House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Sixth Report

5 Joint working

55. In 2003 RCUK produced two documents setting out research priorities for Research Councils in the medium to long term, compiled on the basis of individual Councils' strategies. In written evidence, Save British Science (SBS) was very critical of these publications, arguing that they were "completely at odds with what RCUK should have been doing". SBS argued that it has traditionally been for Research Councils themselves to take funding decisions on the basis of the needs of their user communities and regrets that decisions are now being "dictated by RCUK".[113] We do not see these documents as an attempt to dictate the direction of research, but more of an effort to collate and summarise the most exciting areas of research in each major discipline. It is still for each Research Council to determine their own strategy on the basis of consultations with their own research communities and other Research Councils.[114]

56. Witnesses from RCUK explained that the documents were partly a means of fulfilling its objective of providing leadership and a collective voice for the Councils, and that they should be viewed as an introduction to, or overview of, research in the UK for interested parties, which will be updated periodically. A visitor would be directed to the Research Council of relevant interest instead of having to look through the strategic plans of all the Councils.[115] Whilst we recognize the desire of RCUK to raise its profile and provide a single voice for UK research, we are sceptical about the level of demand for such documents. We suspect that the majority of academics generally know very well which Research Council to contact about a particular field of research. The documents themselves are not specific enough to be of real academic value: they are more of a PR exercise or are designed to be read in the Treasury. We recommend that RCUK considers carefully the demand for, and usefulness of, its strategy documents before producing any updated versions.

Balance of funding

57. Achieving the most appropriate balance between directed and non-directed funding is a primary role of the Research Councils, working through RCUK with OST. A large proportion of the recent substantial increases in the Science Budget has been allocated to specific programmes of research. RCUK states in evidence that "if the UK is to be the most attractive location in the world for science and innovation it is essential that there is continuing sustained growth in basic responsive mode research funding".[116]

58. In our Research Council scrutiny Reports, we have repeatedly expressed concerns that basic responsive mode research funding may suffer as a result of an increased emphasis on directed managed programmes or thematic research. In answer to our concerns, RCUK argued that there is no evidence that lower quality thematic proposals are being funded at the expense of responsive mode applications.[117] Professor Diamond told us that while he had observed that in the 2000 and 2002 Spending Reviews any extra money was for earmarked cross-council programmes, the 2004 Spending Review was "the least directed" Spending Review that his fellow Chief Executives could remember.[118] RCUK confirmed that it would be pressing for enhanced investment in basic research in Spending Review 2006.[119] The new performance management framework, on which the 2006 Science Budget will be based, will not, we are told, jeopardize speculative research by its use of performance indicators.[120] Indeed, Professor Diamond told us that this would ensure proper evaluation of research.

59. Professor Diamond reported that there was now more of a move towards responsive mode funding.[121] RCUK provided some evidence to support this assertion. For example, in the period 2000-01 to 2003-04 responsive mode grants awarded by BBSRC increased as a proportion of overall grant expenditure by 4.3%. However, the equivalent figure for ESRC was a 16% decrease. ESRC is "currently exploring the most cost effective way of increasing its responsive mode provision".[122] At NERC, the figures indicated a decrease of 8.%—a reversal of the trend prior to 2001-02.[123] NERC states that it is committed to maintaining, not increasing, the existing proportion of its non-directed research funding. In contrast, MRC has reduced the proportion of funding devoted to strategic grants and now all its funding is in what can be defined as responsive mode. EPSRC increasingly uses "signposted" research areas, within which responsive mode applications are accepted.

60. We accept that there is no clearly definable distinction between directed and responsive modes but the use of different terminology and definitions by the different Research Councils makes analysis more difficult than it need be. Even broadly comparable figures do not seem to be provided by all Research Councils. However, the evidence that is available presents a mixed picture: there are encouraging signs, but it does not yet indicate a clear trend towards responsive mode right across the Research Councils. We welcome the stronger stated emphasis by the Research Councils on increasing responsive mode funding for basic research. In order to demonstrate that the reality matches the rhetoric, we recommend that RCUK encourages all Research Councils to maintain comparable statistics which can clearly demonstrate changes in the balance of funding over time. In addition, any increase in the level of responsive mode funding needs to be supported by evidence that it is delivering outputs: we recommend that the new performance management framework is capable of providing such indicators.

