MEMORANDUM 10
Submission from the Royal Society
SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
— We do not believe that the international
directorate of the Office of Science and Innovation (OSI) and
the Research Councils (RCs) allocate sufficient budget to effective
international collaboration, or that their existing budget is
being used to have maximum impact. The UK cannot remain a leader
in science if it does not actively engage with the best science
around the world.
— Overall, it is not clear what the
international strategies of the RCs are. Although they have a
sophisticated strategic approach to their thematic priorities,
it would appear that some of the Councils have yet to incorporate
a coherent international dimension into their overall strategy.
In addition, the RCs need to develop more strategic partnerships
with organisations that offer a complementary portfolio of activities
designed to be attractive to both overseas partners and the UK.
— We urge the RCs to actively pursue
an international strategy which aims to make the UK the partner
of choice for scientific research worldwide. This would require
some RCs to actively develop an international strategy. International
strategies should include the use of dedicated funds for international
collaboration and substantial jointly-funded programmes with overseas
partners. They should also identify ways to promote UK science
worldwide, and seek to implement policies that encourage international
mobility among postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate students.
— The OSI International Directorate
should continue to devolve funds to the Royal Society and British
Embassies in priority countries in order to continue to generate
international interest in themed events and grants schemes, which
are having a major impact in stimulating international collaboration.
It should work more closely with the RCs to offer larger funding
packages, in conjunction with overseas partners, for high-level
bilateral agreements, in addition to the comparatively small packages
it currently offers.
— The establishment of the Global Science
and Innovation Forum (GSIF), the Core Official Group (COG), which
operates below GSIF, the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences
(UK CDS) and the Research Councils UK (RCUK) China office, are
all developments which the Royal Society welcomes. We hope that
these bodies will encourage greater coordination between UK stakeholders,
and further promote engagement and collaboration with overseas
partners.
The Royal Society welcomes the opportunity to
submit evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology
Select Committee inquiry on the International Policies and Activities
of the Research Councils. This document has been prepared in consultation
with Fellows of the Royal Society and other leading experts. It
has been approved on behalf of the Council of the Royal Society
by Professor Lorna Casselton FRS, Foreign Secretary and Vice-President.
The strengths and weaknesses of existing Research
Council (RC) and OSI mechanisms and activities to maintain and
promote international collaboration
RESEARCH COUNCILS
1. Overall, it is not clear what the international
strategies of the RCs are. Although they have a sophisticated
strategic approach to their thematic priorities, it would appear
that some of the Councils have yet to incorporate a coherent international
dimension into their overall strategy. In addition, the RCs need
to develop more strategic partnerships with organisations that
offer a complementary portfolio of activities designed to be attractive
to overseas partners and the UK.
2. The structure of the RCs is overly complicated
in comparison to scientific institutions in other European countries
and the USA, which are able to present a much more coherent face
to the international community. The RCs need to ensure that this
does not disadvantage UK science as a brand when working with
overseas partners.
3. Some RC grants for international collaboration
are only available to scientists who already receive RC funding.
This ensures that quality control has already been established
(ie their work has already passed peer review) and therefore these
international grants are awarded to excellent researchers. However,
these researchers are likely to be working in areas which are
UK thematic strengths, which may not be priority research areas
for overseas partners. It should be a strategic priority to ensure
that the UK can also engage with areas of strength in other countries,
in order to build up the UK capacity in these areas. It is therefore
important to ensure that international opportunities offered by
the RCs are designed to be as attractive as possible to both overseas
partners and the UK and that the RCs work closely with other organisations
to achieve this.
4. In contrast to their European counterparts,
most of the UK RCs do not engage in significant jointly funded
programmes with overseas partners. Many European RCs have launched
strategic, targeted joint schemes or built joint laboratories
in specific areas to push forward joint research in topics where
partner countries are perceived to have advantages and/or cutting
edge capabilities (eg Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
(CNRS) laboratories, collaborations of the German Federal Ministry
of Education and Research (BMBF) with India and the German Research
Foundation (DFG) Sino-German centre). The UK RCs have not to date
engaged strategically in analogous jointly funded programmes,
although the opening of the RCUK office in China is a very sensible
first step to engaging in this way and scoping future possibilities.
