Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence

APPENDIX 22

Supplementary memorandum from Research Councils UK

LETTER TO RESEARCH COUNCILS UK

  As part of the House of Common Science and Technology inquiry into Research Council Support for Knowledge Transfer, it has been decided to evaluate three specific Research Council schemes in this area. We would therefore be grateful if you could obtain and send information regarding inputs and outcomes for the following schemes:

  1.  RCUK Business Plan Competition[13] (since 2001).

  2.  CASE Studentships (since 2000).

  3.  NERC Connect A & B (since 1996).

1.   Business Plan Competition

  For the Business Plan Competition, the Committee would like to evaluate the overall cost of the scheme against its full output (ie in addition to the number of prize winners). We would therefore like information on the following:

—  The total cost of the scheme since its inception, both indirect and direct, including such items as:

(i)  the cost of awards;

(ii)  the source and size of any industry sponsorship, money or otherwise and

(iii)  staffing and advertising costs.

—  The direct impact of the scheme, as indicated by data such as:

(i)  the number of entrant companies;

(ii)  their home institution;

(iii)  the number of qualifiers at each stage of the competition;

(iv)  the subsequent activities of entrants—both entrant companies and the individual members, including those who were not awarded prizes (eg how many subsequently went on to exploit their inventions and/or made use of what they learnt during the competition).

—  The indirect impact of the scheme as best as it can be ascertained through available information, including:

(i)  formal feedback from participants, home institutions, sponsoring or attending companies and judges; and

(ii)  informal feedback from the above stakeholders or other observers.

2.   CASE Studentships

  The Committee would like to determine the annual cost (since 2000) to the UK Government and host companies of the scheme. It would be grateful to receive information as follows:

(i)  the cost of awards (broken down by Council and sector of Industrial Partners); and

(ii)  numbers of awards per Council.

  The Committee would also like to receive data indicating the impact of CASE since 2000, in response to the following questions:

(i)  how many CASE students have gone on to work in the industrial research sector (and of those, how many were hired by their host companies)?;

(ii)  how many have gone on to work in the academic research sector?; and

(iii)  how many students have left research to undertake employment in other sectors?

  The Committee also wishes to assess any additional areas of impact. What information is kept on the nature of any continuing relationships or further collaborative work generated by the scheme?

  Finally, the Committee would also like information on:

(i)  whether there any significant differences between different Research Councils in the way the scheme is administered, including evaluation methods?;

(iii)  satisfaction rates for the Studentships, in respect of the host companies, institutes and students themselves?.

3.   Connect A & B/Partnership Research Grants

  The Natural Environment Research Council has been running these schemes since 1995-96. Connect B has been replaced by Partnership Research Grants. The Committee would like to see information that will help to answer questions such as:

—  how many applications have been received for each scheme per annum; and what advertising is undertaken to promote the schemes to research bodies and industry?;

—  how many grants have been made each year, and what was the total value?;

—  what were the total annual costs of running the schemes? and

—  what steps are taken to measure the effectiveness of these schemes in supporting knowledge transfer?

  Due to the short timeframe of the Committee inquiry, it would be appreciated if you could supply the relevant information by the 19th April. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

April 2006

RESPONSES

HOC S&T COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER: BUSINESS PLAN COMPETITIONS (APRIL 2006)

Background

  1.  The Research Council (RC) Business Plan Competition (BPC) aims to both assist in the creation of new business ventures from the research base and raise awareness of research commercialisation issues and opportunities amongst academics. The 2005-06 RC BPC is the first to involve all eight RCs. This Competition builds on the success of earlier pioneering bioscience competitions initiated in 1999 by BBSRC/MRC and subsequent competitions involving various councils.

  2.  The aims of the RC BPC are:

—  to encourage public funded researchers to consider the exploitation of research;

—  to provide training to make publicly-funded researchers more aware of the key issues for commercialising research outputs;

—  to assist knowledge transfer by facilitating the development of spin out companies, viable business services, joint ventures and licensing agreements.

  3.  The Competition is open to public-funded researchers working in universities, PSREs and all other institutions eligible to receive support from the research councils. The researchers should be working within the remit of the sponsoring councils. The Competition is open to individuals or teams of researchers, postdoctoral workers and PhD students. It is expected that the plans submitted propose business ventures that contribute to the UK economy.

  4.  The format of the BPC is as follows:

—  One-page Expressions of Interest requested;

—  Round 1: Eligible entrants invited to attend a two day training workshop covering commercialisation issues;

—  Teams submit a five-page outline business plan which is assessed by a panel of external judges;

—  Round 2: Successful teams benefit from a mentoring and coaching network, before preparing a full business plan to be assessed by external judges;

—  Around five teams invited to compete in a high profile Final.

  5.  The current Competition was launched in October 2005, with the Final planned for December 2006.

Scope and Impact

  6.  Summary information on the scope, including costs, and impact of all RC BPCs organised to date is attached at Annex 1.

  7.  BBSRC/MRC obtained significant industrial sponsorship for the Bioscience BPCs (£250k for the first one alone, including donation from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation for training elements of the competition) with additional support from DTI. Subsequent competitions have attracted further sponsorship. However, the most impressive form of sponsorship has been the BPC's ability to attract in kind support from mentoring organisations involved in Round 2 of the competition, and from external judges, guest speakers etc. For instance, the 41 teams progressing to the mentoring stages of the 2003-04 Joint RC BPC benefited from 143 mentoring days provided by 27 companies, an invaluable resource and of real value to participants in developing robust and professional business plans.

  8.  Case studies highlighting the outputs from past BPCs can be found at Annex 2a & b. (not published).

  9.  In relation to impact, BBSRC commissioned an external evaluation of the first two Bioscience BPCs: "Bioscience BPC: report on commercial activity of participating teams". The review showed that there were ten companies established as a result of first two Bioscience BPCs, having raised collectively £2.3 million investment. Also, two companies launched following BPC subsequently secured SBRI funding totalling £400k. The full report is available upon request. A follow-up Review has recently been commissioned in order to track bioscience entries to the first two Bioscience BPCs and the first Joint RC BPC.

