Select Committee on Science and Technology Thirteenth Report

8 UK Research Capacity

Erosion of UK research capacity

171. UK scientists and engineers working in international development have, by and large, an excellent reputation. Dr Grant Singleton from Australia's national science agency, CSIRO, told us that they "continually find that UK scientists in the agricultural and natural resource management sectors are held in very high regard by government officials, scientists, NGOs and small-holder farmers in developing countries in South Asia and South East Asia".[331] Hubert Zandstra, Director General of the International Potato Center, also stated that the "expertise of British international staff has been crucial in the implementation of projects that advance scientific capacity in developing countries".[332]

172. Unfortunately, there is now a dwindling supply of engineering and physical science students in the UK, and many witnesses expressed concern about the lack of opportunities for graduates of development sciences subjects in the UK. Dr Robin Matthews remarked that there was "no incentive for bright graduates to choose to make a career in tropical agricultural or environmental research, as there are not opportunities within the UK awaiting them when they complete their studies".[333] Rothamsted Research also told us: "It is essential that the role of science in agriculture and poverty alleviation is highlighted if DFID are to attract the best scientists; further erosion of some disciplines will mean that the numbers of scientists in the UK will be below a critical mass".[334]

173. The University of Newcastle upon Tyne ascribed the erosion of the UK development sciences research base to the fact that: "our fees are comparatively high, and this combined with increasing reluctance by government to fund masters and doctoral training of scientists and engineers from developing countries has led to a steady decline in the numbers of students coming to the UK Universities to develop their skills […] Importantly, the steady decline in this form of education has led to us falling below the critical threshold for the viability of courses to support this form of knowledge transfer, with the subsequent loss of whole programs of study".[335] We also heard that Pakistan has recently decided to exclude the UK from the list of recipient countries for its scheme to send 800 students to study abroad for PhD studentships (with the exception of a few awards to students selected to study at the most prestigious universities), on the grounds of the "high level of fees" in the UK.[336]

174. Numerous witnesses echoed the warning of the NRI that "the UK capacity to support S&T for development has eroded dramatically and is likely to continue to do so".[337] This could have serious consequences for the ability of the UK to contribute to the international development debate. The UK Forum for Agricultural Research for Development stated that "Erosion of research capacity will lead to reduced opportunities for UK dialogue with developing countries at all levels and leverage on the international development agenda".[338] Furthermore, as NRI pointed out, "in many other countries (US, France, Holland, Germany) governments and their development agencies have recognised mechanisms of funding to ensure specialist research dedicated to international development is available and retained as part of the national S&T asset portfolio. This is seen as both adding to the effectiveness of aid policy and conferring significant benefits on the competitiveness of national S&T industry".[339] The quality and strength of UK research has been instrumental in building the reputation of the UK in international development. If it is not averted, the current erosion of the UK development sciences research base will severely undermine the ability of the UK to play its full part in international development in years to come. The Government should not sit back and watch this happen, never mind contribute to the process of erosion. This topic is discussed in more detail in paragraph 197-202.


175. Aid untying refers to the ability of other countries to compete for projects financed by donor countries. The UK is one of the few countries in the world to have untied both its aid and its research funding. DFID's decision to untie research funding is highly controversial and DFID admitted to us that although "All donors have agreed to untie their official development assistance to least-developed countries, in line with the OECD/DAC Recommendation in 2002 […] there is as yet no similar agreement to untie technical cooperation, and research is defined as 'free standing technical cooperation' and so is explicitly excluded from the untying agreement".[340] Nevertheless, DFID believes that untying of research follows the spirit of the original agreement to untie aid and has advantages to the developing world. The rationale for untying was two-fold: to enable the best people in the world to work on a particular problem, irrespective of their nationality; and to encourage other donors to follow suit. However, DFID conceded that whilst "there are no international official records on the extent to which donors untie their research aid, anecdotal evidence suggests that a large proportion of research aid remains tied".[341]

176. Sir David King, despite acknowledging the "commendable" rationale behind untying in terms of the potential benefits to developing countries, gave a highly pessimistic analysis of the likely consequences for the UK:

