Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
find it surprising that OST could establish a new organisation
without giving it a clear mission or defining its place in the
policy-making framework. Under these circumstances it is scarcely
surprising that RCUK struggled to establish itself in its community
and lacked a sense of direction and leadership. It is regrettable
that the shortcomings identified in OST's internal review in 2003
were not put right by the following year. (Paragraph 16)
2. we are concerned
that the new structural arrangements do not go far enough towards
giving RCUK the clarity of mission and independence of purpose
that it should have. (Paragraph 18)
3. If RCUK can demonstrate
that it can operate successfully in establishing cross-Council
priorities in an independent manner, we see no reason why it should
not, in time, take full responsibility for the allocation of the
funding awarded to the Research Councils as a whole by Government.
If it is necessary to create RCUK as a legal entity in order to
meet this aim, it should not be ruled out on the basis that it
may be a lengthy process. We recommend that OST consider this
model as a medium term aim. (Paragraph 24)
4. We recommend that
the Joint Strategy Group ceases to be chaired exclusively by the
Director General of the Research Councils. (Paragraph 26)
5. The Government's
extreme sensitivity about separate responses from Research Councils
is stifling the debate which is necessary for good policy-making.
It has established RCUK outside of Government to give a loud collective
voice to the Research Councils in science policy making. To deny
it the opportunity to use its voice without Government approval
is self-defeating and absurd. We recommend that the Government
sets out its reasons for seeking to inhibit the Research Councils
in this way. We further recommend that the Research Councils assert
their independence by submitting, individually or collectively
as appropriate, their own views without seeking Government approval,
starting with the response to this Report. (Paragraph 29)
6. We recommend that
the OST reconsiders the issue of the chairmanship of the RCUK
Executive Group after a further two years. (Paragraph 32)
7. We recognise the
need for an NDPB such as RCUK to respect departmental boundaries
and lines of communication, but in an area which requires joined-up
policy making we would expect RCUK to be a strong representative
of the concerns of Research Councils, particularly over skills
shortages. We have not yet been persuaded that RCUK is exercising
much influence, or even that it is seriously seeking to do so.
(Paragraph 36)
8. We welcome the
steps that RCUK is taking in the context of the Funders' Forum
to gather better statistics with which to inform decision-making
on the sustainability of disciplines. (Paragraph 40)
9. We recommend that
RCUK specifically addresses the issue of short term contracts
in its future work. (Paragraph 41)
10. We recommend that
RCUK ensures that it is heavily involved in the preparation of
the HEFCE response to the invitation to provide the Secretary
of State for Education and Skills with advice on protecting courses
of national strategic importance. (Paragraph 42)
11. We find it surprising
that RCUK and OST between them have not yet worked out how the
DGRC's discretionary fund is to be allocated. We recommend that
the Government draw upon the advice of RCUK and announce in the
near future how this money is to be used. (Paragraph 43)
12. We recommend that
RCUK include clear objectives in its delivery plan for its relationship
with RDAs. We will look closely at how these relations have developed
the next time that we scrutinise RCUK. (Paragraph 47)
13. We welcome the
work that Research Councils are doing to measure the impact of
the move towards funding the full economic costs of research and
look forward to the publication of the full findings of its monitoring
exercise. (Paragraph 51)
14. We recommend that
RCUK considers carefully the demand for, and usefulness of, its
strategy documents before producing any updated versions. (Paragraph
56)
15. 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. (Paragraph 60)
16. 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. (Paragraph 61)
17. 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. (Paragraph 63)
18. 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. (Paragraph
66)
19. 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. (Paragraph 71)
20. 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. (Paragraph
72)
21. 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. (Paragraph 73)
22. 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.
(Paragraph 78)
23. 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.
(Paragraph 80)
| 