Generic extension of this approach will demand a further shift
in current policy thinking, along with enhanced intercommunication
and joint planning by the RCs and OSI. The provision of substantial
funds by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to international
programmes such as the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE),
the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) and the UK's subscription
to the Deep Sea Drilling Programme, has been welcomed by the scientific
community.
5. If RCs do not dedicate funding to international
collaboration, it makes it difficult for the UK to achieve full
impact in its overseas relations. If it is an agreed aim of UK
foreign policy to establish ourselves as scientific partners of
choice of priority countries around the world, then the RCs should
be prepared to back this up with a dedicated budget. Dedicated
funding for collaborations with priority countries is not irreconcilable
with funding excellent research and the Councils' high standards
need not be compromised.
6. Many of the RCs lack mechanisms for recording
information about international collaboration, and it is therefore
difficult to quantify the amount of international collaboration
which they support. The proposed alumni scheme which will accompany
the new International Fellowships programme (see point 8) is a
welcome development which will help to ameliorate this problem.
7. Many of the RCs' criteria for funding
projects do not allow for the design of programmes which nurture
and sustain science in countries where science is not at an internationally
leading level (ie in developing countries). Certain collaborative
research projects with developing countries therefore fall outside
the funding criteria of the Department for International Development
(DFID) and RCs. We recommend that the RCs dedicate some funding
to supporting scientific projects in developing countries, perhaps
with contributions from DFID, with the emphasis on projects which
scientists in the countries concerned are involved in planning,
and which aim to minimize the risk of brain drain to the developed
world. We note that the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC) have started joint programmes with DFID which we welcome
(see point 20).The International Mathematical Union, London Mathematical
Society and African Mathematics Millennium Science Initiative
are pioneering projects supported by the Nuffield Foundation and
Leverhulme Trust to mentor research groups in Africa. The Association
of Commonwealth Universities might be a useful partner in similar
initiatives. The Royal Society's own long-term programme with
South Africa provides another useful model.
THE OFFICE
OF SCIENCE
AND INNOVATION
(OSI)
8. In 2006 the Chancellor of the Exchequer
announced a proposed new International Fellowships programme which
will be managed by the Royal Society along the lines of the German
Alexander von Humboldt Fellowships. This is a welcome step in
positioning the UK as a destination of choice for the best international
scientists. We look forward to working with the RCs and other
scientific organisations to develop the accompanying alumni programme.
9. The Royal Society's Networking Themed
Events, which are supported by funding from the OSI International
Directorate, have been extremely successful in bringing together
high-level experts from the UK and priority countries on themes
as diverse as pandemic influenza, plant conservation, climate
change and innovation, and have generated significant international
interest. This has generated many ongoing collaborative projects,
exchange of researchers, and has acted to showcase the best of
UK science to selected countries around the world.
10. The fact that the OSI International
Directorate devolves some (small) funds to the Royal Society or
British Embassies in country is a positive and sensible strategy
as the funds are therefore managed by bodies with credibility
and experience in running grant schemes. Together both organisations
can produce a better impact from these events than each could
achieve on its own.
11. The OSI signed bilateral agreements
with partners in China, India, South Africa and South Korea to
establish networking schemes with each country, with the Royal
Society running the UK side, to develop enduring partnerships
between the UK and scientists in these countries. Under each of
these agreements, both sides agreed on the need to bring together
excellent scientists in bottom-up networking, in which the event
themes are decided upon by the researchers. The sums that the
OSI International Directorate provide under joint S&T agreements
with these countries are very small. For example, funds provided
for the networking schemes run by the Royal Society for China
and India are in the region of £100-150,000 per year. These
amounts can be perceived as derisory by the partner Ministries,
who, in negotiating with OSI, may expect to be negotiating with
the holders of significant research budgets (ie the RCUK budget).
