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