Success rates and demand management

61. We have commented in our Reports on individual Research Councils on the variations in grant application success rates and the different approaches used to improve them. We have cited the attempts by EPSRC to manage demand by using university interface managers to visit Higher Education Institutes as a good model for other Councils to adopt. RCUK explained that although several Research Councils would like to improve their direct links with HEIs, this system was too expensive for them. A regular programme of university visits was used instead.[124] We do not believe that it would be too expensive for the Research Councils, between them, to fund a post dedicated primarily to university liaison. The expenditure would more than likely be recouped in a reduced administrative burden dealing with applications. Nonetheless, we recognize that a whole range of factors affect success rates, few of which are within the direct control of the Research Councils. What the Research Councils can do is to publish information on success rates that is as full as possible to inform their research communities. RCUK has agreed with our recommendations on this issue. Success rates at the institutional level will be published annually on Council and RCUK websites from 2005. RCUK is also proposing to write to university Vice-Chancellors to provide equivalent data at the department level.[125] We see no reason why these letters should not be made public: this information may help to influence the career choices of researchers and will help to provide a more up-to-date indication of departmental performance than the Research Assessment Exercise. We welcome the steps RCUK and the Research Councils have taken to provide fuller information on grant application success rates. We recommend that RCUK discuss with universities the possibility of making public this information on a departmental level.

The Treasury and performance management

62. Of more concern to us is the degree of direction of research provided by the Treasury. When asked about this department's influence on research strategy and its potential bias towards short term economic gains, the DGRC told us that the Treasury had accepted the need for a balance between risky and safer research, and that it appreciated the complexities of measuring performance and the long term nature of some research. Professor Diamond described the Treasury's interest as "a request to justify the way we put to use the public money we get" for the economic development of the country but also in support of quality of life.[126] This has been behind the development of a performance management system which will underpin future Spending Review allocations across the Research Councils. Professor Diamond spoke of an interactive process rather than an imposition.[127]

63. In an informal briefing in December 2004, the DGRC assured us that the new system would impose minimal bureaucratic burdens, perhaps fewer than is currently the case. The measures are being developed with each Research Council and will reflect the different indicators suited to different disciplines. The data will be published annually and will feed into the evaluation of progress against PSA targets as well as the targets of individual Research Councils and RCUK.[128] The delivery plans will replace the existing extremely detailed operating plans of the Research Councils which they have produced each year. We have been encouraged by the evidence we have found of an enlightened and realistic view at the Treasury of the benefits and potential uncertainties involved in funding research, particularly basic research, and measuring outputs. We also welcome the attempt to establish in advance yardsticks for measuring performance as an improvement on the previous tendency towards the retrospective imposition of such measures. We look forward to examining the detail and operation of the performance management system in future inquiries. We recommend that the proposed outcome measures are validated in a peer reviewed manner to ensure that they do not distort the research strategy.

Multidisciplinary research

64. The increasing recognition of the exciting scientific advances that might be made on the boundaries of traditional scientific disciplines and by multidisciplinary research has been reflected in the last two Spending Reviews. Cross-cutting directed programmes in areas such as energy, e-science and stem cells have encouraged multidisciplinary working and co-operation between the Research Councils. Even before the establishment of RCUK, Research Councils were already engaged in many activities promoting multidisciplinary approaches to research and training.[129] The formation of RCUK provided a new focus for these activities and a forum for the development of further multidisciplinary activities and Spending Review bids. RCUK regards this as one of its main achievements to date.[130]