It is difficult to convince potential international partners of
the UK's commitment to collaborative projects with only these
comparatively small amounts of money. In addition to these valuable
schemes to build research links internationally, OSI should work
more closely with partners, including the RCs, in order to offer
more significant funding packages which would give OSI a lot more
weight in negotiations with partner ministries overseas.
12. There is no strategic follow-on funding
programme to the bottom-up networking programme and the themed
networking events mentioned above. This makes it difficult for
valuable collaborations to develop further. This is potentially
an area where the RCs could engage, and for which the Society
has requested extra funding in the Comprehensive Spending Review.
13. There is a risk of a loss of respect
for the UK because of partner ministries having to engage in long
and complex negotiations with OSI over the networking schemes.
In addition, OSI currently identifies and deals with overseas
partners on a somewhat ad hoc basis. A more strategic approach
would be beneficial, particularly with a view to understanding
the role of partner organisations/ministries and their distinct
functions. The international strategy of the new GSIF is a step
towards this goal.
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
THROUGH THE
EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
(FP), INCLUDING RESOURCES
ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE
RCS AND
EUROPEAN AGENCIES
IN THE
NEW FRAMEWORK
7 INITIATIVE AND
THE PROVISION
OF RESOURCES
TO STIMULATE
UK PARTICIPATION IN
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES
14. UK Higher Education Institutions and
Research Institutes are increasingly reluctant to apply for EU
FP funding as the contribution to overheads is significantly less
than the full economic cost (FEC) of research in the UK, although
participation in this programme is still ongoing. This means that
the UK is not getting the maximum benefit from a programme to
which the government is contributing financially.
15. There are some outstanding examples
of European collaboration, such as the EU Marie Curie Fellowship
scheme. The new EU Responsive Model funding scheme via the European
Research Council (ERC) also has a lot of potential, initially
for early-career researchers. It is not clear to us whether UK
researchers are fully aware of this opportunity. There are also
European Science Foundation (ESF) links through the European Heads
Of Research Councils (EUROHORCS), and several other EU schemes
which link the UK to other Member States.
16. One benefit of EU FP funding is that
it can bring together larger groups than would otherwise be possible.
The UK tends to align itself with partners in networks across
Europe to attract FP money, but this is more likely to be led
by individual institutions than the RCs themselves. We are not
suggesting that the RCs should take a leading role or to be too
prescriptive, but there is a role for them to provide relevant
information and advice in this direction.
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF COLLABORATION
BETWEEN THE
RCS 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
17. The principal mechanism for coordination
between UK stakeholders in international science is the Chief
Scientific Advisor's GSIF committee, and COG, which operates below
it. This is a huge improvement on the Chief Scientific Advisor's
International Committee (CSAIC) which preceded it, and it has
shown itself to be a group which can forge a real consensus between
these stakeholders and has the ability to bring about coordinated
action. For logistical reasons, not all the RCs attend. It is
not always clear that those Councils who are not present feel
as much buy-in as the RCs with designated responsibility for attending.
18. The RCs' International Network does
bring the RCs' international offices together with some, but not
all stakeholders, but has yet to prove its ability to generate
significant coordinated activity. It did however work well in
the process of bringing the RCs' China office to fruition.
19. The Royal Society welcomes the decision
to create the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UK CDS)
to bring together key funders and stakeholders who provide support
for the development sciences research base. The Royal Society
hopes that the UK CDS will help to enhance coordination within
RCs and between RCs and UK funders. A coordinated approach by
the UK CDS to research on development will take advantage of the
multidisciplinary nature of the forum. We look forward to being
involved in the UK CDS when it has been established.
