APPENDIX 15
Memorandum submitted by the Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council
INTRODUCTION
1. The BBSRC welcomes this opportunity to
contribute to the Committee's inquiry into the impact of the 1993
White Paper, Realising our Potential.In the seven years
since the publication of the White Paper, there have been significant
changes in the organisation of, delivery mechanisms for and outcomes
from publicly funded research in the UK. It is therefore timely
to consider the extent to which these changes have met the objectives
of the White Paper, and to identify where further changes may
be helpful.
2. This submission will make general observations
on the impact of the White Paper, before addressing each of the
issues identified in the letter seeking evidence, focusing in
particular on matters of relevance to the BBSRC and its academic
and user communities in the biosciences.
THE OVERALL
IMPACT OF
REALISING OUR
POTENTIAL
3. The explicit functions of publicly funded
research within the UK have broadened since the publication of
Realising our Potential. At the time of publication, it
was widely recognised that the UK produced high quality research
but lacked the skills and structures necessary to exploit the
research to its full potential. The general aims of the Paper
were therefore to improve the UK's capability to build on its
research excellence to the benefit particularly of the UK economy.
It is clear that now in many parts of the science base there is
a far greater awareness of the commercial opportunities and other
social benefits emerging from research. Significant progress has
been made in developing knowledge transfer skills within the UK
research community, and in the consequent exchange of relevant
information and expertise between the science base, industry and
other research users.
4. Within the BBSRC structural changes were
introduced to pursue the technology/knowledge transfer agenda,
and to integrate consideration of the potential for exploitation
and public good of the research funded with assessment of its
scientific excellence. Some of these are set out in further detail
below. Moreover, a new general framework for identifying and pursuing
the Council's research priorities was set out in the BBSRC
Strategic Plan, 1999-2004 The framework comprises 10 objectives
of which six are science based, but refer explicitly to exploitation,
innovation, economic sustainability or specific industrial sectors;
of the remaining objectives, one focuses in particular on training,
one on knowledge transfer, and one on public understanding.
5. While the BBSRC and other Research Councils
have been at the forefront of activities to implement policies
in the White Paper, this has not been so apparent in other sections
of government with responsibility for the science base. In particular,
the other side of the dual support mechanism, under the direction
of the Funding Councils, does not emphasise sufficiently the contributions
research should be making to the UK economy and to the quality
of life. Most significantly, in its current form, the Research
Assessment Exercise does little to encourage universities to be
proactive in commercialising their research. Furthermore the funding
formula used by the Funding Councils has tended to drive up volume,
in particular student numbers, at the expense of adequate provision
for research infrastructure.
THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE OBJECTIVES
SET OUT
IN THE
1993 WHITE PAPER
HAVE BEEN
DELIVERED.
6. Realising our Potential stated
that "it is the fundamental theme of this White Paper that
a closer partnership and better diffusion of ideas between the
science and engineering communities, industry, the financial sector
and government are needed as part of the crucial effort to improve
our national competitiveness and quality of life." An assessment
of the impact of the individual objectives must be made within
this context although, in some areas, it is too soon to make a
considered judgement.
7. At a general level, the BBSRC has worked
very effectively to secure the involvement of its research users
in the Council's decision-making processes. All its decision-making
bodies (Council, Strategy Board, Research Committees and Network
Groups) draw at least 40 per cent of their membership from industry
and other users (including government departments, consumer groups,
farming). The Council has also, with some success, encouraged
its scientific community to communicate and, where appropriate,
collaborate with users through a number of schemes and incentives.
Some of the details of initiatives and their results will be set
out below, in discussion of the impact of the specific objectives
of the White Paper.