  It should be noted that evaluation and follow-up monitoring is an integral component of the current Joint RC BPC and will feed into plans for any future competitions. However, it is too early to assess the impact of the first Joint RC BPC and therefore limited information is available at this time.

  10.  The following comments from the Bioscience BPC Review indicate the impact of the BPC on participants:

"I would not have set the company up, but for the Business Plan Competition."

"The competition has had a definite knock-on effect in terms of stimulating my colleagues to look at commercialising their work."

"The Competition gave me the ability to approach companies with confidence in a way that it could only have dreamt of before."

"The Competition was extremely well organised, with just the right number of meetings. Having a coach to talk issues through with and to help make sense of things was immensely valuable."

"I had had the idea for some time and the Competition was the stimulus for me to give it a go."

  For the current Joint RC BPC, illustrative comments relating to the Round 1 training workshops alone include:

"I liked the programme and learnt a lot. Though I have attended a few workshops on business plans, entrepreneurship & commercialisation of technology, I have no doubt in saying that yours is a very balanced approach to theory & practice (case studies & Belbin exercises). In addition, the delivery by each member of your team was excellent."

"I thought the RC business plan competition was excellent and I am looking forward to writing the five page business plan over the coming weeks. . . . Hope to see you again at the next round."

"I would just like to thank you and all your team for an excellent learning experience. I have learnt a lot and will hopefully be able to apply this in various ways."

  11.  There are many positive examples of the indirect impact the BPCs have had on "stakeholders". One such example is documented in the House of Commons S&T Committee uncorrected oral evidence session of 29 March 2006 on RC support for Knowledge Transfer, Q162 by Dr Malcolm Skingle, GSK; "BBSRC started the bioscience business competition. I always say when those business plans first came out my mum could have done a better job. In the early years of the competition many of the business plans were of poor quality but through iterations with external advisers within the business competition the quality has improved and now, at GSK, we interact with the companies that are coming out of the competition. It has been successful and other Research Councils are now also sponsoring it. I see that as a positive thing."

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Research Council Support for Knowledge Transfer 2006

  In a letter dated 5 April 2006 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee requested information in relation to CASE Studentships as set out in table one below.

  In response to this request information relevant to each Council is attached at Annexes 1-8.

Table One—Information requested by House of Commons S&T Committee

  The Committee would like to determine the annual cost (since 2000) to the UK Government and host companies of the scheme. It would be grateful to receive information as follows:

(i)  the cost of awards (broken down by Council and sector of Industrial Partners); and

(ii)  numbers of awards per Council.

  The Committee would also like to receive data indicating the impact of CASE since 2000, in response to the following questions:

(iv)  how many CASE students have gone on to work in the industrial research sector (and of those, how many were hired by their host companies)?;

(v)  how many have gone on to work in the academic research sector?; and

(vi)  how many students have left research to undertake employment in other sectors?

  The Committee also wishes to assess any additional areas of impact. What information is kept on the nature of any continuing relationships or further collaborative work generated by the scheme?

  Finally, the Committee would also like information on:

(i)  whether there any significant differences between different Research Councils in the way the scheme is administered, including evaluation methods?;

(iii)  satisfaction rates for the Studentships, in respect of the host companies, institutes and students themselves?.

Annex 1: Arts and Humanities Research Council

INFORMATION ON AHRC COLLABORATIVE DOCTORAL AWARDS

INTRODUCTION

  The AHRC's Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDA) scheme was launched in 2004, and the first cohort of CDA students took up their awards in October 2005. At the time of writing, the second round has just been completed, and that cohort of students will take up their awards in October 2006. The scheme is thus at an early stage of its development, which limits some of the information available for report.

1.   Cost to AHRC of collaborative doctoral awards

Financial year	CDA awards cost to AHRC	Cost to collaborating organisations
2005-06 (actual)*	£395,000	£43,000
2006-07 (actual and projected commitments)	£1,160,000	£52,000
*  NB this represents six months spend, as the first awards were made in October 2005.

—  The cost to the AHRC consists of the amounts paid in student awards, tuition fees, research training and similar costs;

—  The cost to the collaborating organisation consists of the contribution made by the collaborating organisation to the student. Other costs to the collaborating organisation (staff time, provision of resources etc) are not included.

2.   Number of AHRC collaborative doctoral awards

Academic year	New CDA awards	Number of new CDA students	Stock of CDA students
2005-06	41	43	43
2006-07	49	52	95

—  A number of CDA awards are made each year to support two students concurrently, and a number are also made to support three-year programmes, in which studentships will be offered over a period of three years.

Collaborating organisations by sector	2005-06 awards	2006-07 awards
National museums and galleries	13	15
Regional and local museums	6	7
Libraries and archives	5	3
Heritage	5	7
Archaeology	1	—
Commercial	2	—
Theatre/Performance/Drama	3	5
Film	—	1
Media/Arts/Design	4	5
Legal	—	2
Health/Social/Local government	2	4
Total	41	49
3.   Impact of CDA scheme and CDA student destinations

  The first cohort of AHRC CDA students will complete their PhD in 2008 at the earliest, so no data on career destinations is currently available.

4.   Continuing relationships or further collaborations generated by scheme

  Again, the CDA scheme is at too early a stage for such information to be available.

5.   CDA scheme administration

  The AHRC's Collaborative Doctoral Awards scheme was launched in 2004 to encourage and support partnerships and research collaboration between higher education institutions and non-academic organisations in support of students undertaking doctoral student in the arts and humanities.

  The aims of the scheme are:

—  to encourage and develop collaboration between HEI departments and non-academic bodies.

—  to establish links that can have benefits for both collaborating partners, providing access to resources and materials, knowledge and expertise and which also provide social, cultural and economic benefits to wider society.

—  to provide opportunities for PhD students to gain first hand experience of work outside an academic environment, with the student supported by both an academic and non-academic supervisor, and to enhance the employment related skills and training a research student gains during the course of their award.

—  to encourage collaborations from any area within the AHRC's subject remit and with a full range of organisations, bodies and businesses, including the creative, cultural and heritage industries, both large and small, across the private, public and voluntary sectors.

  Applications to the scheme are made in December each year by the relevant academic department in partnership with a collaborating organisation. Those partnerships successful in being allocated one or more collaborative studentships are then responsible for appointing appropriately qualified research students, and for informing the AHRC of such appointments. The Council applies the same eligibility criteria in terms of the student's residence and academic qualifications as are applicable in the annual open competition for doctoral awards.

