— The BA CREST (creativity in science, engineering and
technology) Scheme: This is a UK-wide science project scheme for
schools. The scheme encourages young people to explore science
and technology by undertaking mini research projects, which are
eligible for a national competition. Following regional events
there is an annual final, and winners of the national event represent
the UK at international schools science competitions. In 2002,
over 22,000 youngsters received awards.
— The On-Line Schools Science Race 2005. RCUK is supporting
this event during Science Week. Pupils compete against the clock
and other schools to answer science-related questions via an interactive
website. The organisers produce a league chart of schools and
host a prize ceremony. All 6,000 secondary schools in the UK have
been sent details of the event—in 2003 1,000 schools took
part.
— Liaison with the Association for Science Education
(ASE) and participation in their AGM.
4.2 These activities will be managed, delivered and evaluated
by the new RCUK science in society unit, which is being established
from 1 April 2005.
4.3 RCUK is also working with other organisations such as
the Wellcome Trust through the Funders' Forum Research Careers
Committee (RCC) to explore issues around research career paths.
As well as developing material for postgraduates and postdoctoral
researchers on potential career paths, the group is looking at
developing a booklet for schools, aimed at pupils, tutors and
careers advisers, to challenge misconceptions about a what working
in research means. It is planned that this will include real life
case studies and information to help school children make informed
choices about their future study options.
4.4 In addition, individual Councils support a range of complementary
and targeted activities for young people. These are topic-led
and are designed to supplement other activities. These include:
linking Research Council funded researchers with their local schools;
enabling students to visit laboratories; updating teachers on
new research; and providing materials that enhance classroom science
by incorporating contemporary research themes and findings, including
the societal implications of research. Also many of the Councils'
and RCUK's broader science and society activities aimed at engaging
the general public also contribute towards enthusing young people
about science and research.
5.1 Information on usage of the RCUK website (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk)
is as follows:
Note: Unique visitors are determined by their IP address—so
when users visit the site, their IP address is identified and
only one visit is recorded, no matter how many pages they view.
This provides a more descriptive indicator than the number of
hits to a website, which counts every page view and downloaded,
regardless of how many times this is done per visit.
6.1 There are a number of ways of showing the universities
greater commitment to interdisciplinary research. One broad measure
of this commitment is the demand for the multidisciplinary funding
made available by Research Councils for cross-cutting programmes
and initiatives under SR2000 and SR2002. In response to this growth
in opportunities, all of these programmes and schemes continue
to be heavily over-subscribed by university applicants. The Basic
Technology Programme, for instance, illustrates the significant
extent to which such multidisciplinary programmes have attracted
the interest the research community. The programme aims to establish
a UK technology research capability that will impact on major
challenges in science. It was allocated £41 million and £60
million from SR2000 and SR2002 respectively. To date, the programme
has issued five calls for project proposals and three calls for
feasibility studies and consortia formation networks. The table
below illustrates the outcome of these calls.[5]
6.2 The 33 funded projects are managed by multidisciplinary
research consortia in 41 universities. Data on demand for other
multidisciplinary programmes and initiatives could also be provided
if required.
6.3 The following are examples of the range of new interdisciplinary
research centres being established by HEIs:
— In 2001 Imperial College opened the Flowers Building
to house multidisciplinary research centres. It can accommodate
240 academic staff, postgraduates and post-docs working mainly
in molecular microbiology, structural biology, infections and
genetic therapies.
— Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre (MIB): due
to be completed in July 2005, this is a new type of university
research institute that will enable the academic community to
explore key areas of interdisciplinary bioscience at the highest
level. The MIB will be distinctive in the way that it will combine
systems biology, quantitative molecular bioscience and technology
development.
— Newcastle Institute for the Arts, Social Sciences
and Humanities (NIASSH): this new centre at the University of
Newcastle provides a project-driven hub serving as a framework
and networking facility for multidisciplinary research, aimed
at a broad community where opportunities for multidisciplinarity
have often been restricted.
