Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Wellcome Trust

INTRODUCTION

  The Wellcome Trust ("the Trust") is the largest charitable non-governmental funder of biomedical research in the world, currently spending approximately £300 million pa on research. The Trust's acknowledgements in UK biomedical research papers rose from six per cent to 10 per cent between 1988 and 1995.

  The Trust's objectives are:

        to fund biomedical research

        to improve the health and welfare of mankind

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

  It is well known that the UK has a strong track record in scientific research, particularly in the field of biomedicine. Much of this valuable research is conducted within universities or Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and its excellent quality has been put under threat due to a decline in "real term" funding from the Higher Education Funding Councils over the past decade. This decline, which has been a consequence of previous changes in the "dual support" system, has resulted in a decline in the research infrastructure of UK universities. Since 1992, Research Councils have made a fixed contribution (currently 46 per cent) of the direct staff costs on grants towards overheads, but this has not been enough to offset the reduced funding available through the HEFCs for equipment and other infrastructure costs[1]. In recent years a number of independent reports have expressed concern about the state of the university research infrastructure,[2] [3], [4], and in its evidence to the Dearing Committee the Trust re-iterated the importance of scientific research for the UK economy.

  The Trust spends 95 per cent of its funds in the UK, although its terms of reference allow it to fund anywhere in the world. In its evidence to the Dearing Committee the Trust stated that its continued support for UK research would be dependent on a positive partnership with a Government that was prepared to demonstrate its commitment to the science base by providing an adequately funded basic infrastructure, upon which others could build. In its dealings with other countries, the Trust's general policy is to gain leverage when investing large sums of money. Funding initiatives in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have secured matching funding from their respective governments, and this has not previously been the case within the UK. It is not the Trust's responsibility, as an independent charity, to make good deficits in public funding.

  In its final report, the Dearing Committee stated that ". . . public expenditure on research in higher education has hardly risen over the past decade, and internationally, expenditure on research in the UK compares unfavourably with competitor countries. The lack of increased investment by Government in research is surprising over a decade when the opportunities for discovery and technological progress have continued to expand rapidly and global competition has increased". The report also highlighted the effect that poor investment has had on the research infrastructure and the implications of this, in particular for the future of fast-moving fields such as biomedicine.

  This (Science and Technology) Committee's own report on the Implications of the Dearing report for the Structure and Funding of University Research repeated evidence that the Trust's witnesses had given regarding its contribution to university research infrastructure (at the time this amounted to £123 million for building and £90 million for equipment). The Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) stated that the charities' contribution to infrastructure amounted to about 17 per cent of their total funding for research. The Committee stated that "while we do not wish to denigrate the importance of such investment, or to discourage it, we believe that it is primarily the responsibility of Government to fund basic research infrastructure and that research charities should see fully funding the research they commission as their first priority".

  Also in the above-mentioned report, one of the Committee's conclusions was that "we are convinced that there is still a real and urgent need for the Government to provide additional resources to resolve the immediate crisis in research infrastructure in the UK's universities. We recommend that this issue be treated with the utmost priority in the Comprehensive Spending Review. We further recommend that the Government allocate a total of between £410 and £430 million of new money, earmarked for research infrastructure, over the next three public expenditure rounds".

THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW AND JIF

  In view of the evidence presented above, mindful of the urgent need to reverse the fortunes of the university research community and recognising the significance of the Comprehensive Spending Review's 3-year structure for the security of universities, the Trust approached the Government to see whether there was the possibility of a one-off funding partnership with them, to redress the imbalance in funding. The outcome of discussions with the Government along these lines was the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF), which the Trust has supported for three main reasons:—

    —  because of the willingness of the Government to take science seriously and its obvious acknowledgement of the recommendations of this committee in its report on the implications of the Dearing report.

    —  because of the Trust's desire to continue supporting the best biomedical science in the world, and acknowledging the fact that much of the expertise is found within the UK, the Trust has an interest in ensuring that the university research infrastructure is of a high enough quality to support excellent service.

    —  because of the positive relationship with the Government over the University Challenge Fund (announced in June 1998), a competitive seed venture capital fund which aims to "unlock the commercial potential and innovation of British universities by enabling them to increase the number of research projects taken from the laboratory to the marketplace".

  The Trust has always been willing to consider applications for grants for major pieces of research equipment and for the building or refurbishment of new laboratories or research buildings. Previously the larger applications would have been considered by the Trust's Equipment Working Party and then latterly through the Infrastructure Panel. In addition, the Trust had previously awarded capital grants for the erection or renovation of buildings. As a result of the withdrawal of funds for major infrastructure purposes by the previous government in November 1995, the Trust felt obliged to put a moratorium on further commitments of this type, but was active in attempts to persuade Government to reverse its decision. It should be noted that what the Trust has never condoned is the funding of overheads, which it has always considered to fall within the remit and responsibility of the Government.

  The Trust's revision of policy on the issue of infrastructure funding is a direct result of the present Government's willingness to rectify historical underspending in this area. However, it remains the Government's responsibility in the long-term to provide adequate funds for the upkeep of those facilities which are brought up to standard by the JIF. The Comprehensive Spending Review is a three-year plan and therefore the JIF is a three-year agreement between the Trust and the Government. It is a one-off goodwill gesture to ensure that the science base is enhanced, past declines in funding are rectified and the Trust is assured of an excellent working environment for its funded researchers and research groups.

  The Trust welcomes the support of the Government for UK science and is pleased to be able to contribute in this way. It should be noted at this point that the Trust's £300 million contribution to the JIF is additional money to its annual spend (currently approximately £300 million).