  Applications are assessed by members of the AHRC's standing postgraduate panels during January each year; the AHRC's Postgraduate Committee then makes the final decisions in February about which applications are to be supported.

  The AHRC requires the completion of an annual progress report each summer by the student and both the academic and collaborating supervisors.

6.   Satisfaction rates for CDA studentships

  No information is currently available, but student feedback will be collected from the annual reports sent to the CDA students and their academic and collaborating supervisors, and collated once the first CDA studentships are completed.

Annex 2: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Research Council Support for Knowledge Transfer 2006

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

BBSRC INFORMATION REGARDING CASE STUDENTSHIPS

1.   Cost of Awards to BBSRC and host companies since 2000

  Overall expenditure on CASE awards is as follows:

Financial Year	BBSRC Expenditure (£k)	Company Expenditure* (£k)
2000-01	7,370	2,496
2001-02	8,210	2,527
2002-03	8,060	2,348
2003-04	8,100	2,348
2004-05	8,900	2,328

  *  The calculation of Company Expenditure is based purely on the direct financial contribution required from the company to the student (£2.5k stipend enhancement), and to the university department involved (£1.4k to cover additional research costs). It does not include, for example, staff time at the host company, or the costs to the company of providing placements or additional training.

  Sector of industrial partner: a recent survey of companies involved in BBSRC CASE schemes in the period 2001-03 showed the following breakdown:

Sector	%
Agriculture	14
Biotech	14
Chemical	6
Environmental	1
Food	10
Healthcare	7
Miscellaneous	3
Pharmaceutical	38
Tools	6

  The breakdown for current PhD CASE students is not available, but we have no reason to think that it would vary significantly from the above.

2.   Number of Awards since 2000

Financial Year	Total CASE awards	New starting CASE awards	Total BBSRC Studentships
2000-01	640	232	1,920
2001-02	648	210	1,910
2002-03	602	176	1,879
2003-04	602	188	1,926
2004-05	597	196	1,873
3.   Data on the impact of CASE since 2000

  BBSRC does not collect first destination data on students completing studentships broken down by CASE and standard PhD awards. The following data shows the breakdown of first employment destination across all studentships, as returned annually to OST:

Year degree started	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000*
Total number of leavers	612	589	526
of which, destination known	537	543	322
Known destinations	%	%	%
Permanent academic employment	1	1	5
Fixed-term academic employment	38	39	31
Further training (excl. teaching)	2	2	2
School teaching or teacher training	2	3	2
Private sector, industry or commerce	24	21	17
Government or other public sector	5	8	12
Other employment	4	2	1
Not employed	9	6	17
Overseas	15	18	12
*  Data collected on behalf of all research councils by HESA 4.   Additional Impact

  BBSRC does not have data available on any additional types of impact.

5.   Differences between how Councils administer schemes

  BBSRC uses three main schemes to support CASE studentships, in order to target its support for industrial research training and for collaboration between universities and companies. Each scheme is based on funding being awarded on a competitive basis to ensure that BBSRC is supporting the highest quality training for students. Applications to all three schemes are assessed by BBSRC's Studentships and Fellowships Panel, which includes industrial representatives. The schemes are:

  Industrial CASE studentships: an annual competition aimed primarily at SME's. The company itself takes the lead in identifying a suitable academic partner and the project which is wishes to pursue, and for submitting the application.

  CASE Partnership awards: in this scheme, major UK-based life-science based companies which have demonstrated a previous strong commitment to CASE are invited to apply for `quotas' of studentships. The applications are assessed on the basis of the training programme which the company can provide and its policies for academic collaboration. Quotas are awarded to cover three years of student intake, in order to provide a good planning horizon for the company.

  Quota CASE awards: BBSRC's main studentship competition, the Quota competition, awards studentships to university departments on a competitive basis, and around one third of these awards will be earmarked as needing to be CASE studentships. The academic partner takes the lead in identifying a suitable academic partner and agreeing the project to be pursued by the student.

6.   Satisfaction Rates for the Studentships

  BBSRC does not routinely collect information on satisfaction rates.

Annex 3: Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  CCLRC do not fund CASE studentships direct. However CCLRC supports CASE studentships as the industrial partner. Data on this will have been incorporated into the other Research Council expenditure on CASE.

Annex 4: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Table A EPSRC EXPENDITURE ON CASE

EPSRC INDUSTRIAL CASE

FY	Taken-up	Award duration in years	Unit cost £	Minimum Industrial Contribution	EPSRC Budget forecast £	Notional cost to industrial partners
2001-02	233	3	£38,129	£4,400	£8,884,057	£1,025,200
2002-03	242	3	£39,175	£13,058	£9,480,350	£3,160,117
2003-04	318	3	£44,700	£14,900	£14,214,600	£4,738,200
2004-05	323	3	£48,257	£16,086	£15,587,011	£5,195,670
2005-06	257	3.5	£59,464	£19,821	£15,282,248	£5,094,083

CASE FOR NEW ACADEMICS

FY	Taken-up	Award duration in years	Unit cost £	Minimum Industrial Contribution	Cost to EPSRC	Notional cost to industrial partners
2001-02	72	3	£38,129	£4,400	£2,745,288	£316,800
2002-03	95	3	£39,175	£4,400	£3,721,625	£418,000
2003-04	77	3	£44,700	£4,400	£3,441,900	£338,800
2004-05	92	3	£56,892	£4,400	£5,234,064	£404,800
2005-06	84	3.5	£59,464	£19,821	£4,994,976	£1,664,992

EPSRC MATHS CASE

FY	Taken-up	Award duration in years	Unit cost £	Minimum Industrial Contribution	Cost to EPSRC	Notional cost to industrial partners
2001-02	21	3	£38,129		£800,709	£800,709
2002-03	29	3	£39,175		£1,136,075	£1,136,075
2003-04	20	3	£44,700		£894,000	£894,000
2004-05	20	3	£48,257		£965,140	£965,140
2005-06	20	3.5	£59,464		£1,189,280	£1,189,280