65. We explored the extent to which the scientific community was responding to the shift towards interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. The issue of peer review of such grant proposals is dealt within paragraphs 67-72 below. Professor Diamond spoke of a commitment to interdisciplinary research in the universities that he had not witnessed before and increasing evidence of an interdisciplinary research culture developing.[131] Multidisciplinary research programmes, such as the Basic Technology Programme, have been heavily over-subscribed. Discipline-hopping awards have been introduced by some Councils, although not as widely as we have recommended.[132] A number of interdisciplinary research centres have been established: examples include the Newcastle Institute for the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities and the Imperial College Flowers Building, which houses multidisciplinary research centres. The Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre is due to open in July 2005. The Research Councils have also supported the development of virtual interdisciplinary research centres such as those in nanotechnology and bionanotechnology.[133]

66. There is limited evidence from some Research Councils of an increased proportion of funding awards being devoted to interdisciplinary programmes. For example, the BBSRC has increased expenditure on grants with principal investigators from non-bioscience departments from 12.7% to 13.4%. The number of awards made by ESRC to research projects funded jointly with a non-social science provider has increased from 105 in 2001-02 to 188 in 2003-04.[134] However, comprehensive data from all Research Councils does not exist. We welcome the role RCUK has played in promoting multidisciplinary approaches to research and the commitment of the Research Councils to supporting new interdisciplinary research centres. We recommend that the delivery plans of RCUK and the individual Research Councils indicate how the commitment to multidisciplinary research will be maintained and monitored over the next Spending Review period.

Peer review

67. Given the increasingly multidisciplinary emphasis of research and the pressure for administrative convergence, we would expect RCUK to play a leading role in driving forward the harmonisation of peer review processes. In our individual Research Council scrutiny reports we have commented favourably on the peer review colleges used by four of the Research Councils and supported further moves towards harmonisation. The Research Councils have defended their different peer review practices, which they say reflect their different missions and user communities.[135] RCUK rejected our recommendation for all councils to use peer review colleges, rather than different subject panels, on the grounds that a single system of peer review would be too inflexible: processes need to match the nature of different research communities. However, Research Councils have implemented a joint benchmarking procedure for peer review to establish some agreement on the high level stages of the process and to share best practice. We are not yet persuaded that such differences can be justified and look forward to returning to this issue in detail in a future inquiry.

68. The Committee has expressed concern in its scrutiny Reports about the ability of Research Councils to deal with research applications at the boundaries of disciplines. In spite of the efforts of individual Research Councils to tackle the problem, RCUK states that "it remains highly likely that the knowledge base of some parts of the peer review community will lag behind the scientific advances that catalyse ideas for multidisciplinary projects".[136]

69. Since the adoption of the current policy for handling multidisciplinary, cross-Council research proposals in 2000, Councils have sought to improve the process by the introduction of multidisciplinary peer review committees, provision of training for new peer reviewers and the establishment by some Councils of peer review colleges. RCUK states that "Councils have also gained substantial experience in establishing large-scale multidisciplinary programmes and funding joint multidisciplinary initiatives, and are sharing good practice through the peer review benchmarking project. The latter looks at the handling of multidisciplinary proposals at each stage of the process including identification of proposals, assignment to the most appropriate peer review body, selection of reviewers, and decision making."[137]

70. In spite of these measures, differences in the peer review process are still identified as a potential weakness. The RCUK evidence states that "Councils do not believe that harmonisation of the [peer review] process would improve the position".[138] A study conducted by one Research Council found that a single grading system would not necessarily allow comparisons to be made across different areas and would not serve a useful purpose.[139] BBSRC and ESRC plan to maintain their existing systems, which are supported by their user communities. The effectiveness of the Councils' mechanisms for dealing with multidisciplinary proposals will be dealt with in the RCUK delivery plan. A formal review will take place a few months after the introduction of full economic costing in September 2005. This will look at the lessons learned from peer review benchmarking and the funding of multidisciplinary schemes and programmes, and from the training of peer reviewers. This type of evaluation of the effectiveness of different mechanisms will continue in the medium to longer term.[140]

71. We welcome the steps that RCUK and the Research Councils have taken to review their peer review mechanisms in response to our recommendations. We accept that there may be reasons why complete harmonisation is not obtainable but we remain concerned at the extent to which multidisciplinary grant applications can be adequately catered for at present. We are pleased to see that RCUK is specifically addressing this issue in its delivery plan.

