MEMORANDUM 4
Submission from the UK Computer Research
Committee (UKCRC)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Our evidence covers UK research in computing,
which is internationally strong and vigorous, and a major national
asset. Researchers in computing already work with colleagues overseas
and we foresee continuing growth in the scale and spread of our
international collaboration.
2. RCUK provides excellent support for overseas
collaboration. We encourage EPSRC to continue seeking ways to
reduce the overheads and potential "double jeopardy"
when bidding for such funding.
3. UKCRC has established a programme of
"Grand Challenges" in computing, as a focus for international
collaborative research. It may be useful to explore whether this
approach should be more widely adopted.
4. UK researchers derive great value from
the EU Framework Programmes of collaborative research. We do not
believe that any further support from RCUK to stimulate UK participation
is needed, or desirable.
5. We support the establishment of the European
Research Council (ERC). We recommend that RCUK should establish
good relationships with the ERC, not excluding the possibility
of some strategic funding in the early years.
6. There is little visibility among computing
researchers of the role of Defra, DfID and the FCO in overseas
collaborative research, though we are much aware of the support
available from the Royal Society and other learned societies,
and the Wellcome and Leverhulme Trusts.
7. There appears to be no need to stimulate
international mobility of researchers.
INTRODUCTION
8. The UK Computing Research Committee (UKCRC),
an Expert Panel of the British Computer Society, the Institution
of Engineering and Technology and the Council of Professors and
Heads of Computing, was formed in November 2000 as a policy committee
for computing research in the UK. Its members are leading computing
researchers from UK academia and industry. Our evidence reflects
the experience of researchers who each have an established international
reputation in computing.
9. The UK has always been exceptionally
strong in computing research: the first modern computer was developed
at Manchester University and ran its first program in June 1948;
since that time, the UK has played a part in almost all the scientific
and engineering advances in computing. Computer systems have transformed
modern life, but computing is still a young discipline and the
world is still in the early stages of discovering, inventing and
exploiting its full potential. UK computing research remains world-class[3],
and is a national asset that enhances the UK's international prestige,
attracts inwards investment, and supports innovation for wealth
creation and improved quality of life.
10. World-class researchers need to collaborate
with other world-class researchers, and this is particularly important
in a research field such as computing which is developing rapidly
and where there is considerable international activity. The main
countries for collaboration are still the USA, Canada and Australia,
because of the strength of their science and the benefits of a
common language, but there is significant and growing collaboration
with other countries, in Europe and in Asia.
11. Three years ago, UKCRC introduced a
programme to identify the Grand Challenges in computing: major
open questions whose solution would be a major scientific advance
and where there are grounds for believing that a major, international
effort over a decade or more could make a breakthrough. Grand
Challenge programmes already underway can be found on the Internet
at http://www.ukcrc.org.uk/grand_challenges/current/index.cfm.
12. UKCRC members have very strong experience
of working with EPSRC and with European programmes. Our evidence
should be assumed to refer to EPSRC except where explicit reference
is made to other funding agencies.
THE STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES
OF EXISTING
RESEARCH COUNCIL
AND OSI MECHANISMS
AND ACTIVITIES
TO MAINTAIN
AND PROMOTE
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
13. It is important to distinguish between
collaborative research projects, and the important but less resource-intensive
collaboration through short-term visits to (or by) international
colleagues.
14. One of the biggest problems relating
to international collaborative research projects is the double
jeopardy with respect to funding. In the past, UK computing researchers
submitted their proposal to EPSRC and the overseas collaborators
submitted to their funding organisations. Each organisation had
their own procedures and priorities for funding, so the chances
of both proposals successfully being funded were quite low. This
tended to deter researchers from applying for this type of funding.
15. Section 5.1.6, "Collaboration with
the World" of the recent EPSRC International Review of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT), available at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/ICTIntReviewReportV2.pdf,
is strong on the need for US research linkages, and notes that
experience with Framework Programmes has been "mixed".
EPSRC has recently stated they will try to set up arrangements
with the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the USA and with
similar international organisations, so that a collaborative proposal
only requires approval by one of the funding organisations and
then both accept that result. This type of agreement is essential
for substantial research collaboration but such agreements are
not easy to set up; they are needed with other countries such
as Canada, Japan, Korea etc. We strongly support EPSRC's efforts
to facilitate such collaborative research.