20. The ESRC and DFID have a joint scheme
which aims to fund high quality basic research that enhances understanding,
develops thinking and has the potential to impact on the international
development agenda for reducing global poverty. The BBSRC and
DFID also have a joint scheme, the Sustainable Agriculture Research
for International Development Programme, which has already generated
a significant amount of interest within the scientific community.
As with the ESRC initiative, this appears to be a sensible strategy
for achieving both organisations' goals and adding value/exploiting
synergy. However, it is too early to know the results and impacts
of these new schemes and careful monitoring is recommended.
THE IMPACT
OF THE
RCS' POLICIES
ON THE
INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY
OF SCIENTISTS
AND ENGINEERS
21. It is not clear that RC international
policies (or lack of them) have any particular impact on postdoctoral
mobility. Some grants provide specific, dedicated funds for international
mobility, but many of these are fairly new schemes. In the absence
of data about the extent of mobility prior to the existence of
these grants, it is difficult to assess the impact these are having.
More funds to encourage travel and collaboration are to be welcomed.
One possibility could be to include an obligatory element of international
collaboration under large schemes such as Engineering and Physical
Science Research Council (EPSRC) Platform Grants.
22. Some of the RCs have strict time limits
on PhD completion rates. As with the Funding Councils, this may
be one way of measuring the success of postgraduate programmes,
which is an important factor in the Research Assessment Exercise.
However, this can be a clear disincentive to the international
mobility of PhD students. An excellent way of getting young UK
scientists some real overseas experience would be for RCs to incentivise
time abroad for studentship holders, for example by adding up
to a year onto regulation completion times for those who spend
time abroad. Another approach could be to making it a requirement
for studentship holders to spend between 3 to 6 months abroad.
All research groups in the UK should have some international collaborators,
with whom PhD students could benefit from spending some time with.
This would contribute to broadening their horizons and encouraging
them to think internationally in the future. It is a consistent
request from overseas scientific communities that more young UK
researchers be able to travel and spend time with them. However,
policies relating to travel of UK PhD students should take into
account the needs of those scientists with family or other commitments.
THE BENEFITS
AND DRAWBACKS
OF RC PARTICIPATION
IN
AND CURRENT
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES
23. Although there is not much RC involvement
in FP programmes, a clear benefit would be in being able to tackle
large, complex problems. However, many UK scientists feel that
EU programmes are excessively prescriptive, restrictive and bureaucratic.
This paperwork and the lack of FECs are significant drawbacks,
and many researchers would prefer simpler, national funding streams.
In addition, the need to involve partners based on their nation
rather than their expertise in the first instance means that expertise
from some nations is excluded from the process.
24. The European Science Foundation schemes
manage to combine a relatively straightforward application process
with rigorous peer review, and it is hoped that the ERC and European
Research Area schemes will more closely follow such a model.
THE ROLE
AND SUCCESS
OF RC SUPPORT
FOR FACILITATION
OF UK PARTICIPATION
IN
AND CURRENT
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES
25. More resources are needed to facilitate
UK participation in international programmes. For example, although
Antarctic research benefits hugely from the Scientific Committee
on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it receives very limited funding.
Therefore, SCAR is only able to have a minor impact on major programmes.
It does this through the goodwill of the scientific membership,
which although hugely beneficial to SCAR, may be difficult to
sustain.
26. Some often very successful international
collaborations such as the NERC UK-Japan earth observatory seem
to come about on an ad hoc, unplanned basis or as a result of
political pressure, not as part of a strategic plan. This does
not detract from those collaborations, but it would be good to
see the RCUKs engaging strategically in more such small-scale
international collaborations (which do involve some dedicated
budgets).
CONCLUSION
27. The Royal Society welcomes the opportunity
to respond to this enquiry, and is ready to give oral evidence
if requested. Overall we stress the need for a more coherent approach
to international scientific relations for OSI and the RCs. The
picture currently painted to overseas partners is chaotic. We
need to project a more coherent impression in the future.
April 2007
| 