"DFID's untying of research may well compromise the sustainability of the UK research base operating in areas of particular relevance to the developing world, and may serve to distance DFID from the Research Councils even further. Untying research may also result in a disengagement of other potential UK players in capacity building exercises with developing countries […and…] may further undermine the UK research base in international development - in natural and social sciences—and thus our own capacity in this area. This would be contrary to global calls for global action—especially given that the UK has strong technical experience and leadership in critical development areas, e.g. agricultural R&D, biotechnology and medical research. Untying research is likely to further distance policy interests between DFID and much of the rest of Government—whose interests are predominantly UK-centric, and would reinforce the arguably artificial division between British interests (and influence) and international development interests."[342]

DFID should not have chosen to pursue a policy that the Government's Chief Scientist now believes could be so damaging, without consideration of measures that could be taken, if not by DFID then by other Government departments, to minimise the negative impact of this policy on the UK.

177. DFID told us that UK organisations were well placed to win contracts in open competition and that this was demonstrated by the fact that approximately 72% of contracts issued since the International Development Act 2002 was introduced have been won by British and British-led groups (see Table 7). However, Table 7 does not indicate the size of the contracts awarded and it is not clear how many new research contracts of a significant scale have been awarded by DFID in the two years since the International Development Act 2002 was passed. For example, we understand that few, if any, major competitive contracts for health research programmes have been awarded since 2002. In August 2004, DFID invited Expressions of Interest for organisations wishing to run Research Programme Consortia in the health sector. DFID states that the consortia will typically comprise between four and six institutions, at least three of which should be in developing countries.[343] Whilst the potential advantages of such a policy for capacity building in the South are readily apparent, this policy will also have the effect of reducing the funding going to UK research capacity even when UK institutions are successful in their bids for DFID research contracts. In view of the fact that very few other countries have opted to untie research funding and DFID is actively encouraging applications from researchers in other countries (particularly from the South), UK researchers are put at a disadvantage by DFID's adoption of the policy of untying research funding at this time. In the longer term, this could have significant repercussions for the UK science base and the willingness of researchers to work on areas of value to developing countries.

178. Indeed, the way in which DFID has implemented its policy of untying of research funding has caused significant resentment and frustration in the development sciences community. The NRI complained that "DFID uses UK research organizations often for free and with no safeguards on intellectual property issues to contribute to its research planning (note the recent DFID call for proposals for the 2005 research planning process)" with the result that "UK research institutions are effectively caught in the trap of feeling obliged to assist DFID, with no guarantee of reciprocity".[344] The NRI was also concerned that the "hands-off relationship between DFID and the UK scientific community defended in the interests of fair and open competition has removed the opportunity for the UK S&T community to guide and inform government of cutting-edge options and opportunities" and told us that "stressing competition between research providers" could "seriously impair the formation of long-term alliances between different providers reducing opportunities to build on different corporate advantages". [345],[346] Table 7: Proportion of DFID Research Projects Contracted to UK-led Groups[347]
Research Area Number of contracts % UK-ledNumber of contracts % UK-ledNumber of contracts % UK-ledNumber of contracts % UK-ledNumber of contracts % UK-led
Health 19100 12100 1191 6100 1100
Engineering 42100 5996 7095 3497 1894
Renewable Natural Resources 15287 10074 5452 7851 3354
Economics/ Social/Political Science 10100 10098 36100 3886 1485
Education 2100 23100 1190 1100 366

Source: DFID

179. We consider that DFID was rash in untying research funding without eliciting firm commitments from other countries that they would also adopt that policy over an agreed timescale. The current situation poses a threat to the sustainability of the UK development sciences research base and has therefore resulted in feelings of distress and disappointment towards DFID in the research community. Having taken this course of action, DFID must now redouble its efforts to persuade other countries to untie their research funding.