COLLABORATIVE DOCTORAL TRAINING GRANT

FY	Taken-up	Award duration in years	Unit cost £	Minimum Industrial Contribution	Cost to EPSRC	Notional cost to industrial partners
2001-02	114	3	£38,129		£4,346,706	£0
2002-03	190	3	£39,175		£7,244,510	£0
2003-04	187	3	£44,700		£7,325,725	£0
2004-05	165	3	£48,257		£7,375,500	£0

ENGINEERING DOCTORATE

FY	Taken-up	Award duration in years	Unit cost £	Minimum Industrial Contribution	Cost to EPSRC	Notional cost to industrial partners
2001-02	135	4	£67,758		£9,147,330	£0
2002-03	145	4	£70,981		£9,824,910	£0
2003-04	145	4	£73,304		£10,292,245	£0
2004-05	145	4	£81,000		£10,629,080	£0
2005-06	165	4	£84,148		£13,884,420	£0

Notes:

1.  Industrial partners for CNAA (from 2005) and Industrial Case Awards (from 2002) were required to contribute a minimum of a third of the EPSRC unit cost to the department and the mandatory contribution to the student ceased.

2.  Unit cost consists of Fees, National minimum stipend and incidental costs.

Table B
EPSRC SUPPORT FOR CASE

FY	Industrial Case	Case for New Academics	Maths Case	Collab DTG	EngDoc	Total
2001-02	£8,884,047	£2,745,288	£800,709	£4,346,706	£9,147,330	£25,924,080
2002-03	£9,480,350	£3,721,625	£1,136,075	£7,244,510	£9,824,910	£31,407,470
2003-04	£14,214,600	£3,441,900	£894,000	£7,325,725	£10,292,245	£36,168,470
2004-05	£15,587,011	£5,234,064	£965,140	£7,375,500	£10,629,080	£39,790,795
2005-06	£15,282,248	£4,994,976	£1,189,280		£13,884,420
FY	Industrial Case	Case for New Academics	Maths Case	Collab DTG	EngDoc	Total
	no.students	no.students	no.students	no.students	no.students	no.students
2001-02	233	72	21	114	135	575
2002-03	242	95	29	190	145	701
2003-04	318	77	20	187	145	747
2004-05	323	92	20	165	145	745
2005-06	257	84	20		165

Table C
FIRST EMPLOYMENT DESTINATIONS OF CASE

FIRST EMPLOYMENT DESTINATIONS OF CASE SCHEME AND ENGINEERING DOCTORATE STUDENTS FROM SURVEYS IN YEARS 2000-04

Industrial Case	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Academic Sector (Fixed & Permanent Academic Appointments)	19	26	21	32	29
Private Sector, Industry or Commerce	30	38	34	27	29
Other Employment	3	5	7	8	4
Total known employed destinations (excludes not employed, further training and writing up)	52	69	62	67	62
Case for New Academics
Academic Sector (Fixed & Permanent Academic Appointments)		1	9	6	8
Private Sector, Industry or Commerce		1	4	11	11
Other Employment		1	1	2	4
Total known employed destinations (excludes not employed, further training and writing up)		3	14	19	23
Note: CNAA Scheme introduced in 2001
Mathematics CASE
Academic Sector (Fixed & Permanent Academic Appointments)	4	4	3	2	3
Private Sector, Industry or Commerce	5	2	6	6	5
Other Employment	1		2	1	3
Total known employed destinations (excludes not employed, further training and writing up)	10	6	11	9	11
Standard Case (Collaborative Doctoral Training Grant) Academic Sector (Fixed & Permanent Academic Appointments)	12	5	0	0	1
Private Sector, Industry or Commerce	29	5	0	1	1
Other Employment	7	0	3	0	0
Total known employed destinations (excludes not employed, further training and writing up)	48	10	3	1	2
Engineering Doctorate Academic Sector (Fixed & Permanent Academic Appointments)	4	3	4	4	6
Private Sector, Industry or Commerce	21	29	22	19	18
Other Employment	1	5	3	2	4
Total known employed destinations (excludes not employed, further training and writing up)	26	37	29	25	28

Note:  EPSRC moved in 2003 to using the Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA) to collect the First Destinations data. HESA data relies on people responding to surveys and therefore the data we have does not represent the full picture.

HESA and the Research Councils (RC) are currently exploring ways of increasing the record return response for the RC population from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Survey.

Annex 5: Economic and Social Research Council

  ESRC annual spend on CASE is currently about £3 million, based on figures for 2005-06. A spreadsheet is attached under separate cover (ESRC CASE figures) which summarises the details of CASE awards since 1999.

  Unfortunately the previous employment destinations surveys and the survey now carried out by HESA on behalf of the Councils do not allow ESRC to identify CASE students separately. ESRC cannot, at present, provide aggregate data on employment sectors although table A below does provide a breakdown of the awards by sector. ESRC has however carried out a number of individual case studies having followed up some of our CASE students. These are also attached under separate cover.

Some other relevant points:

  The CASE scheme only tells part of the picture regarding collaborative research training and knowledge transfer activities at the doctoral level. ESRC also funds a number of studentships in partnership with government departments and the devolved administrations.

  ESRC has recently carried out a review of some of its KT schemes and therefore have some material on student and supervisor satisfaction but have not been able to synthesise this in the time available. ESRC could provide further information on this in the next few weeks if required.