72. Another problem with the peer review system identified by RCUK was the "inherent conservatism of peer reviewers".[141] The impact of this conservatism on the funding decisions of Research Councils is a major interest to us. In a period in which Research Councils are increasingly being required to demonstrate value for money in their funding, a leaning towards the relatively safe areas of research would be understandable, but not necessarily desirable. The operation of the peer review system is a complex, far-reaching subject which lies outside the scope of this inquiry, but we recommend that RCUK monitors any signs of an increasingly risk averse culture developing as part of Research Councils' review process.

Science in Society

73. In our inquiries into the individual Research Councils we have commented that the science in society activities of each Council would benefit from a more collective approach, in collaboration with Government departments and other research funders. In March 2004 RCUK accepted the need for a more collective approach and agreed to establish a cross-council science in society strategy. This strategy will be launched in May 2005. It will involve informing the public of research developments; identifying public attitudes to the conduct of research; the promotion of science careers to young people and the encouragement of funded researchers to engage in the promotion of the relationship between science and society.[142] RCUK is also establishing, in April 2005, a business unit to co-ordinate the engagement of Research Councils with other science funders in various schemes and initiatives promoting public dialogue.[143] Funding for some of these activities has been transferred from OST to RCUK.[144] We note that a joint OST/RCUK project establishing good practice in the evaluation of these science and society activities was due to be completed in autumn 2004. In addition, the Government told us in September 2004 that the DGRC will be establishing a forum of those engaged in science and society activities to ensure a coherent approach.[145] We still await the outcome of both of these initiatives. We welcome the fact that RCUK has answered our call for a more collective approach to science in society activities and look forward to the announcement of the new strategy. We hope that other promised related activities will not be too far behind.

Administration

74. Amongst the missions of RCUK is a commitment to ensure joined-up working between the Research Councils to deliver their goals. This aim is being implemented largely through the RCUK administration strategy. This is a process of administrative and policy convergence in order to reduce costs, to improve accessibility and to better facilitate cross-council engagement by stakeholders and exchanges of people and information between Research Councils. The key targets of this strategy were agreed by Chief Executives in December 2003 for at least the 2004 Spending Review period. It was agreed that the key measurable differences from 2003-04 would be as follows:

External stakeholders will perceive the Research Councils as having an improved interface to the delivery of administrative services;

External stakeholders will be able to interrogate research portfolios across all the Councils;

A more integrated flow of information between the Councils and between the Councils and OST;

Harmonised administrative terms and conditions for the majority of funding;

A common framework for providing joint services and facilities to all Councils;

A reduction in the number of different IT systems for grants, studentships, HR finance and office systems;

Increased harmonisation of the terms and conditions of service for staff;

Increased mobility of staff between the Research Councils and between them and OST; and

An increase in the number of staff working in joint units.[146]

75. A major part of the administration strategy is implemented through the Research Administration Programme. This is designed to deliver savings of around £30 million in total. Two specific targets have been agreed with the DGRC:

The maintenance of administrative spend at 3.4% by 2008. (This compares to the existing target of 4%); and
An increase in the proportion of HQ staff in joint services to 25% by March 2007.

As part of the Gershon Efficiency Programme and in line with other public bodies, the Research Councils are required to make 2.5% per year efficiency gains. The administrative savings are therefore being put towards this Gershon target, which, in monetary terms, amounts to some £170 million across the whole Research Councils budget by 2007-08.[147]

76. The RCUK evidence describes a flexible approach, rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all policy, which might lead to a lowest common denominator solution. Thus, individual Councils determine their own levels of participation in joint activities and common schemes. Councils work together "where there is benefit to their academic communities, government and other stakeholders in doing so".[148] For example, the Committee has recommended that all Councils should allow contract researchers to apply for grants but practice still varies from Council to Council. The scope for further harmonisation on eligibility for grant funding is being explored in 2005.[149]

