It goes without saying that I ought to be writing mainly about York and Yorkshire-based activities in these reports. At least, that's what the editor tells me.

So I am chancing my arm this week by focusing on those two UK hotbeds of science and technology, Oxford and Cambridge.

We all recognise both of these ancient university cities as the drivers of two of the UK's largest and most active science and technology (S&T) based clusters and so it was with special enthusiasm and anticipation that I attended a rather different dinner in Oxford last week.

The occasion was a live, video-linked, debate between Oxford and Cambridge on the question of "which intellectual power house presents the best opportunities for technology entrepreneurs"?

The event was another interesting idea of sponsors, Grant Thornton, with a proposer and seconder respectively in Trinity College, Oxford, and Queen's College, Cambridge, as well as six jurors at each venue to vote at the end of the debate. My interest, of course, was in the lessons that might be learned by York.

Gillian Pearson, chief executive of the Oxford Trust, started by referring to the critical mass already achieved by Oxford with its 1,400 S&T based companies employing 30,000 staff and the presence of more PhDs than anywhere else in Europe.

Dr Peter Wrighton-Smith, chief executive of Oxford Immunotec Ltd, supported Gillian by highlighting the critical size of the job pool in Oxford and referring to the need for "creative destruction" to provide for the possibility of renewal.

John Snyder, head of the business creation unit at the new Cambridge Entrepreneurship Centre and with a formidable track-record in supporting early-stage S&T businesses, led the Cambridge pitch, reeling off a series of impressive achievements ranging from number of Nobel prize-winners to FTSE-listed companies.

He stressed the importance of the community and not just the university, commenting that the community was so dense (sic) that entrepreneurs tripped over each other.

Dr Andy Richards, another serial biotechnology entrepreneur and business angel wound up in impressive style for Cambridge.

He said that most S&T businesses do not spin out directly from the university and that a healthy cluster was a low risk place to take high risks and is where serial entrepreneurs thrive.

He ended by stating that "the UK is not the prize to play for" and, in referring to global clusters, that "Oxford and Cambridge need to be one network and compete together". Stirring and controversial stuff!

Here in York, we are well aware of many of the issues raised in the debate and, while behind both Oxford and Cambridge in the strength of our economic development in the S&T sector, we already have real core strength and pipeline activities that are likely to serve us well in the coming years.

A mega-issue, as highlighted by Dr Richards, is to create the critical mass in the UK to compete with other global clusters and not, as so often in the past, to over-concentrate on competing among ourselves.

This must mean looking for productive partnerships, such as already provided by the White Rose Consortium of Sheffield, Leeds and York Universities as well as future opportunities such as the Northern Way and the Science Cities initiatives.

The point about the integrated community is also well made and one that York already works hard on. It is indicative that such a stimulating event should be organised by an active member of the Professional Service Community in Oxford and Cambridge and encouraging that our own York Professional Initiative increasingly takes on such a role in York. Oh - and the result of the debate? Nine votes to Cambridge, two to Oxford, and one juryman who could not make his mind up. And, no, that wasn't me.

Updated: 10:33 Wednesday, October 05, 2005