	YEAR
TOTAL
APPLICATIONS/AWARDS	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Number of Applications	113	90	136	128	110			577
Number of Awards Commissioned	64%  (72)	66%  (59)	56%  (76)	57%  (73)	52%  (57)			58%  (337)
Number of Awards Terminated	21%  (15)	15%  (9)	18%  (14)	10%  (7)	2%  (1)			14%  (46)
AGE PROFILE (STUDENT)
22-25 years old	0%  (0)	5%  (3)	13%  (10)	29%  (21)	39%  (22)			17%  (56)
26-30 years old	31%  (22)	39%  (23)	37%  (28)	34%  (25)	28%  (16)			34%  (114)
31-40 years old	42%  (30)	37%  (22)	32%  (24)	25%  (18)	16%  (9)			31%  (103)
41-50 years old	21%  (15)	8%  (5)	14%  (11)	10%  (7)	14%  (8)			14%  (46)
51-60 years old	7%  (5)	10%  (6)	4%  (3)	3%  (2)	4%  (2)			5%  (18)
GENDER (STUDENT)
Male	42%  (30)	47%  (28)	45%  (34)	45%  (33)	33%  (19)			43%  (145)
Female	58%  (42)	53%  (31)	55%  (42)	55%  (40)	67%  (38)			57%  (192)
COLLABORATING PARTNER
Commercial Organisation	23%  (17)	23%  (13)	33%  (25)	19%  (14)	19%  (11)			24%  (80)
Public Sector	57%  (41)	52%  (31)	53%  (40)	62%  (45)	65%  (37)			57%  (194)
Voluntary Sector	17%  (12)	17%  (10)	10%  (8)	15%  (11)	9%  (5)			14%  (46)
n/a	3%  (2)	8%  (5)	4%  (3)	4%  (3)	7%  (4)			5%  (17)
RESEARCH DISCIPLINE
Area Studies	1%  (1)	2%  (1)	3%  (2)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)			1%  (4)
Economics	3%  (2)	2%  (1)	1%  (1)	3%  (2)	0%  (0)			2%  (6)
Education	0%  (0)	2%  (1)	3%  (2)	1%  (1)	0%  (0)			1%  (4)
Human Geography	17%  (12)	29%  (17)	28%  (21)	30%  (22)	14%  (8)			24%  (80)
Interdisciplinary Studies	4%  (3)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	9%  (7)	2%  (1)			3%  (11)
Interdisciplinary Studies in Science, Technology and Innovation	4%  (3)	7%  (4)	1%  (1)	1%  (1)	5%  ( 3)			4%  (12)
Management and Business Studies	0%  (0)	5%  (3)	9%  (7)	8%  (6)	7%  (4)			6%  (20)
Multidisciplinary	0%  (0)	3%  (2)	1%  (1)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)			1%  (3)
Planning, Environmental Studies and Housing Studies	15%  (14)	17%  (10)	17%  (13)	14%  (10)	12%  (7)			16%  (54)
Political Science, International Studies and International Relations	3%  (2)	0%  (0)	4%  (3)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)			1%  (5)
Psychology and Cognitive Science	8%  (6)	8%  (5)	11%  (8)	5%  (4)	14%  (8)			9%  (31)
Social Anthropology	3%  (2)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	3%  (2)			1%  (4)
Social Policy, Social Work and Health Studies	12%  (9)	8%  (5)	9%  (7)	12%  (9)	16%  (9)			12%  (39)
Social Statistics, Research Methods and Computing	5%  (4)	3%  (2)	3%  (2)	3%  (2)	5%  ( 3)			4%  (13)
Social-Legal Studies and Criminology	3%  (2)	2%  (1)	1%  (1)	1%  (1)	7%  (4)			3%  (9)
Sociology	17%  (12)	12%  (7)	9%  (7)	11%  (8)	14%  (8)			12%  (42)
REGIONAL SPREAD
East of England	6%  (4)	8%  (5)	11%  (8)	4%  (3)	0%  (0)			6%  (20)
London	11%  (8)	10%  (6)	18%  (14)	18%  (13)	12%  (7)			15%  (51)
North East of England	13%  (9)	12%  (7)	5%  (4)	14%  (10)	7%  (4)			10%  (34)
North West of England	25%  (18)	22%  (13)	18%  (14)	20%  (15)	21%  (12)			21%  (72)
Scotland	8%  (6)	2%  (1)	8%  (6)	8%  (6)	19%  (11)			8%  (28)
South East of England	12%  (9)	19%  (11)	12%  (9)	7%  (5)	9%  (5)			9%  (32)
South West of England	6%  (4)	3%  (2)	3%  (2)	3%  (2)	4%  (2)			4%  (15)
Wales	1%  (1)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	7%  (5)	11%  (6)			4%  (12)
West Midlands	6%  (4)	7%  (4)	3%  (2)	3%  (2)	5%  (3)			4%  (15)
East Midlands	0%  (0)	2%  (1)	4%  (3)	1%  (1)	0%  (0)			2%  (5)
Yorkshire and Humberside	12%  (9)	15%  (9)	18%  (14)	15%  (11)	12%  (7)			17%  (56)
Northern Ireland	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)	0%  (0)			0%  (0)

Annex 6: Medical Research Council

  Expenditure on Industrial CASE studentships is as follows:

	2004-05	2005-06 (estimated)
Industrial CASE studentships	£400,000	£400,000

  Due to unforeseen circumstances MRC have only been able to provide the limited information above by the deadline 18 April. However MRC can provide further information by 21 April if required.

MRC INFORMATION REGARDING CASE STUDENTSHIPS—HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 2006

1.   Cost of Awards to MRC and host companies since 2000

  Overall new commitment to CASE awards from 2000-03 is as follows:

Financial Year	MRC commitment to new awards* (£k)	Company commitment to new awards** (£k)
2000-01	2,088	819
2001-02	2,356	924
2002-03	2,302	903
2003-04	1,232	693

*  These figures are estimated based on the average cost of a studentship and data on the number of new studentships funded.

**  These figures are estimated based on the minimum direct financial contribution required from the company to the student (£2k pa stipend enhancement), and to the university department involved (£4k pa to contribute to research costs).

  In 2004-05, 10 MRC Industrial Collaborative studentships were awarded, with an estimated new commitment of £535k from the MRC and at least £210k from industrial partners.

  Since October 2004 the majority of MRC funding for PhD studentships, including funding for CASE studentships, has been awarded to Universities through Doctoral Training Accounts. Universities now have much greater freedom to set up collaborative funding arrangements for studentships with MRC funding. Arrangements can be negotiated locally, and can involve either private sector or charitable funding partners. Data on the number of collaborative studentships with industrial partners awarded by Universities from their Doctoral Training Account funding, the level of commitment from funding partners, and the industrial companies involved are not yet available (see Section 2).

SECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL PARTNER:

  The majority of industrial partners in MRC studentships come from the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology sectors.