Objective 1: The Forward Look
8. The White Paper indicated that the Forward
Look would be used to make government efforts on science and
technology more explicit and open, and specified a particular
audience: industrial and academic research communities. The document
provides a clear statement of the Government's commitment to science
and technology, and explains the role of the Office of Science
and Technology, as encapsulated in its mission statement. It also
provides ample information on the flows of funding into institutions
and areas of science, and contains a wealth of detail about the
scientific priorities of all the Research Councils and relevant
government departments. However, the 1999 edition has rather little
on how these priorities relate to an overall strategy for science
and technology. As this edition was the first to be published
for three years, and followed the Comprehensive Spending Review,
it was an opportune moment to spell out such a strategy and how
the different public funders could contribute to it. Moreover,
while the Forward Look explains current research priorities,
it is not clear that industrialists and researchers have made
use of it. The BBSRC has had very little response to its section.
Objective 2: (Technology) Foresight
9. According to the White Paper, expectations
from the Foresight exercise were three-fold: to inform government's
decisions and communities; to tap into the expertise of people
closest to emerging scientific, technological and market developments;
and to achieve a cultural change, involving better communication,
interaction and mutual understanding between the scientific community,
industry and government departments.
10. The Foresight process has been valuable
in further encouraging networking and discussion between the science
base, industry and government. There is also clear evidence of
cultural change in some areas of the science base, but the extent
to which this was driven explicitly by the Foresight programme
is uncertain. Individual Research Councils already had in place—or
were developing—mechanisms for identifying emerging priority
research areas, which considered the medium to long term. It is
reassuring that the outcomes from those activities mapped closely
on to the outcomes of the first Technology Foresight exercise.
11. A more disappointing aspect of the first
exercise was the time horizon on which it focused. One of the
main reasons why the results matched those of organisations such
as the Research Councils was that it looked to existing horizons
rather than beyond them. The BBSRC anticipates that the second
exercise will be more successful in identifying and addressing
longer-term possibilities.
Objective 3: The Council for Science and Technology
12. The BBSRC welcomes the notion of an
independent, outside body to advise the Prime Minister and the
Government on research spending priorities. However, the specific
role of the CST and the impact it has had are not obvious. It
should also be noted that the intention was to make the CST's
advice readily available. This has not been the case, and the
BBSRC would recommend that this aspect of the objective should
be fulfilled.
Objective 4: A shifting emphasis for technology
transfer schemes
13. This was a central element of the 1993
White Paper, and one in which the BBSRC has invested and continues
to invest significant effort. The Council's Business and Innovation
Unit (BIU) has a remit to encourage and catalyse exploitation
activity, monitor and evaluate performance, and introduce specific
measures to enhance knowledge transfer and to promote industrially
relevant training. Among its key areas of activity are the promotion
of the exchange of ideas between the science base and industry,
collaboration with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
and other government departments on innovation issues, and developing
BBSRC policy for schemes intended to promote academic/industrial
research collaboration (eg LINK).
14. Specific initiatives pursued by the
BBSRC in order to encourage knowledge transfer include:
— the promotion of knowledge generation
in collaboration with industry through, for example, LINK, CASE
and Industrial CASE awards;
— the encouragement of industrially
relevant training through the Integrated Graduate Development
Scheme, and support for modular courses;
— knowledge transfer through "people
transfer" using the Teaching Company Scheme and Industry
Fellowships;
— improvement in the management and
exploitation of IP in the bioscience community through a rolling
series of IP workshops and the Biotechnology Exploitation Platform
initiative;
— the development of entrepreneurial
training at the postgraduate and postdoctoral level through the
BBSRC Young Entrepreneur Scheme;
— encouragement of spinout company
formation through the Bioscience Business Plan Competition, and
provision of bioincubator facilities at several BBSRC institutes,
with access to seedcorn funds. The first of these was particularly
successful, with 120 research groups registering an interest;
16 were selected to develop detailed business plans, several of
which have since attracted further venture capital and seedcorn
funding.
15. In addition, the BIU has developed expertise
on intellectual property and is able to advise its research community
on issues relating to IP in the biosciences. This activity is
an essential part of the BBSRC's commitment to optimising the
prospects that the research and training it funds are exploited
to the economic benefit of the UK.