Full economic costs

180. The detrimental impact of untying is exacerbated by the fact that UK institutions have to include full economic costs in their bids due to their lack of core funding and UK Government policy. The NRI cautioned that "There is a serious threat that UK research expertise will be sidelined in favour of other European institutions core-funded by their governments, and heavily-endowed US universities. There are at present few signs that UK institutions are able to compete on a level playing field for development-linked research funds from those countries—in the case of USAID research funds they are virtually unable to compete at all".[348] Again, although there is a lack of data showing whether UK research groups have been adversely affected by these factors to date, the consensus amongst researchers is that it is just a matter of time before the impact is felt.

EU Framework Programme

181. The 4th EU Framework Programme (1994-98) established a specific technological R&D programme for "Cooperation with third countries and international organizations" (INCO).[349] Mr Benn told us that he understood that the UK "has the highest success rate in making bids" for INCO.[350] However, we heard that the lack of core funding for institutes has also impacted on the ability of UK research groups to bid for EU Framework Programmes, although this may not yet be reflected in the success rates for UK applications. Professor Haines from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told us that he had had "quite difficult experiences with the EU", and complained that it was "bureaucratic" and that establishing the required networks was "quite time-consuming".[351] Professor Maudlin, CTVM, went further, describing himself as "Battle scarred" from the process of applying for EU funding and declaring: "I would not again subject myself to applying for money from them".[352] Dr Cotton, Director of WELL, commented that it "would help if British government policy changed. Certainly, from where we sit, if we are making a serious EU application we have to look very carefully at that and we do have to treat it as something which does not recover our overheads".[353]

182. We also highlighted this issue in our Report, UK Science and Europe: Value for Money, in which we observed that the "UK Government's refusal to contribute to the indirect costs associated with Framework Programme grants compromises the already delicate finances of our universities and therefore the participation of our best researchers".[354] In the same Report, we also urged "the Government and RCUK to continue to bring pressure to bear on the Commission to improve the application process, in particular to reduce the time taken in producing and issuing contracts".[355] We are disappointed with the progress to date. The Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 acknowledged the problems associated with the lack of payment of full economic costs by the Framework Programme, but provided no specific response other than "In negotiations for the next Framework Programme, the UK will argue for a higher proportion of the total cost of research projects to be paid".[356] We believe that the UK Government should, as many other governments do, provide matching funding to cover the overheads of EU Framework Programme research awards.

Move towards in-country training

183. CAB International suggested that the growing emphasis on in-country training and South-South partnerships could also be contributing to the decline in UK research capacity: "the world is changing and developing countries now naturally demand that their own institutions are supported to meet their own needs. This does not diminish the value of the UK science base, but requires new mechanisms by which it can legitimately engage with developing country needs".[357] However, Professor Lwakabamba from the Kigali Institute of Science, Technology and Management in Rwanda expressed great enthusiasm for collaborations between North and South, and was keen to point out that new universities, which often had a greater emphasis on applied R&D and knowledge transfer, made particularly good partners.[358] Glasgow Caledonian University agreed with the latter point, telling us that "Modern universities such as Glasgow Caledonian are well placed to collaborate with higher education institutions in the South building science capacity because they have built their applied research capacity up over a considerable number of years and are focused on graduating students to meet the needs of employers".[359] We also saw examples in Malawi of North-South collaborations yielding genuine benefits for both parties, including the Higher Education Link in environmental health between the Universities of Malawi and Strathclyde. We strongly encourage the building of North-South partnerships in science, technology and research.

Research Assessment Exercise

184. Many witnesses lamented the poor recognition given to research for international development by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and the consequences of this for the UK research base. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine drew attention to the fact that the RAE "focuses only on research achievements and gives no credit for policy transfer or capacity strengthening activities", and asserted that as a result, "the present HEFCE funding arrangements linked to the RAE act as disincentives for Higher Education Institutions to be involved in capacity transfer and institutional strengthening".[360] Professor Julian Evans also stated that "University research assessment exercises are inimical to collaborative work with partners in developing countries".[361] In addition, the multidisciplinary nature of development sciences makes it more difficult to assess, whilst the focus on applied research of relevance to end users means that even world class development sciences research has sometimes been dismissed as second-rate science. We heard from more than one development sciences research institution that they were either previously, or currently, not receiving any quality-related research (QR) funding at all.[362] DFID no longer provides any core funding for UK based institutes so adequate QR funding could make a significant impact on the financial stability and sustainability of these institutes.