2.   Number of Awards since 2000

Financial Year	Collaborative awards	Industrial collaborative	Total MRC Studentships
2000-01	15	24	404
2001-02	25	19	404
2002-03	20	23	392
2003-04	11	12	404

  In 2004-05, 10 Industrial Collaborative studentships were awarded. Accurate data on the overall number of studentships and the number of collaborative studentships supported by universities from their MRC Doctoral Training Accounts are not yet available. Initial problems with collection of data on students funded via this new funding mechanism are currently being addressed.

3.   Data on the impact of CASE since 2000

  The first destination data on students completing studentships collected by the MRC is not broken down by type of PhD studentship award. The following data shows the breakdown of first employment destination across all studentships, as returned annually to OST:

Year degree started	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000*
Total number of leavers	430	401	423
of which, destination known	370	247	269
Known destinations	%	%	%
Permanent academic employment	0.8	2.0	1.9
Fixed-term academic employment	40.3	40.9	39.0
Further training (excl. teaching)	4.6	8.5	7.1
School teaching or teacher training	1.4	0.0	0.0
Private sector, industry or commerce	11.1	13.8	14.5
Government or other public sector	5.9	4.5	3.0
Other employment	12.2	6.9	7.4
Not employed	4.9	7.3	10.0
Overseas	18.9	16.2	17.1

*  For starters from 2000 onwards, data are collected on behalf of all research councils by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

4.   Additional Impact

  MRC does not have data available on any additional types of impact such as continuing relationships or ongoing collaboration arising from the schemes.

5.   Differences between how Councils administer schemes

  MRC currently supports Collaborative studentships in two different ways. Both schemes seek to enhance links between academia and industry in the provision of high quality research training, and in each scheme students are jointly supervised by an academic and an industrial supervisor. Students are based at a University department or Research Institute, but can expect to spend a minimum period of three months during the tenure of the award with the collaborating industrial company. As a measure of its interest and involvement, the industrial company is expected to make a financial contribution to the cost of the studentship.

  Industrial Collaborative Studentships: These studentships are awarded via an annual competition managed centrally by MRC Head Office, with the industrial partner as the primary applicant. The industrial partner takes the initiative in establishing the academic link.

  Collaborative Studentships: Under this scheme, the academic partner defines the research project and takes the initiative in establishing a link with an industrial company and supervisor. There is no annual competition and the MRC contribution to awards is funded from the academic host institution's Doctoral Training Account.

6.   Satisfaction Rates for the Studentships

  MRC has no current information on satisfaction rates for collaborative or industrial collaborative PhD studentships.

Annex 7: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL

CASE STUDENTSHIPS

  NERC CASE Partners can be from industry, Government, private or public sector companies based in the UK or overseas.

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
New CASE students	90	74	108	106	104	99
Stock CASE students	298	268	268	299	319	307
% total PhD students	27%	26%	26%	29%	32%	30%
Cost to NERC for CASE students	£3m	£3.2m	£3.9m	£4.6m	£5.2m	£5.4m
Minimum cost to CASE Partners *	£0.3m	£0.27m	£0.27	£0.3m	£0.32m	£0.3m
% of CASE Partners that are Industry or Private Sector **	37%	34%	38%	31%	37%	27%

*  based on the CASE Partner having to pay the student at least £1,000 per year. The CASE partner may pay a higher contribution to the student or contribute either in cash or in kind to project costs, but we don't collect those data electronically.

**  based on the studentships starting in that year. The remaining CASE Partners were classified as Government or public sector. Unfortunately we are not able to provide details of industrial sector in the time available.

  NERC is unable to provide destination data specifically regarding CASE Students. The table below shows the NERC data for destinations for all our PhD students.

Year finished	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04
Industrial sector*	17%	10%	6%	8%	9%	9%
Academic Sector**	25%	21%	12%	22%	25%	16%
Other employment***	10%	18%	11%	9%	8%	8%
Remainder ****	48%	51%	71%	61%	58%	67%

*  Industrial sector includes those classified as private sector, industry or commerce

**  Academic sector includes those classified as Permanent Academic and Fixed Term Academic

***  Other includes school teaching or teacher training; Government or public sector; other employment

****  Remainder includes all other categories: further training; not employed; unknown (average around 40% of total are unknown)

  NERC has no data on any continuing relationships or collaborative work generated by the scheme.

NERC RUNS TWO MECHANISMS FOR CASE STUDENTSHIPS:

(a)  Any of our PhD studentships can be awarded as a CASE studentship, where there is involvement by a non-university partner fulfilling the minimum requirements (time spent in the CASE Partner and at least £1k per year from the CASE Partner to the student). NERC awards around 250 PhD studentships per year through an algorithm and we expect around 30% of them to be set up as a CASE awards.

(b)  A separate competition is held once a year. This was called the Industrial CASE competition, but has now been widened to other UK public sector partners and is called the Open CASE competition. In 2005 around 150 applications were received and reviewed by a panel and 35 studentships were awarded. Previously the scheme had funded 20 new studentships per year.

IN RELATION TO SATISFACTION RATES, NERC PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING:

Submission data for all our PhD students show that around 80% of NERC funded students submit their PhD thesis within four years;

  A NERC survey in 2004 of interactions between NERC-funded researchers and their users showed that 70% of the consulted users had been involved in joint training projects such as CASE PhD studentships. Of the identified methods of knowledge transfer, users were most satisfied with the quality of PhD training provision (though this did not separate CASE from standard PhD studentships). 95% of respondents said they would consider being involved in CASE again.

Annex 8: Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

CASE STUDENTSHIPS: COSTS AND NUMBER OF AWARDS

  We have taken costs to mean the funds spent by Research Councils and industry on CASE studentships each year. Industries have been categorised by broad market sectors. We have given numbers for total student stock to show the proportion of CASE against the whole studentships programme. Detailed in following table:

Expenditure by PPARC on CASE awards		Total Expenditure by Industrial Partners	Public Sector	Defence	Instrument	Hardware/ Software	Health
2000-01	£343,500	£97,500	£42,900	£15,600	£35,100	£0	£3,900
2001-02	£368,000	£111,860	£59,925	£19,975	£27,965	£0	£3,995
2002-03	£376,715	£107,865	£51,935	£31,960	£7,990	£11,985	£3,995
2003-04	£325,735	£110,565	£61,425	£28,665	£4,095	£12,285	£4,095
2004-05	£421,553	£109,200	£50,400	£21,000	£8,400	£25,200	£4,200

NUMBER OF CASE AWARDS

	Stock	Total Studentships	New CASE Awards	New CASE- Plus Awards
2000-01	25	524	9	1
2001-02	28	543	6	2
2002-03	27	564	7	2
2003-04	27	577	8	2
2004-05	26	596	7	1

IMPACT OF CASE

  PPARC does not have information on how many CASE students go on to work in the industrial research sector. We have information (DHLE data) on the destination of postgraduate leavers funded by PPARC however this data does not identify CASE students as a separate category. The DHLE data shows that over the period 2000 to 2003-04, 22% of students took up employment in the private sector.