16. These activities have resulted in a
growing awareness within the biosciences research community of
the needs of industrial users and a measurable increase in the
community's commitment to the exploitation of their results. Particularly
within the BBSRC-sponsored institutes, whose activities in knowledge
transfer are subject to a rigorous assessment, the attached figures
show upward trends since 1995 in industrial consultancies, IP
held and exploitation income generated. (See attached charts)[12].
The BBSRC is also developing procedures to encourage key bioscience
departments in universities, by seeking exploitation data from
them on an annual basis.
Objective 5: Access for SMEs
17. The BBSRC is conscious of the vital
role played by SMEs in developing new technologies, particularly
in the biosciences. The Council is equally aware of the specific
difficulties faced by SMEs in becoming involved in Research Council
schemes. As a result the Council invests resources in identifying
appropriate SMEs, and encouraging them to take part in BBSRC's
decision making procedures and helping them to take advantage
of existing opportunities. Now a significant number of SMEs participate
in the LINK and Industrial CASE schemes, and a growing number
of representatives sit on BBSRC's Research Committees and Network
Groups. The Council also encourages the creation of spinout companies
through, for example, its Bioscience Business Plan Competition
referred to earlier. In addition, the Council has encouraged its
institutes to be proactive in commercialising their research and
already has in place many of the measures recommended in the Baker
Report. There are already a number of examples of spinout companies
and three of the institutes have established bioincubators, with
associated seedcorn funds, to nurture start-ups. The Babraham
and Roslin Institutes are also establishing bioscience parks for
more established bioscience companies.
Objective 6: Reorganisation of the Councils
18. The formation of the new Councils with
their specific remits to underpin the research needs of their
user communities has led to a change in outlook. This is particularly
so in the case of the BBSRC, because of the huge growth in the
potential to exploit research in the biosciences. The creation
of the BBSRC brought together for the first time funding for all
UK non-medical life sciences, providing the opportunity to build
a national strategy for research underpinning a vitally important
and growing industrial sector. The BBSRC has made significant
progress in developing this role, as set out in the Strategic
Plan.
19. Bringing together the previously separate
elements of the biosciences from the old AFRC and SERC created
new interfaces with the physical, engineering, medical and environmental
sciences. The BBSRC has worked consistently to design mechanisms
which work effectively at these interfaces. The use of a joint
committee (with the EPSRC) for biomolecular sciences has been
particularly successful, and recent joint working with the NERC
on research into gene flow, and with the MRC on the Tissue Engineering
Research Centre are proving effective. There are, however, a number
of areas at the interfaces between the BBSRC and the EPSRC where
effective co-ordination needs to be further developed.
Objective 7: Roles of the OST and the DGRC
20. The initial formation of the OST, with
the aim of bringing together cross-departmental responsibilities
for science and specific responsibilities for the Research Councils
and their part of the science base, was welcome in principle.
It should have given a single focus for the consideration of publicly
funded research and the development of national science policy.
However, in practice the aims have not been achieved: the two
main remits of the OST are not well integrated, perhaps because
it is not feasible for both functions to be fully integrated.
The roles of the Chief Scientific Adviser must be to advise the
Prime Minister and government on the big issues in science (for
example BSE, genetic modification), and to influence the research
agenda across all relevant government departments. It is difficult
for these functions to be accomplished from within one of those
relevant departments. Ideally, the CSA and the CSA's office should
have a central and independent location within Whitehall. Furthermore,
given the importance of science to an advanced economy, there
are grounds for reconsidering the CSA reporting through a Minister
for Science of Cabinet rank.
21. The post of Director General the Research
Councils (DGRC), with responsibility for the Science Vote and
the Research Councils, is not well positioned within the DTI.
