Memorandum submitted by the Wellcome Trust
1. The Wellcome Trust is pleased to respond
to the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee
Inquiry into the future sustainability of the higher education
sector.
2. The Wellcome Trust is the largest independent
charity in the UK and the second largest medical research charity
in the world. It funds innovative biomedical research, in the
UK and internationally, spending around £500 million each
year to support the brightest scientists with the best ideas.
The Wellcome Trust supports public debate about biomedical research
and its impact on health and wellbeing.
3. Much of the Trust's funding in the UK
is provided through universities. While we strongly endorse the
value of universities both for teaching and learning, and contributing
to the economy and society, this response concentrates mainly
on the research role of universities, which is of most relevance
to the Trust. It focuses on the questions related to university
funding.
IS THE
CURRENT FUNDING
SYSTEM FIT
FOR PURPOSE?
SHOULD CENTRAL
FUNDING BE
USED AS
A LEVER
TO ACHIEVE
GOVERNMENT POLICY
AIMS? IS
THE BALANCE
BETWEEN CORE
OR BLOCK-FUNDING
AND POLICY-DIRECTED
FUNDING CORRECT
AT PRESENT?
HOW CAN
LEADING RESEARCH
UNIVERSITIES REACH
INTERNATIONALLY COMPETITIVE
LEVELS OF
FUNDING?
The Dual Support System
4. We strongly support the role of the dual
support system, and welcome the Government's firm commitment to
the dual system, in Science and Innovation Investment Framework
2004-2014: Next Steps and most recently, in the Pre-Budget
Report 2006.
5. The two streams of funding within dual
support have distinct purposes: Research Council grants provide
funding for specific projects, programmes and people, while unhypothecated
QR funding from the Funding Councils, allocated on the basis of
research excellence, allows institutions to take strategic decisions
about their research portfolios. QR funding provides flexibility
to undertake blue skies research and to respond to new opportunities,
and allows Vice-Chancellors to plan for the longer-term, with
secure funding to provide for the core costs of permanent academics
and support staff. The dual support system allows a wide variety
of other funders, including the Government, charities, European
Union and industry, to invest in university research, which has
significantly contributed to the strength of the UK science base.
Financial sustainability of universities
6. The importance of moving towards financial
sustainability of UK universities cannot be underestimated. The
introduction of full economic costing has enabled good progress
to be made, but robust financial management and significant investment
will continue to be required.
7. The strength of the biomedical research
base in the UK is partly due to the plurality of funders. UK charities,
for example, funded 15% of research and development performed
in UK universities last year and UK charities have contributed
over £3.25 billion to research in the UK over the past five
years. However, without consistent investment from government
in partnership with charities, there is the risk of a significant
reduction in the volume of high-quality research in the UK, further
threatening the sustainability of the sector.
8. Recognising the contribution of charities
to the research base, the Government established the Charity Research
Support Fund (CRSF), to contribute towards the full costs of charitable-funded
research at universities in England. The Science and Innovation
Investment Framework 2004-14 included the pledge to invest
further in the CRSF over 2008-2010, adding at least a further
£90 million to take the CRSF to £270 million. The Government
must now fulfil this commitment in the Comprehensive Spending
Review 2007.
9. We argue there is a continued need for
the Government, through the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE), to provide a dedicated capital infrastructure
stream, similar to the Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF),
to ensure that universities have incentives to invest adequately
in infrastructure. We are pleased to see SRIF, and its predecessor
the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF), beginning to make a significant
impact on university infrastructure.
10. Different funders contribute to the
sustainability of the research base in a range of ways. In addition
to supporting the direct costs of research, charities have also
contributed enormously to maintaining the infrastructure and equipment
of UK universities. The Wellcome Trust provided over £420
million in partnership with the Government for JIF and SRIF awards,
to help fund new research facilities in UK universities. The Trust
has also made a major contribution to the development of key international
research resources, including the Human Genome Project and the
Diamond Synchrotron Project. The sustainability of the science
base in the UK relies heavily on national and international research
resources such as these.
SHOULD RESEARCH
FUNDING BE
BASED ON
SELECTION OF
"QUALITY"? HOW
SHOULD QUALITY
BE DEFINED
AND ASSESSED?
HOW MIGHT
THIS DRIVE
BEHAVIOUR ACROSS
THE SECTOR?
11. The Trust has previously argued that
the allocation of funding must reward and encourage excellence
in research. Funding from charities, for example, is awarded through
open competition, using independent peer review; it takes into
account the track record of researchers and, above all, rewards
excellence. We therefore welcome the announcement in the Pre-Budget
Report 2006 relating to reforms of the Research Assessment Exercise.
We support the need to reduce the burden of bureaucracy and costs,
while ensuring the exercise is rigorous, consistent and transparent.
We look forward to seeing further details as they are developed
by HEFCE.
12. For biomedical research in particular,
we consider that total external research income provides an effective
measure of research excellence. The intensity of peer review (often
international) associated with funding decisions means that external
research income is the best proxy indicator of research excellence.
We therefore welcome the proposals to streamline the process for
research assessment for science, engineering, technology and medicine.
13. We note that it is proposed that there
should be, as an additional quality indicator, a "bibliometric
statistic relating to research publications or citations"
for these disciplines. We will be interested to see further development
of this proposal. The Trust affirms the principle that it is the
intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal
in which an author's work is published, that should be the main
focus for consideration. We would therefore be more inclined to
support the use of bibliometric statistics aimed at the article
level.
14. The HEFCE announcement stated that the
funding allocation will be produced by taking the outcomes from
the assessment process and adjusting for research volume. There
must be greater transparency at this stage of the funding process.
We call on HEFCE to consult on this as they develop the details
of the new framework.
15. Any new process must be flexible and
dynamic, responsive to emerging areas of research and able to
support the development of researchers. It will also be important
to ensure that the system takes into account and actively encourages
cross-discipline research and recognises translational research.
16. We also suggest that it is important
that any assessment process should include an additional review
of the quality of the research environment within any institution.
This would help to avoid perverse drivers seen with previous RAE,
such as an emphasis on short-term research strategies or a focus
on increasing research volume rather than investing in research
infrastructure. A broader review of this nature might include:
— support for career development and
mobility;
— support for early career researchers
and postgraduates;
— commitment to diversity;
— flexibility to facilitate careers
for women;
— dissemination and public engagement
activities;
— support for interdisciplinary research;
— investment in infrastructure; and
— commitment to sustainability.
17. An additional review of this nature,
with associated reward through QR funding, would help to encourage
institutions that are fit both for world-class research and teaching.
December 2006
| 