  We can provide additional information from a 2003 Career Path Survey of former PPARC PhDs whose PhDs ended between 1995-96 and 1998-99. This survey data showed that six to eight months after finishing their PhDs, 48% of former students were employed in the private sector. Of those employed in private companies 75% worked in financial services, business services and computer software design, solutions and management.

  The 2003 survey sample of 186 respondents included 10 students who had held CASE awards. The collaborating bodies on these CASE awards were in the areas of defence and aerospace, supply of goods and services for scientific research, natural resources and environment, computing and public sector research.

  The DHLE data shows that 40% of PPARC postgraduate leavers were employed in academic research and 60% were employed in other sectors.

  The 2003 career path survey showed that 35% of former students were employed in universities and 12% were employed in other Government and public organisations.

ADDITIONAL IMPACT

  We can provide information from the 2003 Career Path Survey on career paths of CASE students, though it is worth noting that this is a very small sample. Six out of the 10 CASE students had collaborated with the organisation that had sponsored their CASE studentship, although four of them worked for someone else. Two still worked for their CASE collaborator.

  PPARC developed a CASE -Plus scheme in 1999-2000. This was an extension of CASE to help students become more effective in prioritising technology transfer: CASE-Plus operates the same way as CASE for the first three years CASE -Plus students then go onto spend a fourth year working full-time as an employee of the co-operating body. During the fourth year the student receives a salary equivalent to that of new postdoctoral researchers, this is jointly funded by PPARC and the industry employer. There have been eight CASE-Plus awards to date.

ADMINISTRATION OF SCHEMES

  CASE and CASE-Plus applications are peer reviewed by a CASE Panel of four members. Applications are assessed against the criteria below:

    1.  scientific quality and value of the project;

    2.  educational value to the student;

    3.  novelty of the idea;

    4.  strength of industrial collaboration; and

    5.  impact on wealth creation and quality of life.

  CASE Panel Members are asked to score each criterion. The first three criteria merit a maximum of 10 marks, whilst the last two merit up to 15 marks each. Thus a weighting is placed on the criteria relating directly to collaboration with industry and technology transfer.

SATISFACTION RATES

  PPARC does not have this data but drawing again on the 2003 survey—the vast majority of those surveyed were "very happy" (42%) or "quite happy" (50%) with their current employment. Submission rates for PPARC studentships including CASE have been at least 80% each year.

ADDITIONAL PPARC COMMENTS

  Whilst CASE studentships constitute a small proportion of our overall studentship numbers, we consider the CASE scheme to be an important part of the package (along with the PIPPS schemes, KITE Club and other awards) that we provide to facilitate links between our researchers and industry.

House of Commons S&T Committee Inquiry

INFORMATION IN RELATION TO CONNECT A & B/PARTNERSHIP RESEARCH GRANTS

  The Natural Environment Research Council has been running these schemes since 1995-1996 (note: In December 2005 Connect B was replaced by Partnership Research Grants). The Committee would like to see information that will help to answer questions such as:

—  how many applications have been received for each scheme per annum; and what advertising is undertaken to promote the schemes to research bodies and industry?;

—  how many grants have been made each year, and what was the total value?;

—  what were the total annual costs of running the schemes? and

—  what steps are taken to measure the effectiveness of these schemes in supporting knowledge transfer?

  For numbers of applications, numbers of grants and total value of grants, please see next page. We apologise for the gaps in the data, but not all has been obtainable in the time available.

  The schemes are advertised in NERC's Research Grants Handbook and on the website, and in the e-Newsletter Using NERC Science.

  For example, details of Connect A in the 2005 Handbook are as follows:

  This scheme is aimed at promoting partnerships between eligible researchers (under rules for Blue Skies, see Section C) and potential users of NERC funded research. The scheme is intended for pump priming activities of two basic types: "Proof of concept" proposals for a specific research activity relating to emerging ideas from the science base that have potential application but a high degree of technical risk and costs for workshops or seminars on a theme of joint interest to the collaborating body and the science base. Participants should be from both communities. The maximum funding that may be sought is £4,000 for the total Directly Incurred costs (ie the limit applies to 100% of costs under this heading). In addition NERC will pay the appropriate proportion (ie 80%) of Directly Allocated and Indirect Costs (see Section D for details of cost categories).

  There are no closing dates for CONNECT A applications. Applications should be submitted on the Connect A application form available from the NERC website and NOT through the Je-S system.

The costs of running the scheme are considered along with the costs of administering NERC's Standard Grants Scheme, and form a very small part thereof.

  The effectiveness of the schemes in supporting knowledge transfer is assessed annually by means of Output and Performance Measures (OPMs) during the life of the projects and for three years afterwards (this is likely to be increased to five years).

NERC CONNECT RESEARCH GRANTS AWARDED 1995-96 to 2005-06

	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06
CONNECT A Applications	3	9	3	3	3	9	9	1	5	4	3
New Awards	4	7	1	2	2	7	6	1	5	1	1
Value New Awards (£k)	21	34	5	10	9	32	35	3.4	27	5	5
CONNECT B Applications	n/a	n/a	n/a	11	7	8	7	6	8	10	4*
New Awards	5	5	7	5	0	2	9	5	5	2	3
Value New Awards (£k)	429	413	1,189	539	0	142	655	1,008	437	249	733

Notes:

All figures are based on financial year.

Applications are shown in the financial year in which they were received; new awards are shown in the financial year in which the grant was awarded and became active.

*  These applications are now called Partnership Research Grants not Connect B.