The continuation of a ring-fenced Science Budget and comparability
of influence of all relevant government departments on that Budget,
would be more straight forward if the DGRC, and the associated
executive, were positioned outwith any of those departments, as
was the case when the OST was part of the Office of Public Service
and Science. The BBSRC would also take this opportunity to reaffirm
its commitment to the Haldane principle of an arm's length relationship
between government and the decision-making processes of the Research
Councils, whilst acknowledging that some funding needs occasionally
to be held centrally at OST to cover major, cross-Council initiatives.
Objective 13: Public understanding of science
22. The campaign to improve the public understanding
of science launched by the White Paper was timely and had an obvious
and welcome impact. The volume of activity in this domain has
been enormous, including: the growth of Science Week, the development
of the Edinburgh Science Festival, the British Association's annual
meeting, and the growth of lottery-funded science-based facilities
(eg Techniquest, the Manchester Museum). Following its successful
Consensus Conference on plant biotechnology held in 1994, the
BBSRC has organised a number of public discussion meetings, and
developed interactive displays, seeking feedback on scientific
issues directly from the public. Researchers funded by the Council
are now required to devote time to issues of public understanding
and awareness and the BBSRC provides media training for scientists
to support them in this activity. The BBSRC has also appointed
an Expert Group to advise Council on identifying and handling
bioscience issues which may be of concern to the general public.
In common with the other Research Councils, the BBSRC has developed
an extensive and very successful schools programme. The Council
has also built important links with the Women's Institute, and
has a significant presence at the Royal Show and other high-profile
public events.
23. The rapid development of the World Wide
Web is also very significant for increasing public awareness and
understanding of science. In view of the potential of the web
for providing up-to-date, well-researched information, including
learning materials for schools, the BBSRC is currently redeveloping
its website. The Council plans to use the website for public consultation
including, in due course, using this medium for public discussion
of its planned research initiatives. The BBSRC is also contributing
to the Funding Council led project HERO, the development of a
web portal as a showcase for UK universities and research. This
is aimed at a variety of audiences including the general public.
Other objectives
24. Although the Committee's call for evidence
does not specifically refer to the other principal objectives
in Realising our Potential, we would make the following
comments on them.
Obective 8: Maintaining the dual support system
with clearer mechanisms for co-ordination between OST and DfEE
25. The BBSRC strongly endorses the maintenance
of the dual support mechanism, but would question the effectiveness
of co-ordination between the OST and the DfEE. At the level of
the Research Councils and the Funding Councils, while it has been
possible for the BBSRC to build effective working relations with
the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, whereby the BBSRC
has been consulted, for example, over the allocation of research
infrastructure funds within Wales, relations with the Higher Education
Funding Council for England have not been as effective.
Objective 9: Maintaining Rothschild customer-contractor
principle and pursuing prior options
26. The focus of this objective was on government
departments and government research establishments. From the point
of view of the BBSRC, the Council would not welcome an extended
programme of scrutinies of its sponsored institutes, given the
comparatively recent conclusion that there is a clear public need
for these institutes. We would also remind the Committee of the
difficulties faced by the Research Councils when Government Departments
withdraw funding from research institutes at short notice. This
was emphasised in the recent Committee report on the Forward
Look, which criticised MAFF's use of the Rothschild money.
Objective 10: Drawing together cross-Departmental
S & T, ensuring value for money
27. Following the White Paper, in common
with the other Research Councils, the BBSRC entered into discussions
with cognate government departments and agencies about formal
liaison arrangements. It currently has Concordats with six (DTI,
MAFF, DETR, the Health Departments, SERAD and the Environment
Agency), and a Memorandum of Understanding with the Welsh Assembly.
In some cases these have led to improved liaison and co-ordination
of research programmes, as have some other cross-departmental
fora (eg the various research funders' groups). It is always,
however, important to guard against these becoming little more
than "talking shops".