185. HEFCE have now published the units of assessment for the 2008 RAE, which include a unit of assessment for "Development Studies".[363] It is clear that HEFCE's interpretation of Development Studies has a strong social science bias, as evidenced by the fact that the Development Studies unit of assessment is part of a main panel that also covers Law, Politics and International Studies, Social Work, Sociology and Anthropology.[364] Whilst this new unit of assessment may be welcomed by those working in the specific areas of research collectively known as "development studies", it is unlikely to address the wider problems experienced by researchers working in many other areas of science targeted at developing world applications. We have recently published a report addressing the developments in the RAE in detail.[365] The lack of recognition awarded to development sciences in the Research Assessment Exercise has marginalised the development sciences community and helped to compromise the sustainability of some research institutions and groups. Future Research Assessment Exercises must use appropriate criteria and assessors with relevant expertise to ensure that much greater credit is given to all high quality development sciences research and capacity building activities, and the development sciences community needs to be reassured that this will be the case. Academics must be properly rewarded for engaging in capacity building activities and spending time working in developing countries in a way that contributes towards sustainable development.

UK Research Councils

186. Several memoranda of evidence made reference to the lack of connection between the very different research funding requirements of DFID and the Research Councils. The Natural Environment Research Council, for example, commented that "good research ideas often fail to be funded, being too applied for the research councils, but too 'scientific' for DFID".[366] The John Innes Centre also noted that the "Research Councils do not have a clear collective policy on delivery of publicly funded science to the world's poor".[367]

187. The Medical Research Council (MRC) told us that in 1993, the "MRC and DFID agreed a Concordat through which DFID influences MRC's portfolio of research relevant to developing countries and funds a substantial share of the work".[368] The portfolio of research under the Concordat amounted to £23 million in 2002-03, of which DFID contributed £4 million. DFID representatives sit on various MRC boards, e.g. for evaluation of research proposals, and advisory committees. MRC reported that "the Concordat was assessed and renewed in 1998. At the request of MRC and DFID, the Swiss Tropical Institute was mandated to carry out a further review in 2001 to evaluate the effectiveness of the arrangements. MRC also arranged for a scoping study to be conducted to provide advice on its strategy for investment in developing countries in relation to need, scientific opportunity and potential to reduce poverty. The conclusions of the interim report and the scoping study will inform the future operation of the Concordat, the renewal of which is currently being negotiated".[369]

188. MRC also provided an example of the impact of research carried out under the Concordat: "One of the most significant public health measures to have emerged from work supported under the MRC/DFID Concordat has been the introduction throughout the world of programmes to distribute and promote the use of insecticide-impregnated bed-nets to prevent the transmission of malaria and reduce child mortality".[370] Nick Winterton, Executive Director of MRC, told us that in his view the concordat was important because it set out "procedures whereby DFID can play a formal part in helping to shape the MRC's programme".[371]

189. MRC explained to us that it had "made a conscious decision" that it had "a responsibility to make a contribution to the health needs of the developing world", and therefore allocated approximately five per cent of its budget to work "almost exclusively of relevance to the developing world" and about ten per cent to work "broadly supportive of that".[372] Nick Winterton from MRC also told us that he thought that there was "a very good argument" for some of the money that MRC spends on development work being drawn from the aid budget.[373]

190. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) also funds work in developing countries. ESRC explained its reasoning as follows: "The scope of the social sciences is international. They transcend national boundaries and nation states in their methods and subjects of enquiry, and in the knowledge which they produce. The Council strongly believes that research in the social sciences flourishes in an open and internationalist perspective […] the wellbeing of developed and developing countries are increasingly interdependent".[374] Professor Ian Diamond, Chief Executive of ESRC, reported that although ESRC did not have one currently, he was "expecting to have a Concordat during 2004 with DFID".[375]

191. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) also believed that it had a remit to research global problems and told us that "Knowledge arising from NERC funded science is often transferred internationally, for example, through work commissioned by DFID, other aid agencies, development banks or foreign governments and international organisations, or through collaborative programmes".[376] Furthermore, NERC said that all its projects aimed "to build capacity by working with developing country national institutions. We provide training, at all levels, through on-the-job experience in the whole spectrum of research from project planning, to writing up and dissemination of the results".[377] Professor Lawton, Chief Executive of NERC, told us that the NERC Concordat with DFID lapsed in 1999 and NERC had "never been able to get back in".[378] We understand that Mr Benn has now established contact with NERC and discussions are taking place about future interaction between NERC and DFID.

192. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) told us that although it "does not fund research projects in universities or institutions situated in developing countries", much of the research that it funds in the UK, "especially in the areas of agriculture and management of natural resources is taken forward by researchers and their institutions with contacts in developing countries".[379] In addition, "BBSRC-sponsored Institutes collaborate with developing countries, often in association with national or international funding agencies".[380]

193. In oral evidence, Professor John Pickett, Head of the BBSRC Biological Chemistry Division, appearing alongside Professor John Lawton, Chief Executive of NERC, gave a highly critical assessment of DFID's treatment of science, citing flaws in its approach to pest control in Africa and the distribution of "very, very small bags of fertilizer" in Malawi as evidence of DFID's "unsustainable and non-scientific" approach.[381] However, we subsequently received information refuting the validity of Professor Pickett's accusations about these specific examples. Indeed, a recent letter published in Nature commented that "Far from being unscientific", the seed and fertilizer distribution programme to which Professor Pickett referred "was based on a thorough knowledge of the constraints faced by farmers and the production dynamics of Malawian agriculture".[382] The letter goes on to state that "there are good opportunities for science to serve development needs, provided that there is effective communication on both sides".[383] Professor Pickett's thesis that DFID was not making good use of the UK science base was backed up by many other witnesses. The scientific community must take care that disillusionment with DFID's approach to science does not lead it to be universally dismissive of DFID's work. Effective development sciences research is wholly dependent on a thorough understanding of the development context, as well as the science.

194. We were disappointed to hear from witnesses that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) was "not interested in work that is focused on developing countries".[384] The Chief Executive of EPSRC, Professor John O'Reilly, also told us that there was not "a direct link" between the EPSRC mission and international development.[385] Nevertheless, RCUK did acknowledge that "While EPSRC research is focussed on the needs of the UK it is likely that some of its supported research, for example in energy, transport, urban development and waste minimisation, offers the potential for adaptation in a development context".[386] It is very regrettable that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council chooses to exclude international development from its mission.

195. In view of the apparent inconsistency in the policies of the various Research Councils on funding research for international development, the Committee questioned Sir Keith O'Nions, Director General of the Research Councils, about his understanding of the situation during his introductory evidence session on 12 May 2004. Sir Keith's response indicated that it would be within the remit of the Research Councils to fund such research: "Given that Research Councils are the bodies that are funding the greater part of the basic science and most of the applied science in the UK—and therefore have access to a massive part of our intellectual wealth and scientific wealth—and if government policy is calling for that to be deployed progressively in international development, they must have a part to play".[387]

196. Furthermore, there is growing awareness of the global span of many of the most important research problems. The NRI commented that "the potential effects of globalisation and climate change mean that the value of research conducted in developing countries is becoming increasingly relevant to the UK", whilst the Centre for Development and Poverty Reduction at Imperial College additionally highlighted "pandemic diseases; biosecurity (and its effect on ecosystems and trade); bio-technology for small / poor farmers; information technology revolutions" as problems that "require shared knowledge and co-operation" between the North and South.[388],[389] Research on issues primarily relevant to developing countries can yield additional benefits. For example, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne asserted that "lack of money necessitates imaginative thinking" such that "the restricted options of the developing world often lead to more innovative research solutions to problems than those developed in the affluent west - and these research solutions can also benefit UK PLC".[390] Professor David Taylor also pointed out that research aimed at developing world problems "has led to some very important spin-offs for the UK. For example, a study of the immunology of protective immunity against schistosomes (bilharzias) and the role played by eosinophils has made a very major contribution to an expanding knowledge of allergic diseases that are so prominent in the UK and a major cost to the NHS".[391] We are of the view that the UK Research Councils can play an important role in funding research for international development and consider that such research is highly likely to deliver additional, incidental benefits for the UK. The Research Councils should adopt a clear and consistent approach to the funding of scientific and technical research for international development.