77. The problem with this a la carte approach to harmonisation is that there is plenty of scope for resistance and slowing of the process. The Ruffles Review was critical of the commitment to harmonisation in the Research Councils: there seemed to be a "lack of conviction" as to why established ways should be changed to meet goals other than those of their own Council.[150] There was a perception in some quarters that RCUK groups would increase bureaucracy and some scepticism about the benefits of convergence.[151] The Ruffles Review team found that a spirit of team working did prevail at Chief Executive level, but was not convinced that it had "cascaded to a majority of Council staff", noting that such changes in culture can take considerable time.[152] In their comments to the Review, the Chief Executives noted the rather slow progress in many areas and the fragile nature of some of the voluntary agreements.[153] There was no-one in a position to ensure implementation across the Councils.[154] Professor Diamond confirmed that it was for Chief Executives as a whole to provide leadership and that the speed of progress was regularly reviewed. Following a recommendation of the Ruffles Review, RCUK is drawing up a plan for making more progress in coordinating and standardising administrative systems. This was to be agreed with the DGRC at the end of January 2005, but has now been delayed to May.[155]

78. We have commented previously about the unnecessary use of different definitions and names for similar schemes throughout the Research Councils.[156] This can only impede efforts to promote the interdisciplinary working which is to become more prevalent. We note the agreement in March 2004 of a common set of research grant terms and conditions.[157] We hope that this will be one contribution towards moving from a culture that focuses upon the primacy of the individual Research Council to one which values the common goals of all the Councils working together. This culture needs to be clearly evident at the top of the Research Councils if it is to spread throughout the Councils and their research communities. We conclude that RCUK is playing a useful role in promoting administrative convergence and much progress has been made. This should benefit cross-Council co-operation and the administration of joint schemes as well as realize significant financial savings. However, as we have indicated earlier, the current partnership model does not lend itself to dynamic action. It is particularly important that RCUK has mechanisms for monitoring the full consequences of the decisions that it and HEFCE take. We believe that the pace of change would be faster under the arrangements that we have outlined in chapter 3. In the meantime, the DGRC should monitor progress on a regular basis.

Joint Electronic Submissions

79. The Research Administration Programme aims to deliver, by the end of 2007-08, "a common research administration system that enables processing of grants, studentships and fellowships from submission to completion".[158] The main delivery mechanism for this is the Joint Electronic Submissions System (Je-S), which provides a common form for the electronic submission of grant applications across the Research Councils. The scheme was agreed in March 2002. It was implemented by four Councils by May 2003. Some 2,000 research proposals have been submitted by this means from the 90 organisations so far able to use the system.[159] Of the remaining Councils, AHRB and ESRC will be using the Je-S system from September 2005 and MRC will follow in 2006.

80. In evidence, Helen Thorne rejected the suggestion that some Councils had dragged their feet on implementation. Both ESRC and MRC already had electronic submission systems in place and wanted to be sure that the new system was not inferior to existing ones before coming on board. Indeed, it was agreed by RCUK that those Councils which had already made significant investments in their own electronic submission systems would only migrate to Je-S compliant systems when Je-S was sufficiently mature to be able to provide their communities with the same level of functionality as their existing electronic systems.[160] Paper-based submissions will be ended in March 2005. This meets the Government's e-business target for the provision of electronic services. The Je-S system allows research organisations to monitor the progress of their applications on-line and to engage in on-line discussions about potential improvements to the system. We commend RCUK's role in the implementation of the Je-S system, which will provide significant improvements for researchers in applying for grants and will make interdisciplinary applications more straightforward.

113 Ev 42 Back

114 Q 54 Back

115 Qs 50-53 Back

116 Ev 21 Back

117 Ev 22 Back

118 Q 32 Back

119 Ev 22 Back

120 Ev 21 Back

121 Q 49 Back

122 Ev 44 Back

123 See Fifth Report of the Committee, Session 2002-03, The Work of the Natural Environment Research Council, HC 674, ev 10 Back

124 Ev 22 Back