APPENDIX 50
Memorandum from Research Councils UK
INTRODUCTION
1. Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic
partnership that champions the research, training and innovation
supported by the seven UK Research Councils. Through RCUK the
Research Councils together with the Arts and Humanities Research
Board (AHRB) are creating a common framework for research, training
and knowledge transfer. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk.
2. This memorandum is submitted by RCUK
on behalf of the seven Research Councils, and represents our independent
views. It does not include or necessarily reflect the views of
the Office of Science and Technology (OST). RCUK welcomes the
opportunity to respond to this inquiry from the House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee.
3. This memorandum provides evidence from
RCUK in response to the main topics and questions identified by
the Select Committee. Further details of six of the Councils'
discipline specific priorities, activities and concerns are contained
in separate Annexes:
| Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
| Annex 1 |
| Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
| Annex 2 |
| Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
| Annex 3 |
| Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)
| Annex 4 |
| Medical Research Council (MRC) | Annex 5
|
| Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC)
| Annex 6 |
GENERAL COMMENTS
4. Anxieties about the financial sustainability of the
UK research base as a whole, and about sustaining high quality
research capacity across all disciplines and sub-disciplines have
grown over recent years. The issues are wide ranging, and include
rebuilding and maintaining the physical and scientific environment
for conducting research (buildings, major equipment and facilities),
attracting enough people into careers in research—and retaining
them, maintaining international standards of excellence across
the entire research base, and the funding structures and mechanisms
(including assessment procedures) for supporting research.
5. Elements of the problem have started to be addressed,
through successive infrastructure initiatives (JIF and SRIF),
the Roberts review of science, engineering and technology, which
drew particular attention to researcher salaries and careers,
and through spending review settlements in 1998, 2000, 2002 and
2004, which have been comparatively generous for the science base.
In addition, the move to full economic cost funding has helped
to identify the real costs of research and how these costs should
be met.
6. Although this inquiry focuses upon the sciences in
England it resonates more broadly with the current concerns of
RCUK, OST and other funders about the sustainability of the research
base across the UK and the health of research disciplines and
sub-disciplines. This RCUK response therefore raises generic issues
which are applicable across the whole research base eg the impact
of the Funding Councils' formulae on the financial viability of
all departments not just scientific ones.
RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
A. The impact of HEFCE's research funding formulae, as
applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings, on the financial
viability of university science departments
7. The Research Councils fund the highest rated projects
and individuals on the basis of peer review, regardless of departmental
RAE rating. In practice, statistics collected by the Research
Councils demonstrate a strong correlation between RAE rating and
success in winning funding from the Research Councils for research,
training or access to facilities.
8. It is clear that the RAE has a very significant role
in driving research behaviour and HEI strategic management of
research. The RAE should help create a healthy research environment
which supports and promotes high quality, properly funded research;
these should be the main drivers rather than unsustainable increases
in volume of activity. In submissions to the recent RAE consultation
exercises the Research Councils argued for the inclusion of institutional
research strategies as part of the HEI submission package. These
could be used by the Funding Councils to help develop coherent
and sustainable future funding plans for HEIs. In addition, given
the changing nature of scientific endeavour and the need to strengthen
the UK's multidisciplinary capability Research Councils have continued
to press the Funding Councils to ensure that the 2008 RAE gives
sufficient recognition and weight to multidisciplinary research,
collaborative activities and research aimed at influencing policy
and practice.
9. Councils also believe that the RAE funding formula
is compounding the difficulties for lower-rated departments in
remaining financially viable: the way in which funding is distributed
means that any department with less than a five could be in jeopardy.
This could lead to a loss of research diversity and of pockets
of excellence in otherwise less-than-outstanding departments.
B. The desirability of increasing the concentration of
research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend
10. It is Research Councils' policy to continue to fund
excellent research irrespective of location. Research Councils
do recognise that this contributes to an increasing concentration
of research funding in a small number of HEIs and results in uneven
geographical spread of investments. However, in some areas, RCUK
believes that some further limited concentration may be desirable
to increase the critical mass and sustain strength and depth of
knowledge in the core university science departments and to generate
a greater degree of concentration around key equipment and facilities.