— Humanities Research Institute: based at the University
of Sheffield, the HRI is one of the UK's leading centres for humanities
computing, and has been a pioneer in interdisciplinary and team-based
research in the humanities. The projects in the HRI, drawn from
a wide range of humanities disciplines, use innovative techniques
for handling digital text, images and multi-media to explore issues
in humanities research which cannot be readily investigated by
other means.
6.4 In addition, Research Council sponsored IRCs aim to foster
multidisciplinary teams of researchers to develop major projects
in diverse areas. A few examples are set out below:
— The IRC in Nanotechnology is funded by EPSRC, BBSRC,
MRC and the MoD as a collaboration between the University of Cambridge,
University College London and the University of Bristol.
— The IRC in Bionanotechnology is a collaboration funded
by three Research Councils (EPSRC, BBSRC and MRC), and brings
together scientists from the universities of Oxford, York, Glasgow,
Cambridge, Nottingham, Southampton and the National Institute
for Medical Research.
— The IRC "From Medical Images and Signals to Clinical
Information" is a collaboration between the University Oxford,
Manchester University, King's College, London, and University
College, London and is supported by EPSRC and MRC.
6.5 In addition, several Research Councils analyse their grant
data for information on the demand for multidisciplinary research
funding. Examples are given below:
AHRB
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
| 2003-04 |
|
Inter-panel research awards: |
| | |
| Amount awarded (£m) | 3.99
| 4.17 | 5.63 |
| % total amount awarded | 16%
| 15% | 16% |
| No. awards | 66 | 62
| 71 |
| % awards | 11% | 10%
| 11% |
| Spend on joint RC & inter-agency programmes (£m)
| Nil | 0.19 | 0.95
|
| | |
|
BBSRC
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
| 2003-04 |
| Expenditure on grants with principal investigators in non-bioscience departments working on bio-related projects:
| 12.7% | 12.8% | 13.4%
|
| | |
|
ESRC
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
| 2003-04 |
| Within the ESRC domain, awards involving more than one social science discipline:
| | | |
| No. awards: | (1) | (1)
| 527 |
| Expenditure (£m): | (1)
| (1) | 16 |
| Research with another RC, or non-social science funder:
| | | |
| No. awards: | 105 | 140
| 188 |
| Income (£m): | 7.8 |
10.3 | 11.3 |
| | |
|
(1) Data were not collected
7. It would be helpful to have any further details available
on the preliminary findings of the study on the impact of FEC
on applications for Framework Programme funding.
7.1 The Research Councils, through UKRO, are carrying
out a series of case studies with UK universities to examine the
impact of the move to FEC on participation and involvement in
activities funded under Framework Programme 6 and potential involvement
in FP7. These case studies are currently in progress and only
the preliminary raw data from the first few of these studies is
available at the present time. The intention is to fully analyse
the data and present this at a meeting with the UK university
community, hosted by Universities UK in London on 18 March. As
soon as the final results from the case studies are available,
RCUK will send a copy of to the Committee. RCUK can also send
all Committee members a copy of a report from the final analysis
of the case studies which is expected to be available in early
summer 2005. The report will also be available in sufficient time
to inform the UK input in to the negotiations on the Rules for
Participation for FP7.
8. Does RCUK have any role in the submission of bids to
the large facilities fund, how much is available under that fund
and what criteria govern its application?
8.1 The Large Facilities Capital Fund is used to support
large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects in UK universities
and Research Council institutes. The sorts of projects which the
fund supports are those which for a number of different reasons
fall outside the funding remit, or capability, of any individual
authority. Such projects are typically large and very expensive;
have long useful lifetimes ie 10-20 years; have multiple users
both nationally and internationally; are interdisciplinary; offer
unique capabilities within the UK, or more widely; and are potentially
jointly funded or suitable subjects for international collaboration.
It is usual for such projects to be funded from multiple sources
including Research Councils, other government departments, charities
and international bodies as well as the large facilities capital
fund. Projects receiving capital from this fund in recent years
have included the ISIS second target station and a new research
vessel, as well as the Diamond synchrotron.
8.2 The Large Facilities Capital Fund budget following SR2002
(including the budget for the Diamond synchrotron) was approximately
£100 million in 2003-04, £120 million in 2004-05 and
£100 million in 2005-06. The level of funding for the SR2004
period will not be known until the Science Budget allocations
are announced.