OUTPUT AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

  www.nerc.ac.uk/evaluation/opm/

  This year Central Government will spend around £370 million of the UK Science Budget on the environmental sciences through NERC. Council and the Office of Science and Technology (OST) need to be assured that NERC is supporting excellent science and training and providing best value for money.

  Output and Performance Measures (OPMs) are one of the tools used by OST, NERC Council and its Science & Technology Board to help assess the delivery of this mission; and in priority setting, resource allocation and the management of programmes.

  We believe that in order to make the most effective use of OPMs at an organisational level it is important that their collection and use forms an integral part of the overall strategic planning process.

  Data on many of the indicators are held centrally within Swindon Office. In addition, information on research outputs is collected annually from current and previous grant holders and from our research centres, Designated Data Centres and Services & Facilities. In 2003 we introduced electronic collection by Research Outputs Database (ROD).

  This OPM information is collated into a report for Council, and the data are analysed in detail, where possible drawing on studies carried out by other funding bodies.

  Data and information collected via the OPM exercise also feed into the NERC Annual Report, and were used in the development of NERC's Science Strategy and for Science & Management Audits of NERC Research Centres. Examples of science achievements or exploitation are always needed for briefings and speeches, and may be written up as articles in "Planet Earth".

  In addition, all Research Councils are required to report annually to the Office of Science and Technology on an agreed set of indicators. These are used to demonstrate progress in the key areas of research, training, industrial competitiveness and the promotion of science.

  These data are a sub-set of the OPMs collected for NERC Council, and include details of publications; major scientific achievements; training and partnership awards; public engagement and public understanding of science initiatives; and science into policy.

SELECTED INFORMATION ON OPMS FROM CONNECT A AND B SCHEMES, 2002-05

—  to give an idea of the sort of information recorded, and the success of the schemes.

  It should be noted that data in OPMs may not cover all research outputs because of incomplete reporting.

Publications information

  Information on publications includes papers (refered and other) in journals; books; book chapters; and other non-refereed publications.

eg Research Publications in ISI Journals (from ROD database)

Programme	2002	2003	2004	2005
Connect A	1	5	1	1
Connect B	24	14	6	11
Knowledge Transfer*			9	13

*  The Knowledge Transfer (KT) scheme was introduced in 2004; it includes Connect B, Good Ideas, and Networks, therefore the figures against KT cannot be attributed only to Connect B. Reports on Connect projects are submitted for three years following the end of the award, therefore in 2004 and 2005 the publications against Connect B relate to publications from previous years' awards.

IPR information

  Data on patents and IPR income, eg from licensing, are also collected. Such data are likely to appear in OPMs well after the year of the award. eg:

2002-03 OPM

  An HEI filed an international patent application concerning personal-care compositions from work on a Connect A project looking at UV-absorbing compounds from algae.

  In HEI filed a UK patent application for a marine-mammal phone-tagging system as a result of work on a Connect B project, and another sold products or services related to a Connect B project on seabed monitoring.

2003-04 OPM

  An HEI sold products or services developed during a Connect A project on the application of geophysics to contaminated land.

2004-05 OPM

  An HEI sold products or services related to work on a Connect B project investigating new platforms for oceanographic monitoring.

2005-06 OPM

  Three HEIs sold products or services related to work on Connect B projects.

Scientific achievements information

  This is wide-ranging, eg (far from a complete list) development of new sampling, detection or recording technologies; manufacture of prototypes; improved understanding of natural phenomena or processes; provision of information relevant to environmental management or protection, eg identification of pollutant sources or environmental indicators; new computer models; securement of a book contract; development of an internet information resource/network.

Science-to-Policy information

  This covers the provision of policy information to government departments and agencies (eg the EA), including information on agriculture and food, biodiversity, environmental change and impacts, environmental technology, land use, natural resources, nature conservation, planning, pollution, waste, and water. Grantholders are asked to say how and to whom they communicated their information or advice.

Prizes

  Grantholders are also asked to record the receipt of prizes related to their scientific achievements.

Connect A & B:

HEI RECIPIENTS AND PROJECT PARTNERS

CONNECT A:  2001-06

HEI	Partner 1	Partner 2 (if applicable)	Partner 3 (if applicable)
Brunel University	World Wildlife Fund	International Snow Leopard Trust
Cardiff University	Countryside Council for Wales
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology	Health Protection Agency
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory	Partrac Ltd
Royal Holloway, University of London	Compass Hydrographic Services Ltd
University of Bimingham	Subsurface Geotechnical Ltd
University of Leeds	English Heritage	City of York Council
University of Manchester	European Mercury Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants
University of Newcastle upon Tyne	European Science Foundation
University of Sheffield	Highspy Ltd
University of Sheffield	[data not available at short notice]
University of Southampton	BP	Subsea 7	Transocean
University of Southampton	National Trust
University of St Andrews	Partrac Ltd
University of St Andrews	NSF

CONNECT B:  2001-06

HEI	Partner 1	Partner 2 (if applicable)	Partner 3 (if applicable)	Partner 4 (if applicable)
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology	Geovista Ltd	Canadian Geological Service
Imperial College London	Rio Tinto
Kings College London	Environment Agency	RMC Aggregates
Queen Mary's University of London	HR Wallingford	Harwich Haven Authority
Reading University	Meteorology Office
Reading University	Syngenta	Astrazeneca
Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS)	Conoco (UK) Ltd	Geotek Ltd
SAMS	Yeoman Morvern Limited
The Natural History Museum	PDM Group
University of Durham	Environment Agency	Eden Rivers Trust	Defra
University of Edinburgh	Defra
University of Edinburgh	Meteorology Office
University of Essex	Meteorology Office	Environment Agency	United Utilities	Radio Communications Agency
University of Lancaster	Environment Agency
University of Leeds	Environment Agency	Yorkshire Water
University of Leeds	National Trust	Environment Agency
University of Leicester	Electro-silica, Oil and Gas Ltd
University of Liverpool	DSTL
University of St Andrews	Wildtrack Telemetry Systems Ltd
University of St Andrews	United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
University of Wales, Bangor	DSTL
April 2006

---

---

13   Also known as the Joint Research Council Business Plan Competition. Back

---

Prepared 15 June 2006