RCUK is also committed to working with other funders and HEIs
to ensure that the UK has a research environment which enables
multidisciplinary research to flourish. It is important that these
multidisciplinary activities are embedded alongside, and linked
closely with, strengths in existing disciplines. Closure of departments
might reduce the scope for interaction between departments and
for multi-subject courses that could encourage a multidisciplinary
approach.
C: The implications for university science teaching of
changes in the weightings given to science subjects in the teaching
funding formula
11. Whilst this is not primarily an issue for Research
Councils, RCUK is concerned that the new teaching funding formula
will disadvantage those laboratory-based subjects where cuts in
the unit of funding are proposed and that this will exacerbate
difficulties in recruiting undergraduates to courses such as chemistry
and the physical sciences. Moreover, even in circumstances where
undergraduate recruitment is buoyant, for example in the biosciences,
this may be unsustainable in the longer term because increases
in undergraduate number are significantly higher than real terms
increases in expenditure.
D: The optimal balance between teaching and research provision
in universities, giving particular consideration to the desirability
and financial viability of teaching-only science departments
12. The Research Councils are only one of the parties
involved in the debate about the optimum balance between teaching
and research, but as a matter of principle believe that research
and teaching are usually best done together. Given the Research
Councils' position on concentration, the balance in the research-intensive
universities is likely to be (relatively) weighted in favour of
research. Nevertheless, we also believe that the conduct of research
within a department will improve the quality of the teaching.
For example, it will help to attract higher quality staff (although
the best researchers are not necessarily the best teachers) and
will make the teaching environment more research-aware and assist
teaching in staying up to date with recent findings. RCUK believes
that all research students (masters level and beyond) need to
be taught in a department in which a substantial volume of research
is conducted.
E: The importance of maintaining a regional capacity in
university science teaching and research;
13. The Research Councils have a national remit and adopt
a UK-wide strategic view on research capability. However, whilst
some university-industry collaborations are national or global,
Councils recognise that there is a need to stimulate greater engagement
between business and HEIs on a national and regional basis to
help deliver the innovation agenda. For knowledge transfer to
SMEs in particular, close proximity between the SMEs and the researchers
in likely to be advantageous. This is primarily an issue for individual
universities and their Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), although
Research Councils also have a role to play in facilitating and
enabling these relationships.
14. The Research Councils' strategic priorities for engagement
with the RDAs are knowledge transfer (including continuity of
funding to bridge the development gap and articulation of industry
needs), training (including articulation of regional needs and
involvement of companies in postgraduate training) and large facilities.
At an operational level there is extensive interaction between
the Councils and RDAs, particularly with those Councils with institutes.
Councils and RDAs are working in partnership on a range of regional
initiatives, collaborations and facilities, as well as promoting
entrepreneurship and knowledge transfer from the research base.
F: The extent to which the Government should intervene
to ensure continuing provision of subjects of strategic national
or regional importance; and the mechanisms it should use for this
purpose
15. Not all HEIs can be research intensive and excellent
at every discipline. It is therefore important to ensure that
UK research funding is focused on the very best researchers whilst
stimulating and supporting pockets of excellence in less research-orientated
institutions. There is a need for all interested parties, including
Research Councils, Funding Councils and the universities, to work
in partnership to ensure that research capacity across the research
base is maintained. This issue is being specifically addressed
through the Research Base Funders Forum, which is initially focusing
on the short term problems around health of disciplines and developing
a set of metrics to help DfES, the Funding Councils, OST and the
Research Councils create and implement evidence-based policy on
intervention in subjects giving cause for concern.
16. RCUK has produced a summary of areas where there
is a concern over the future supply of researchers and health
of disciplines, together with information on grade profile and
demographic analysis. This analysis reveals that the question
of what constitutes a healthy research base cannot be answered
simply: the answer is discipline dependent and not solely a function
of numbers of staff or trends in student numbers. For example,
there is universal agreement that the decline in numbers of full
time staff in the physical sciences is of concern. However, there
is also concern over the development, retention and recruitment
of world class researchers in business and management, despite
an overall increase in numbers of staff in these disciplines.
