of creativity.

The question of pirating and respecting intellectual property rights was also debated. Will Hutton said there was no judiciary system in China to support the maintenance of intellectual property rights but it must happen if creative industries are to grow. Philip Dodd agreed that there was a history of “pirating” in China. However, the arrival of digitising and the internet had started the disintegration of intellectual property, so it was a changing scenario. CJ Lim said there was a question mark over the Government’s own commitment to rights.

Dr Brown thanked the participants for their participation and recommended the China Now exhibition at the V&A for further study.

National Portrait Gallery; Sports and Art – a Clash of Culture

On Thursday 15 May 2008 Sports and Art were debated at the NPG by a well qualified panel, led by by Sandy Nairne, Director of the National Portrait Gallery, with speakers Keith Khan, Artist Executive at the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, former England football team manager, Graham Taylor and writer and broadcaster Munira Mirza, just appointed Director of Policy, Arts, Culture and the Creative Industries for the Mayor of London.

Sandy Nairne welcomed the speakers and the audience and outlined his own view on the similarities between art and sports which he felt outweighed the differences. This was a very special year for culture and sports with the cultural Olympiad getting under way after the Beijing handover in August.

Keith Kahn outlined his views; culture has to be justified within a sporting organisation especially when they are competing for funding. Sport can help to widen the understanding of culture. Munira Mirza said that she was not interested in sports – but sports got all the glory and the money. However, there were many links, both sportspeople and artists spend years honing their skills, yet the delivery seems “natural”, effortless and pointless – an end in itself. “We don’t recognise this preparation and excellence of skills enough; funding for sports and arts is often given for social reasons.”

Graham Taylor turned to football when leaving grammar school and had not really focused on anything else until now, except for the occasional trip to the theatre. The difference between a play and a football match, he said, is that in the latter you know all the moves but not the sequence of events or outcome. Football is part of UK culture in its widest sense.

This last sentiment was echoed by the first questioner from Brazil where the two are inexorably linked. The panel agreed and said that London 2012 was an opportunity to show off UK culture as a whole to the world. The audience was also concerned about funding, particularly diverting lottery funding to the Olympics. The question of high earning footballers versus “starving” artists was discussed. Graham Taylor felt that footballers deserved their share of the huge sums earned by the top clubs. Sandy Nairne highlighted some well paid artists – not all of them dead!

What can London learn from the Manchester Commonwealth Games? Keith Kahn stressed the importance of investing in well trained volunteers from a wide range of backgrounds. Graham Taylor said that the Olympics was too London-centric; the new Wembley should have been recreated in Birmingham. What about the legacy? There was no consensus on this other than it should benefit many communities and a more active population. Munira Murza said that the best people to encourage budding talents were often the parents. We should find a way of encouraging them.

Urbis, Manchester: Do Museums Matter?

Professor Jennifer Latto, Chair of the HLF North West Committee, was in the chair at Urbis on May 16 and she invited panel members to address the question - what makes museums relevant today?

Vaughan Allen, Chief Executive of Urbis, said that his organisation should not be thought of as a museum, associated with the “indifferent nostalgia” that most people link with museums. He argued that museums do not matter as much as they used to, or as much as they should. Museums used to be sources of information, but in the age of the internet, are they still useful? He said that school visits are in danger of becoming more about museums reaching visitor targets, rather than education, and that museums are competing with other leisure activities such as zoos and theme parks.

Artist Lubaina Himid argued that museums matter because they can do extraordinary things through the resonance, connections and personal interactions they can generate. She gave an example of how visitors engaged with an installation she was commissioned to do at the Leprosy Museum in Bergen. Lubaina raised concerns about political agendas around diversity that can limit the impact museums have on community groups.

Nick Merriman, Director of Manchester Museum, argued that museums matter because they can help people understand themselves and others, and explore their place in the world. He sited two examples of projects at Manchester Museum: In Touch, which aims to transform the Museum’s volunteer base and the lives of excluded local people through providing training opportunities; and Our City, a new gallery opening in 2009 that will tell the story of objects in the Museum in relation to Manchester and its citizens. Nick concluded that collections can be windows into ideas and museums can provide safe spaces in which to explore contemporary issues.

David Wilson, Director of the Wordsworth Trust, noted that museums remind us of ideas and history. He argued that innovation and risk-taking is not a requirement of museums because what they offer is unique in terms of the research and exhibitions that shed new light on ideas and in the way that the past can inform the present and future. He agreed that museums compete with other leisure activities, so they need to be welcoming and to project an understanding of collections to a wide range of audiences.

Questions from the audience explored the changing role of the curator. The panel agreed that curators need to share their knowledge and information while being clear about their point of reference. Curators need to be open to other interpretations of collections and be bolder and challenge thinking. The public value of museums and the role of advocacy was also raised – local authorities can be reluctant to fund museums, yet there is public outcry at the suggestion of closing a museum.

The panel concluded that museums matter when they give people meaningful experiences and when they take people out of themselves, help them to explore their place in the world or make sense of contemporary issues.