THE CSR, EDUCATION AND HEALTH

  In addition to the Joint Infrastructure Fund, the Treasury has additionally agreed to provide a further sum of £400 million to the Office of Science and Technology/DTI baseline funding (ie extra funding for the Research Councils) over the next three years. Any research funding provided by this additional money will be extra to any distributed via the JIF. The Trust has also agreed to provide a further £100 million for the funding of a new third-generation synchrotron, bringing the total additions from the joint action by the Trust and the Government for the UK science research base to £1.1 billion over the next three years.

  In addition to prioritising university research as an area with an urgent need for additional funding, the Comprehensive Spending Review continued its positive theme with the extra £19 billion for education over the next three years, including an extra £300 million available for universities through the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs). The National Health Service (NHS) will receive an extra £21 billion over three years, with the aim of modernising and improving the nation's healthcare. It is not yet known how this increased funding will impact on the resources available for clinical R&D within the NHS.

  The Trust therefore welcomes the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review for its support of the UK's science base, its commitment to improving the nation's education system (particularly Higher Education) and healthcare system, and its acknowledgement, through the JIF, of the importance of the university research environment.

ABOUT THE JOINT INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

  The Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) scheme covers research infrastructure in as broad a sense as possible, i.e. new building, refurbishment of existing buildings and facilities, new equipment (general use laboratory equipment, development of facilities for cross-departmental use, state of the art equipment), technology development, and upgrades to existing equipment. Staff to run/manage equipment may be requested, as may equipment related service contracts and running costs, but project related costs may not be requested.

  Covered by the scheme are all areas of science and engineering encompassed by the remits of the Wellcome Trust and the UK Government funded Research Councils. The proportionate split of £600 million between the life sciences and physical sciences will depend on the nature and quality of the proposals received; there is no pre-set quota for any discipline. However, the Trust's £300 million can only be spent on research in the biosciences, according to its charitable remit and funding policies.

  Those institutions eligible to apply to the JIF are all universities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are associate members of the CVCP and receive funding from the Higher Education Funding Councils. Research laboratories outside the university sector are not eligible, although Research Council Units, research council funded External Scientific Groups and fellows "embedded" in Universities are eligible to apply in association with the University.

  The number of projects funded by the JIF will depend upon the nature of the requests submitted and is therefore extremely difficult to assess at this stage. The minimum bid allowed under the JIF is £750,000, although awards may be made below this level. There is no pre-set upper limit for the cost of an award, but all proposals must be science led and the levels requested justified by the scale and quality of science which will benefit from the new/improved facilities.

  In addition to its scientific merit, each individual proposal for a new building, laboratory, piece of equipment or refurbishment will be expected to show that the university has considered and provided for the financial implications of these large awards (eg running costs for buildings, staffing costs). The Trust will be making use of expert advisers on building issues, technical issues on equipment, legal matters, etc, to ensure that each proposal is viable, adequately costed and achievable within a reasonable time and to budget. Planning permission will need to be obtained before any application is considered.

  All applications for the JIF in the biosciences will be handled by a team at the Wellcome Trust. These will include applications that fall within the remits of the BBSRC and the MRC as well as applications covering chemistry related to biosciences which fall within the remit of the NERC. The team at the Trust also includes staff seconded from the Research Councils. All other areas of science, including the remainder of chemistry, will be handled via the relevant Research Councils, ie EPSRC, ESRC, NERC and PPARC. The final funding decision will be made by the Joint Executive Committee which comprises the Director General of the Research Councils (Chairman) and the Director of the Wellcome Trust together with nominees from the Trust and the Funding and Research Councils. Observers from the Higher Education Funding Councils will also attend. Recommendations for funding will be made to this committee by the International Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) and its equivalent in the non-biological sciences. The ISAB will be chaired by an independent scientist drawn from outside the UK, and members of the Board (which will be composed of international and UK individuals in a ration of 60:40) are being chosen to cover the full biomedical and biological remit of the fund.

ABOUT THE SYNCHROTRON

  As part of the Joint Infrastructure Fund, the Trust has committed an additional £100 million to the UK's proposed new synchrotron facility, bringing its total pledge to £110 million. The UK's existing facility is the Synchrotron Radiation Source at Daresbury, which is nearing obsolescence.

  Synchrotrons are used by a diverse range of researchers, including structural biologists, materials scientists and other physical scientists, allowing analysis of molecular structures at atomic detail. As genome sequencing begins to identify new genes, a new synchrotron facility is a vital resource to allow the interpretation of this novel data.

  The Wellcome Trust is currently conducting a worldwide consultation exercise with a variety of users and operators of existing synchrotrons, to help decide where the new facility should be built and the basis on which beam-line allocation should operate.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ISSUES OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

  The Dearing Committee, as well as organisations giving evidence to the Committee, have pointed to the lack of transparency in how the "overhead" element of research funding is calculated or used. The Wellcome Trust has made clear that, whilst it is happy to fully fund the research costs of its university awards, it will not meet the general running costs or general infrastructure of the host institution. Most discussion of "overheads" appears to cover these running costs rather than research costs—but it has been hard to access the information from universities. We therefore welcomed the government's proposal to identify specific costs, and the Trust's Director, Dr Mike Dexter, who attends OST's Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee which is overseeing this review, will be involved in this initiative.

20 October 1998


1  Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (1997) Striking a Balance: The Future of Research "Dual Support" in Higher Education. Back

2  PRISM (1995) Equipping UK universities: An evaluation of the Wellcome Trust's equipment scheme. Back

3  PREST (1996) Survey of Research Equipment in United Kingdom Universities. Back

4  NAPAG (1996) Research Capability of the University System. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 1 December 1998