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:
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
| 