Dana Centre, London: Save The Planet

On 22nd May the Dana Centre audience was invited to “Save the Planet” by voting for one of three innovations to reduce carbon emissions.

Three entrepreneurs presented their innovations and an expert panel gave their views on the ideas. Experts present were Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum; Katherine Mathieson, Head of Future Innovators at NESTA, who looks at the skills needed by entrepreneurs; and Alex Bakir of investment fund Climate Change Capital. The three innovations were:

1. Accelerated Carbonation, Paula Carey, Director, Carbon8 Systems Ltd
This process rapidly treats industrial waste that is difficult and expensive to dispose of and contaminated soil, using and capturing carbon dioxide to produce construction materials or waste that can be disposed of at reduced cost. Panel comments:

* Chris Rapley rated this innovation highly. He said that it is practical, can be scaled up and has good side benefits in reducing carbon and producing a marketable product.

* Katherine Mathieson commented on the accomplished presentation and use of a demonstration with everyday objects to show carbon dioxide being absorbed by ash.

* Alex Bakir was “very excited” by this simple process, which deals with hazardous waste rapidly, reduces carbon emissions and landfill costs and produces a saleable product.

2. Leaf Log, Peter Morrison, Director, BioFuels International Ltd
The Leaf Log is made from leaves collected in street cleaning which would normally be sent to landfill, where they generate methane. The log is made from 70% leaves and 30% wax, making it 70% carbon neutral. The logs, which sell for around £2 each, can be burned in an open fire or wood-burning or multi-fuel stove and last for up to 2 hours. Panel comments:

* Chris Rapley said that avoiding landfill was positive and the product offers small actions to reduce carbon emissions to match the small actions that generate them. He said that the energy cost to produce the logs and seasonable viability needed to be explored further.

* Katherine Mathieson observed that Peter Morrison had wanted to be an entrepreneur since he was a child and that belief in success and working with people with complementary skills can be important to succeeding as an entrepreneur.

* Alex Bakir was concerned about the scalability of the product and a potentially limited market. Production is restricted to temperate zones with deciduous trees, but wood burning is limited in those areas.

3. Carbon Hero, Andreas Zachariah, Director, Carbon Hero
Carbon Hero uses existing technologies, including mobile phones and GPS, to calculate automatically an individual’s Travel Carbon Footprint, without compromising privacy. It identifies and evaluates different forms of transport used and produces information that can be analysed by computer and collated, to help identify actions to reduce travel carbon footprint. Panel comments:

* Chris Rapley agreed that if you can’t measure travel carbon footprint it is difficult to do anything to reduce it. He thought that the concept was interesting, but wondered if it would be taken up.

* Katherine Mathieson noted that Andreas Zachariah was approachable and comfortable talking to people at general and technical levels - useful skills for an entrepreneur.

* Alex Bakir thought that Carbon Hero would work well if there were carbon quotas in place so that people or organisations had an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Corporations might be interested now, but he thought that it would sell to individuals only in 5-10 years.

Following questions from the audience and a one-minute summary of their products by the entrepreneurs, a vote was taken on the best innovation. 53 votes were cast: 71% voted for Accelerated Carbonation, 13% for Leaf Log and 15% for Carbon Hero.

Wellcome Collection, London; - Can Design Save Your Life?

On Thursday May 29, Can Design Save Your Life? at the Wellcome Collection, London, (organised with the Art Fund) explored how innovations in design can challenge and improve the world of medicine.

The panel, chaired by journalist and curator Henrietta Thompson, included Ken Arnold, Head of Public Programmes at the Wellcome Trust, rising star designer Sally Halls; Sunand Prasad, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects and Senior Partner at architecture firm, Penoyre and Prasad, and Jim Dawton, Director of Pearson Matthews, known for innovation in healthcare products.

Each of the panel members gave a short introduction. Ken Arnold talked about working with designers in creating the Wellcome Collection and its individual exhibitions. Each designer had a very specific role and did not necessarily take an overall view.

Jim Dawton spoke about a particular development – Persona – originally designed as a contraceptive device as it measures hormone levels but in fact now used as a fertility aid.

Sally Hall spoke about the crash trolley used to resuscitate patients in hospital. Her team had redesigned this so that each item had a specific slot in the trolley; it was easy to find items and after the incident it could easily be restocked. This was now on trial.

Sunand Prasad talked about the design of a care home which had incorporated aspects familiar to the elderly being moved there; this had an immediate impact on survival rates.

In the questions, Sunand raised the lack of spending on design in new hospitals and the lack of interest among architects to tackle this area. Ken reiterated that design is often seen as an add-on rather than a problem solver. Henrietta had worked on an exhibition of hearing aids which illustrated how good design increased takeup, although it was difficult to measure success in this area.

Jim agreed with the point that designers had segregated their jobs unnecessarily and could work more holistically. One of the problems in working with care homes and hospitals was that the “consumer” was not the client.