Responsibility for UK research capacity

197. DFID has previously stated that it does not believe that it has any responsibility to maintain UK research capability per se, although in the final evidence session of this inquiry, Mr Benn conceded that DFID had "a shared interest and therefore […] a shared responsibility".[392] However, Sir David King was adamant that DFID should take the lead in ensuring that a core competence in international development sciences is maintained in the UK.[393] The fact that no single person or department is taking responsibility for science and technology of relevance to international development has undoubtedly had a detrimental impact on the UK development sciences research base. Even though DFID did not consider it to be within its remit, it could and should have done more to raise awareness across Government of the serious problems being experienced by development sciences researchers in the UK. Nevertheless, DFID does not exist to promote the interests of the UK, and we believe that it would therefore be inappropriate for DFID to take a leadership role in maintaining UK research capability. The most logical arrangement would be for OST, through the Chief Scientific Adviser, to take responsibility for cross-Government co-ordination and, through RCUK, for the maintenance of the UK skills base in development sciences.

Development Sciences Research Board

198. The UK has now stated that science and technology for international development is a priority for Government R&D.[394] It is therefore essential that the UK puts in place some mechanism to safeguard and enhance the ability of the UK to undertake research to support international development. The Funders' Forum proposed by DFID should promote co-ordination of development sciences research being carried out by different UK-based donors, but will not take responsibility for the maintenance of the UK skills base. Indeed, as argued above, it would not be appropriate for DFID to take the lead in building UK research capacity. The multidisciplinary nature of development sciences also means that there is no obvious mechanism for managing the development sciences skills base or providing an effective dedicated funding route through the existing RCUK structure. Moreover, the magnitude of the scientific and technical obstacles to achievement of the MDGs, as well as the enormous benefits that progress in science and technology could deliver to developing countries, call for a major expansion of research effort towards this end. The establishment of a Research Council for development sciences could take considerable time and would require a new Act of Parliament. In addition, development sciences research is multidisciplinary and the funding body for development sciences should therefore include representatives from all the existing Research Councils. We propose that a cross-cutting Development Sciences Research Board be established with a mandate to award grants for development sciences R&D to UK-based institutions.

199. The Development Sciences Research Board would come under the umbrella of RCUK but would not exist as an autonomous Research Council. The Board would be headed by an eminent scientist with extensive expertise in development, and the Board would include representatives of all the Research Councils, as well as DFID (and potentially other Government departments). Although the Board would award grants to UK institutions, proposals would need to be demand-led and include partnerships with institutions or research groups in developing countries, as is the case for the Darwin Initiative. The Board would also take responsibility for sustaining the UK skills base in development sciences. In addition, the Board would need to develop a strategy, in consultation with DFID, identifying the countries and research areas of priority to the UK.

200. The Research Councils would be able to continue supporting any current work of relevance to international development although the significant funding currently channelled through the MRC concordat with DFID would, in future, be routed through the Board. This would not affect the concordat-funded projects directly; these could continue as before. Importantly, the Board would be in addition to, and would not replace, DFID expenditure on research. DFID should continue to fund research to inform its own policy making and for the global good - establishment of the Development Sciences Research Board would represent a much needed expansion of the research effort towards poverty reduction.