16. EPSRC does provide support for travel
grants and visiting Fellowships which can be used to initiate
collaboration, but such grants are not sufficient to support any
larger-scale collaborative projects.
17. Although the UK Research Councils have
effective methods for providing funds for travel grants, workshops
and visiting researchers, they have to be applied for in a form
identical to that for other, usually much larger, responsive mode
grants. This creates delays and overheads that are disproportionate
to the value of the grant, and we would prefer some other method
with a quicker turn-around time and lighter peer reviewing.
18. We recommend that negotiations for international
collaborative research in Computer Science should be focussed
on an agreed list of Grand Challenge topics like those described
above. We draw special attention to the proposed initiative in
Verified Software (an offshoot of GC6), which has already been
the subject of intensive international scientific discussion.
It is likely to feature among the early candidates for support
by any new scheme.
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
THROUGH THE
EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME,
INCLUDING RESOURCES
ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE
RESEARCH COUNCILS
AND EUROPEAN
AGENCIES IN
THE NEW
FRAMEWORK 7 INITIATIVE
AND THE
PROVISION OF
RESOURCES TO
STIMULATE UK PARTICIPATION
IN INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMMES
19. The Framework Programmes are very valuable
to UK researchers and this is shown by the level of involvement
of UK researchers in successive FPs.
20. UK scientists benefit greatly from the
current range and choice of sources of support. We get more than
our juste retour from the EU programmes, so it would seem that
there is no need for the UK Research Councils to do more to stimulate
UK participation. Research funding is a marketplace and, by bidding
for EU Framework projects, researchers are demonstrating that
the percentage of full economic costs (FEC) provided by the EU
(70% of direct costs plus 60% overheads) is sufficient to justify
their involvement. The UK has already provided its due share of
research funding to the EU Framework, and we see no need nor benefit
in additional top-up funds as this would inevitably mean that
less research was funded overall.
21. The new European Research Council (ERC)
has been created to support the best European researchers with
less red tape and greater flexibility than Framework Programmes
offer. Several UKCRC members have worked over many months to ensure
that fundamental and basic research could be funded without the
complexities of the standard Framework funding rules. The rules
do not require cross-border co-operation, in fact single groups
can be funded in one institute/university. Nor is industrial collaboration
required, although it can be included if it will benefit the research.
We recommend that RCUK should establish good relationships with
the ERC, not excluding the possibility of some strategic funding
in the early years.
22. EPSRC funds groups of researchers to
visit a number of overseas institutions with the possibility of
setting up collaborations—for instance, there were recent
visits to India and Japan. However following this up with real
collaborative projects has been difficult for reasons outlined
above.
23. EPSRC has travel grants that can be
used to help initiate EU grants and other international collaborations.
EPSRC are very flexible in their attitude to using travel funds
that are included in existing grants to support meetings to set
up new international projects in areas relating to the current
grant. In our view there is no need for any additional support.
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF COLLABORATION
BETWEEN THE
RESEARCH COUNCILS
AND THE
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
INVOLVED IN
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING
THE OSI, DEFRA,
THE FOREIGN
AND COMMONWEALTH
OFFICE'S
SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION NETWORK
AND THE
DEPARTMENT FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
24. There is little visibility among computing
researchers of the role of Defra, DfID and the FCO in overseas
collaborative research, though we are much aware of the support
available from the Royal Society and other learned societies,
and the Wellcome and Leverhulme Trusts.
THE IMPACT
OF THE
RESEARCH COUNCILS'
POLICIES ON
THE INTERNATIONAL
MOBILITY OF
SCIENTISTS AND
ENGINEERS
25. There appears to be no need to stimulate
international mobility of researchers—the UK's researchers
are traditionally some of the most mobile in the world, and foreign
researchers always constitute a large part of the application
list for any RCUK funded post; it is usual that most of the research
assistants in the leading departments are foreign nationals.
26. The travel grants and visiting fellowships
available from EPSRC and elsewhere provide adequate means of supporting
the international mobility of scientists and engineers.
April 2007
3 This has been confirmed by successive EPSRC International
Reviews, the latest of which reported earlier this year. Back
| 