8.3 The submission of bids for capital funding is managed
by the Research Councils on behalf of the academic community.
In order to receive funding a project must first be subject to
an independent scientific review. It then proceeds via the OGC
Gateway process to a full business plan review (Gateway 1). Each
project has a lead Research Council, with the chief executive
or senior director taking on the SRO role. RCUKEG considers both
the science case and business case. Where there is a request to
draw upon the Large Facilities Capital Fund, it is the role of
RCUKEG to recommend to OST whether funding should be made. Approval
by DTI Ministers is required in most cases, and if the project
is above the DTI's delegated powers, or requires funding from
beyond the current three-year Spending Review period, approval
is also required from HM Treasury. Once work on a project has
commenced it remains the responsibility of whichever Chief Executive
is the accounting officer to keep RCUKEG up to date on developments.
8.4 Further details about the evaluation of large facility
projects via the gateway process can be found at: http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/funding/lfroadmap/chap5.htm
8.5 In reality, projects for which capital funding will be
sought, are first identified and included in the UK's large facilities
roadmap. Last published in June 2003, the roadmap enables RCUK
and OST to maintain a comprehensive picture of potential large
facilities and equipment projects in which the UK might be engaged
over the medium to long term. This tool enables RCUK and OST to
take strategic decisions as to the best way to maintain access
for researchers to world class facilities and also to manage and
fund UK investments in priority projects.
8.6 The roadmap will be next updated by RCUK in summer 2005.
Each Research Council is responsible for consulting widely with
its academic and user communities to bring forward potential projects
for inclusion in the roadmap. The current criteria for inclusion
are listed below although
— Where there could be an international dimension to
the proposed facility and therefore opportunity to share costs
and develop relationships to benefit the UK science programme;
— Where the facility supports the requirements of research
communities of more than one Research Council;
— Where the capital investment is greater than the sum
of £25 million, when it represents a significant element
of an individual Research Council's budget line.
8.7 However, inclusion of a project on the roadmap does not
guarantee funding from either Research Councils or OST via the
large facilities capital fund. Inevitably, there are more potential
large facilities projects than available public funding. For this
reason, in 2003, OST asked RCUK to undertake an exercise to prioritise
which projects on the roadmap might move into a capital construction
phase, and hence potentially draw upon the large facilities capital
fund and/or require significant investment from Research Council
funds. The outcome was published in March 2004 (http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/funding/lfroadmap/chap5.htm).
8.8 Following the revision of the large facilities roadmap
later in 2005, the prioritisation exercise will be repeated. The
criteria for prioritisation have been agreed between OST and RCUK
and are set out at Annex B. RCUK will provide advice to OST on
the priorities for funding in the current and next spending review
period up to approximately five years ahead, (where project plans
can be expected to be reasonably well advanced), and prioritise
more tentatively projects that may start in the mid-term (five
to 10 years ahead) or far term (more than 10 years). The exercise
will, so far as is possible, also identify the total project costs,
including capital and resource. DGRC will take into account anticipated
project costs and availability of funding in making recommendations
to Ministers. OST is expected publish the results of this prioritisation
exercise by the end of 2005.
9. What further details can be provided at this stage
on the need for and nature of work designed to address the conservatism
of the peer review system, and the way in which the peer review
processes deal with multidisciplinary research?
9.1 In 2004 RCUK produced an assessment of Research Councils
promotion and support for multidisciplinary research for the Council
for Science and Technology (CST). On the basis of this assessment
and a meeting with chief executives, CST stated that they were
confident that Research Councils are taking this issue seriously
and addressing it effectively.
9.2 However, Councils recognise the need to regularly scrutinise
and update policies and procedures in order to share good practice,
ensure that there are no inadvertent organisational or policy
barriers impeding the assessment of multidisciplinary research
proposals, and tackle latent conservatism in the peer review process.