Also, overall upward trends may mask shortages in key sub-disciplines,
for example the biosciences appear healthy overall, but this masks
gaps in whole animal physiology and some aspects of health services
research.
17. Work is now underway to identify a small number of
simple quantitative indicators, based on readily available information
(Research Council and HESA data) providing insights into any changes
in the breadth of the research community and its changing composition.
Research Councils also see the value in producing reports, drawing
on quantitative and qualitative information such as the proportion
of permanent academic staff associated with a particular discipline
and their age distribution, numbers of postdoctoral researchers
and research students, level and number of sources of research
income, demand for research funding and trends in outputs such
a publications. This will help highlight emerging and potential
threats at the discipline and sub-discipline level. The project
should be completed early in 2005. Subsequently the Funders Forum
will develop more general metrics on research excellence (outcomes)
at institution level (eg a long-term project starting January
2005).
18. The health of the UK research base depends on the
continuing supply of individuals at each level of the research
community (undergraduate, postgraduate, postdoctoral, lecturer,
senior lecturer and professorial). Erosion of this skills base
in the UK is of particular concern to the Research Councils. RCUK
believes that a multi-Council approach is needed to address skill
shortages in key cross-cutting areas and to grow the population
of researchers who possess first rate specialist, analytical and
transferable skills to enable them to work in multi-disciplinary
teams and outside of their discipline area. However, all Councils
have an interest in monitoring the health of the research disciplines
within their own remits to understand the ability of the research
base to renew itself, and all wish to ensure that any cross-Council
interventions are sufficiently flexible to enable Councils to
take account of the particular needs and characteristics of individual
subject areas and disciplines.
19. At the present time, in addition to the work outlined
above, the Councils are deploying the additional funding to implement
the recommendations of the Roberts Review to provide enhanced
postgraduate stipends and postdoctoral salaries in areas of research
where there are recruitment issues such as statistics and mathematics.
Roberts funding for skills and career development is also being
used to increase the level and awareness of transferable and careers
skills by researchers. Monitoring and reporting will enable RCUK
to build a cross-Council picture of the impact of these investments
in due course.
20. Furthermore, all of the Councils already share information
and develop joint policy and funding initiatives with each other.
There is currently considerable joint activity between the Research
and Funding Councils in this area. For example first, EPSRC, in
partnership with HEFCE and SHEFC, is taking the first steps towards
building capacity through the investment of £10 million in
its new science and innovation awards. The purpose of these awards
is to secure strategically important research areas that are missing
or "at risk" in the UK. Many of these subjects have
relevance for the broader research base, for example, in the life
and environmental sciences, or in providing the fundamental knowledge
that is exploited in astronomy, particle physics and the development
and provision of large-scale facilities needed to keep UK research
at the international leading edge. They are also essential for
future developments in business and public services. Secondly,
AHRB, ESRC and HEFCE are developing an initiative which will fund
strategic subject centres and training in area based language
studies. A major aim of this initiative will be to develop a cadre
of researchers able to work at the highest level on for example
the economics of nations such as China and Japan while at the
same time being able to speak these languages fluently. Thirdly,
initial discussions have been held between BBSRC and HEFCE on
areas such as whole animal physiology and between ESRC and HEFCE
on quantitative social science, and we understand that the HEFCE
Board has recently agreed that quantitative social science should
be a subject of national strategic importance.
21. In its recent scrutiny of the Economic and Social
Research Council, the Committee suggested that a national Strategic
Capabilities Fund should be established to address skills shortages
and ensure national coverage in key subject shortage areas by
building local capacity. RCUK would welcome the allocation of
additional resources to support the development of such strategic
capabilities, recognising that there are skills issues that could
usefully be addressed through the Research Councils. However,
ensuring national coverage in key subject areas is mainly an issue
for the Funding Councils and would need to taken forward by the
Funders Forum. RCUK has worked with the Funding Councils to prepare
a report for the Funders Forum which highlights both whole disciplines
and sub-disciplines in urgent need of investment if a strong research
base is to be ensured. Both the Funding Councils and the Research
Councils have expressed a wish to take forward this agenda jointly
when the remaining allocations are made.
January 2005
| 
