MEMORANDUM 9
Submission from the University of Sheffield
SUMMARY
The University of Sheffield welcomes the opportunity
to present evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee. Our submission is based on the experience of principal
investigators who have held both EU and RCUK grants, and who have
used RCUK funding to leverage international collaborations or
who have established effective international networks.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The University of Sheffield is a research
intensive university with research income of circa £100 million
per annum from a broad portfolio of sources, including research
councils, charities, government departments, industry and EU Framework
programmes. Using our international networks, such as the Worldwide
University Network (WUN), we have been able to leverage funding
to enable the international mobility of our researchers in line
with our strategic objective to engage with overseas collaborators.
We believe that although there are signs that the research councils
and OSI policies are changing positively with regard to international
mobility, more needs to be done to enable and strengthen joint
funding with a variety of international research sponsors including
but not limited to, application processes and peer review mechanisms
to facilitate joint funding.
2.0 RESPONSE
TO THE
INQUIRY
2.1 Strengths & Weaknesses of Existing
RCUK Policies for Promoting International Collaboration.
2.1.1 A major strength is the recent development
of bilateral agreements with other funding sponsors to reduce
incidence of "double jeopardy" in relation to comparative
international research (eg ESRC). Such schemes are operated under
a 70:30 rule, where only one country's review process is applied
provided that no more of than 30% of the funding goes to the other
country. Such schemes should be encouraged for a broader range
of countries, as in our experience, most of these apply currently
within the European countries.
2.1.2 Another strength is that RCUK funding
can be leveraged to initiate global multi-disciplinary research
initiatives through existing networks such as WUN, for example,
the WUN weathering science consortium lead by University of Sheffield
and funded by NERC which includes Universities of Leeds &
Bristol, Pennsylvania State University and other US associates.
Typically, RCUK funding has been used to facilitate collaborations
with scientists from North America ie non European collaborations.
That there is no barrier to international inclusion in RCUK applications
(ie EU researchers on the continent can already apply for RCUK
grants), is a strength, however, that this is not generally known
nor overtly promoted, is perceived as a weakness.
2.1.3 The funding which RCUK provides for
international networking workshops and visiting researchers is
perceived as a strength, but the responsive mode application method
for this type of funding is perceived as overly cumbersome.
2.2 International Collaboration through EU
Framework/RCUK partnerships
2.2.1 Principal Investigators with experience
of both RCUK and EU Framework funding tend to believe that RCUK
should be wary of losing its autonomy and reputation by immersion
into EU programmes. Furthermore, it is held that there is nothing
to gain by amalgamation of RCUK and EU programmes. Administrative
difficulties have been perceived/experienced by researchers applying
for joint RCUK/EU funding with peer review for discrete country
specific parts of the project being done locally (eg ESRC/ESF).
UK scientists perform well in EU framework programmes, hence there
is not perceived to be a great deal of value-added from collaborative
programmes.
2.2.2 In our experience, EU Framework programmes
tend to be driven by the need to create networks for collaborative,
applied research, whereas RCUK (eg EPSRC) calls tend to be driven
by the scientific inquiry into a particular, basic research problem
and the collaboration, if appropriate, follows. As the fundamental
orientation of towards the collaboration is different and requires
different supporting and reporting mechanisms (eg semi-monthly
with EU versus end of project with RCUK), it is widely held that
the distinctiveness between the two should be maintained.
2.2.3 RCUK could encourage more lasting
international networks by enabling movement of young scientists
by relaxing restrictions on EU students taking up PhD places and
by a more positive attitude towards the Bologna process (in order
to make exchange at the postdoctoral level more effective).
2.3 Effectiveness of collaborations between
RCUK & Government's international initiatives.
2.3.1 Our academics had little to comment
on this point, except to note that whilst some of the research
councils (notably MRC) invest heavily in overseas research (eg
in Africa regarding HIV Aids and vaccine development), and indeed
host research centres overseas, it is difficult to engage with
such initiatives without a relationship broker. It is felt that
RCUK could act as broker of relationships between UK universities
and research centres and other institutions overseas to facilitate
greater engagement in the Government's international initiatives,
particularly with reference to China and India. The establishment
of RCUK offices in both these countries is particularly welcomed
in this regard.
2.4 Impact of Research Councils Policies on
International Mobility of Researchers.
2.4.1 The UK is perceived as an attractive
place for study by foreign researchers, and it could be assumed
that this is due in large part to the work of the RCUK, however,
the work of the Royal Society, other learned societies and the
Wellcome and Leverhulme Trusts is much more well known in facilitating
international research. RCUK would do well to emulate the approaches
taken by the charities in promoting international mobility. Furthermore,
the recent introduction of incentives for gaining international
experience could be facilitated by repatriation grants, which
are similar to those currently being introduced by the EU.
2.4.2 RCUK could encourage more lasting
international networks by enabling movement of young scientists
by relaxing restrictions on EU students taking up PhD places and
by a more positive attitude towards the Bologna process (in order
to make exchange at the postdoctoral level more effective).
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 In order to improve effectiveness of
the Research Councils and OSI's international policies, the following
recommendations are made:
3.2 That RCUK should:
— Continue to develop and employ collaborative
application processes with overseas funders thereby making it
more attractive for researchers to apply for funding to conduct
international research owing to perceived reduced bureaucracy;
— Build on the success of existing
and emerging complementary peer review processes and extend these
further with overseas funders to reduce "double jeopardy"";
— Improve awareness of the fact that
international researchers can apply for RCUK funding;
— Broker relationships with UK and
overseas researchers to advance collaboration between RCUK and
the Government's international initiatives; and
— Do more to promote international
mobility of individual researchers through incentives such as
repatriation grant schemes.
By presenting the above evidence The University
wishes to draw the Committee's attention to the important role
that the research councils play in facilitating international
research and the mobility for researchers. In doing this we would
like to ensure that the Research Councils continue to recognise
and support this role and indeed enhance their provision for doing
so.
April 2007
| 