9.3 The current policy for handling multidisciplinary research
proposals which cut across the remits of more than one Council
was developed and published in 2000. Subsequently, Councils have
implemented a number of changes in policies and procedures which
impact on their peer review process. These include Joint Electronic
Submission, the introduction of peer review colleges and multidisciplinary
peer review committees, training for new peer reviewers, incentives
for researchers etc. 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.
9.4 RCUK has decided that it would be timely to review the
effectiveness of existing policies and procedures for handling
and assessing multidisciplinary research proposals after the implementation
of the full economic cost funding model in September 2005, probably
in early 2006. This will include looking at the lessons learned
from peer review benchmarking and funding multidisciplinary schemes
and programmes, and from the training of peer reviewers. This
review will be a specific objective in the RCUK delivery plan.
10. What were the initial targets set for the participation
by all Councils in the JeS system and what was the involvement
of the DGRC in setting them?
10.1 The first phase of the JeS system was developed
to provide a harmonised electronic submission system for the four
Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC, NERC & PPARC) who did not
at that time have facilities to enable their communities to submit
applications for funding electronically. Associated with this
was the need for all Councils to meet the Government's e-business
target of having electronic service delivery facilities in place
by 2005. This has now been met.
10.2 JeS subsequently expanded into the Research Administration
Programme, part of the RCUK administration strategy, which aims
to deliver a common research administration system (enabling the
electronic processing of grants, fellowships and studentships
from submission to completion) for all Research Councils by 2007-08.
It was agreed by RCUK that those Councils which had already made
significant investments in their own electronic submission systems
would migrate to JeS compliant systems at some point in the future
when JeS was sufficiently mature to be able to provide their communities
with the same level of functionality as their existing electronic
systems. To this end AHRB and ESRC will be enabled to use JeS
from September 2005 with MRC to follow in 2006.
10.3 This project has been managed and run by Research Councils
working together as RCUK. DGRC has not been involved in target
setting.
February 2005
Annex A
CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISING LARGE FACILITIES PROJECTS
Large facility projects should normally address each of these
criteria, although their relevance and relative importance will
vary according to the nature and phase of development of each
project. RCUK will draw on these accordingly in developing its
proposed prioritisation of projects.
1. Scientific excellence and importance of the research delivered
from the facility, importance of the facility in delivering the
science, and overall match with the international standing of
UK science.
2. Strength of the potential user group in the UK (including
the opportunity for training and capacity building), and its breadth
across subject areas and RCs.
3. Project's fit to the RCUK's and wider Government or national
science strategy, including its impact on or contribution to other
international collaborations.
4. Technical feasibility, and why the chosen technical solution
is the best option.
5. Overall financial scale, including the whole-life, ie capital,
operating, further development, and decommissioning costs of the
facility, and how far the investment represents a significant
element of the relevant RC's capital and resource budget lines.
6. Timescale of the project, timeliness of the investment,
and impact on the UK of delay.
7. Extent to which the project would meet other regional,
national and international needs, interest and possible leverage
from other potential funders, and governance arrangements and
other mechanisms to enable such participation.
8. Project and operational management arrangements, covering
both construction and key aspects of the operation (eg data) and
management of the facility once constructed.
9. Contribution to or from the UK's technology and industry
base, and opportunities for exploitation.
10. Contribution to public confidence and engagement in science,
during both construction and operation.
11. Suitable site, and environmental impact.
Some additional criteria, largely derivatives of those listed
above, apply particularly—but not exclusively—to the
issue of hosting European or international-scale facilities:
12. The priority other countries attach to the project and
their standing in that area of science.
13. Cost of participating in, but not hosting the facility.
14. Whether seeking to host the project would impinge on negotiations
relating to other international collaboration.
15. Additional benefits of hosting an international facility,
and how far these outweigh the premium typically paid by the host
country.
3
RSC Education Secretary quoted in Research Fortnight, 15/09/2004. Back
4
Projections of Occupations and Qualifiactions (2001), a
report to the Department for Education and Skills by the Institute
for Employment Research and Cambridge Econometrics. Back
5
The information relates to the first four of the five calls for
project proposals, and the first two of the three calls for feasibility
studies and consortia formation networkds. The deadlines for the
two most recent calls have only just passed, and figures on applications
are not yet available. Back