Objective 11: Improving co-ordination across European
and international S & T programmes
28. BBSRC has actively sought to build international
linkages where these benefit the UK science base, working with
OST, the FCO, British Council and other bodies. BBSRC was proactive
in contributing to negotiations on the European Union's Framework
Programme 5 (FP5) and alerting the community to the funding opportunities,
and will play a similar role in input to FP6. BBSRC has actively
developed links with its sister organisations in France, Netherlands,
Japan, China, Korea, USA, and Canada. Collaboration between scientists
worldwide is encouraged where this meshes with BBSRC priorities.
It is important that a more co-ordinated approach is developed,
by OST and the FCO, taking input from the Research Councils, to
address international SET issues, both to add value to the UK
science base and to use SET as a vehicle to promote UK interests
overseas.
Objective 12: Postgraduate training
29. In the light of the White Paper, the
BBSRC introduced the Research Masters (MRes) course, which has
been broadly successful. The BBSRC has funded courses at nine
universities for the last five years. About two-thirds of students
go on to pursue PhD courses, and the feedback from students has
been positive. It is, however, still too soon to assess the impact
of the MRes on the quality of PhD students (eg in terms of readiness
for the course and submission rates). In addition, in the spirit
specifically of the White Paper, several other initiatives in
training have been taken, including those listed in paragraph
14.
ARE THE
THEMES STILL
APPROPRIATE?
30. The majority of the objectives and themes
of the 1993 White Paper are clearly still appropriate, particularly
the major theme of exploiting the science base to the benefit
of the UK economy and for the well being of the population. As
set out above, a great deal has been achieved in encouraging and
improving the dialogue between researchers and research users.
Initiatives in this area must be maintained and enhanced if the
momentum is not to be lost.
31. Bioscience industries continue to demand
that the UK maintains a world lead in basic bioscience research.
The BBSRC continues to strive towards this goal by encouraging
high quality research proposals across its remit, whilst particularly
seeking proposals in areas of emerging scientific opportunity
and to generate knowledge in collaboration with industry.
32. Some of the specific mechanisms suggested
in Realising our Potential may not have been as effective
as anticipated, for example, the use of the Forward Look
to inform academic and industrial researchers, and the structures
envisaged for cross-departmental co-ordination. However, the needs
for mechanisms to deliver the objectives of communicating national
science priorities to specific groups, and of improving cross-departmental
co-ordination are still obvious.
CULTURE CHANGES?
33. Within the BBSRC's research communities,
there have been clear changes. The evidence for these is set out
above (see paragraphs 14, 16, 17 and 22). BBSRC has been particularly
successful in encouraging its sponsored institutes to engage with
the knowledge transfer agenda, and is currently working with its
principal university departments (ie those which receive the greatest
level of funding) to follow a similar route.
AIMS AND
FEATURES OF
A MODERN
STRATEGY FOR
SET
34. The BBSRC's views on the plans set out
in the Government's recent consultation exercise were provided
in the Council's response. While the BBSRC endorses the broad
policy thrust of these plans, it is clear that the ability of
the UK science base to drive forward the knowledge based economy
and society envisaged depends on meeting a number of key needs.
These include:
— providing resources to ensure the
UK remains internationally competitive in scientific research.
This may involve funding priority areas underpinning economic
development and enhancement of quality of life, whilst recognising
that the benefits of research cannot be predicted at the outset,
and therefore there is a need to sustain a broad base of fundamental
research;
— keeping the physical infrastructure
for the science base up to the highest international standards
in key research centres in universities and research institutes;
— ensuring that government-supported
knowledge transfer schemes are effective and that resources are
available for early stage development of ideas generated from
the research base;
— ensuring that the teaching of science
subjects in schools is not undermined by poor facilities or poor
quality teaching. Good salaries for secondary school teachers
must be available;
— raising PhD stipends to a level that
will attract high flyers;
— making research careers more attractive
by reducing the incidence of short-term contract employment in
the early stages of a career, and increasing the level of early
career remuneration;
— ensuring that public debate about
science is well informed, and that increased weight is placed
on assessing the views of the public before establishing research
priorities.
12 Not printed. Back
| 