201. We have been impressed by the Chancellor's policy of supporting the reduction of international poverty and applaud the announcement in the 2004 Comprehensive Spending Review that the UK Government intends to raise overseas development assistance to 0.7% GNI by 2013, if not before.[395] This would amount to approximately £9.7 billion.[396] We believe that the recent substantial increases in the aid budget would be complemented by a commensurate increase in the availability of funding for development sciences R&D in the UK, in order to strengthen the evidence base available for international development policy-making, and to safeguard the UK's ability to maintain a leadership role in this field. We estimate that an initial budget of approximately £100 million per annum would be required for the Development Sciences Research Board to fulfil its role effectively. Of this, £23 million could be derived from MRC's current concordat with DFID, but the remainder should be "new" money. This funding represents a very small fraction of total UK overseas development assistance. If it were to be designated as part of the UK's overseas development assistance, it would mean that the UK could no longer claim to have fully untied its aid budget. However, there is no reason why this amount could not be taken into account in the calculation of future aid spending and effectively subtracted from the amount allocated to overseas development assistance.

202. The Development Sciences Research Board would award grants on the basis of excellence, as judged by peer review, taking into account the fact that high quality development sciences research may have quite distinctive characteristics compared with high quality research in other disciplines. This should address the concerns of researchers such as Professor David Taylor, CTVM, who told us that "Many of the best researchers are also deterred from engagement with the development sector because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that development administrators lack an understanding of the complexity of biological systems and scientific method".[397] The Centre for Development and Poverty Reduction at Imperial College suggested that "research priorities should be linked to (a) the potential risks that an issue poses to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, as well as its potential contribution to hastening their achievement, and (b) comparative advantage of the UK in that field".[398] We would suggest, in the first instance, the establishment of a small working group of representatives from the Research Councils and DFID, plus representatives from the research and user communities, to address implementation of this proposal and the terms of reference and modus operandi for the Development Sciences Research Board.

331   Ev 128 Back

332   Ev 238 Back

333   Ev 142, para 3 Back

334   Ev 153 Back

335   Ev 149 Back

336   Ev 309 Back

337   Ev 202 Back

338   Ev 217, para 5 Back

339   Ev 211, para 64 Back

340   Ev 312 Back

341   Ev 313 Back

342   Ev 392 Back

343   DFID, Research programme Consortia: Expressions of Interest Background Document, August 2004 Back

344   Ev 209, para 48 Back

345   Ev 211, para 58 Back

346   Ev 209, para 44 Back

347   Data is for new contracts entered into. Back

348   Ev 210, para 49 Back

349 Back

350   Q 588 Back

351   Q452 Back

352   Q 473 Back

353   Q 411 Back

354   Sixth Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2002-03, Science and Europe: Value for Money, HC 386-I Back

355   Ibid Back

356   HM Treasury, DTI, DfES, Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014, July 2004 Back

357   Ev 163 Back

358   Informal private meeting with Professor Lwakabamba Back

359   Ev 332 Back

360   Ev 134 Back

361   Ev 257 Back

362   e.g. Q 407 Back

363   Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland, RAE 2008: Units of assessment and recruitment of panel members, July 2004 Back

364   Ibid Back

365   Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2003-04, Research Assessment Exercise: a re-assessment, HC 586 Back

366   Ev 277, para 8 Back

367   Ev 259 Back

368   Ev 273, para 3 Back

369   Ibid Back

370   Ev 274, para 9 Back

371   Q 461 Back

372   Q 456 Back

373   Q 458 Back

374   Ev 270, para 1 Back

375   Q 80 Back

376   Ev 277, para 6 Back

377   Ev 279, para 23 Back

378   Q 184 Back

379   Ev 269, para 1 Back

380   Ibid Back

381   Q 191, 192, 210 Back

382   Edward H. Allison, "Communication is key to aid development efforts", Nature, Vol. 430, p. 829, 19 August 2004 Back

383   Ibid Back

384   Ev 148 Back

385   Q 377 Back

386   Ev 264 Back

387   HC 461-I, Q 50 Back

388   Ev 206, para 19 Back

389   Ev 149 Back

390   Ev 148 Back

391   Ev 243 Back

392   Q 584 Back

393   Q 250-251 Back

394   HM Treasury, DTI, DfES, Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014, July 2004 Back

395   HM Treasury, 2004 Spending Review, July 2004 Back

396   based on the current UK GNI Back

397   Ev 241, para 8 Back

398   Ev 149 Back

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 26 October 2004