Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence

MEMORANDUM 24

Submission from Research Councils UK

  1.  Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership set up to champion the research, engineering and technology supported by the seven UK Research Councils. Through RCUK the Research Councils are working together to create a common framework for research, training and knowledge transfer. RCUK was launched on 1 May 2002 and further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk

  2.  This evidence is submitted by RCUK on behalf of all Research Councils, as requested by the Committee separate evidence from the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and Science and Technology Facilities Council is included, and also the UK Research Office in Brussels. This evidence represents the independent views of Research Councils. It does not include or necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Science and Innovation. The submission is therefore made on behalf of:

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)	Annex A
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)	Annex B
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)	Annex C
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)	Annex D
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)	Annex E
Medical Research Council (MRC)	Annex F
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)	Annex G
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC)	Annex H
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)	Annex I
UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO)	Annex J

INTRODUCTION

  3.  The UK is a world leader in research and the UK's talent pool of excellent researchers is world class. Numerous studies have shown the high regard in which the UK research base is held by businesses and academics in other countries (eg the Council for Industry in Higher Education report "International Competitiveness: business working with UK universities") and in terms of published outputs, the UK is second only to the United States in terms of its achievements, productivity and efficiency.

  4.  However, the international research environment is changing rapidly and, with increased economic and scientific growth from countries such as India and China, the Government's aim is to ensure that the UK should be the most attractive location in the world for science and innovation. RCUK shares this vision and is committed to ensuring that the Research Councils play a full role in supporting world class research, training skilled people and providing access to state-of-the art facilities and laboratories.

  5.  Research is, and has always been, an international endeavour. Aside from the benefits that come from exchanging knowledge and new ideas with others working in the same field, there are some disciplines which, because of their scale or the size of funding required, are undertaken by a number of countries working in partnership. This is the case with particle physics, planetary science, fusion, clinical trials on rare diseases, and some research on genome sequencing for example. Other disciplines, such as some language and social research, polar research and much astronomy research, are entirely location dependent necessitating collaboration with host countries. There are also disciplines which transcend national boundaries eg climate change research and research on human and animal diseases. Therefore, an important role of the Research Councils is to put in place strategies and policies to engender collaboration between UK researchers and international collaborators, wherever they are located. The Councils have been successful in enabling international collaboration, as evidenced from international science reviews and bibliometrics studies which have shown increasing levels of international co-authorship in scientific publications.

  6.  Each Research Council has its own international strategy or policies, detailed in the attached Annexes. Although there are subject specific differences, each Council aims to facilitate international engagement by promoting the movement of researchers, removing obstacles to collaboration and identifying strategic partners, while allowing their researchers to define their own research priorities and determine whom they need to collaborate with.

  7.  The Research Councils recognise that to grow or indeed maintain the strength of the UK research base within the evolving global context, and to maximise the UK's influence on the direction and exploitation of world research, they need to evolve their policies and target their investment decisions so that their communities can take full advantage of global opportunities.

Global Science and Innovation Forum (GSIF)

  8.  A key forum for discussing international issues is the Government's Global Science and Innovation Forum (GISF), on which the Chief Executive of EPSRC represents RCUK interests. GSIF brings together OSI, Government Departments, the Royal Society and others to help coordinate international activities and ensure that these are aligned with the Government's agenda for science and innovation. RCUK is also represented by BBSRC on the supporting officials group.

  9.  In 2006, GSIF published its International Strategy—a framework of objectives for prioritising and coordinating the UK's international engagement in R&D. The Councils were involved in the development of the strategy and the Chief Scientific Adviser met with the RCUK Executive Group to discuss the implementation of the strategy. RCUK is working with the other GSIF partners to deliver the strategy, including leading on the delivery of the recommendations about improving researchers' access to information on international funding opportunities.

  10.  Research Council's (and RCUK's) international strategies take into consideration the priorities of the GSIF strategy and references to target countries, thereby broadly aligning themselves with the international strategies of the Government departments and agencies represented on that forum.

Research Council's funding and resources for international activities

  11.  Each of the Research Councils structures its international teams and invests in international activities in accordance with the different sizes and requirements of their academic communities. As international activities within Research Councils are an integral part of the research programme, facilities and infrastructure, training and communications agenda, each of the Councils has a small team of "international" staff to provide coordination and focus within each Council's remit.

  12.  In terms of funding, the Councils, in general, prefer not to ring fence specific sums for international collaboration. Instead, most Councils open up the majority of their funding to an element of international partnership—demonstrating that international working is seen as integral to the research they support. This removes artificial constraints to the amount of collaborative activity funded and drives up research quality by ensuring that proposals with an international element compete directly against the best national research.

The role of Research Councils UK

  13.  The role of RCUK in the international sphere is increasing. It is the norm for one (or two) Research Council Chief Executives or senior officials to represent the interests of all of the Councils on international bodies such as the GSIF, the European Heads of Research Councils, G8, the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures. Key international players are also invited to meet Research Council Chief Executives collectively eg the President and senior team of the European Science Foundation have attended RCUKEG and Councils have invited the Chairman to the European Research Council Scientific Committee to meet with RCUKEG. At a more operational level, the Councils run an RCUK International Network, which brings together the Heads of International of each Council, plus on occasion a wider spectrum of stakeholders including the OSI, OSI International and the FCO's Science and Innovation Network. This forum provides a useful means for developing strategy, coordinating (RCUK and British Council) activities and sharing information.

  14.  For many years the Councils have also collectively funded the UK Research Office in Brussels, which provides highly regarded services to the UK academic (and user) communities, promoting and enabling effective UK participation in EU-funded research programmes.

  15.  Whilst each Council will continue to develop and refine its own international strategies, there is an increasing need to present the UK research endeavour collectively on the international stage and increasing opportunities for Councils to deliver some activities jointly. Major new RCUK international activities include: publishing an RCUK international strategy; launching two (potentially three) new RCUK international offices; implementing a programme of profile raising activities; and setting up a new RCUK international team to better coordinate strategies, activities and information about international collaboration across the Councils and with other UK stakeholders.

  16.  RCUK will publish an international strategy in 2007. This will highlight UK excellence in research and innovation, identify where the UK can provide global direction and leadership and show how the Research Councils are delivering their part of the GSIF International Strategy. The RCUK strategy will set out the Councils collective international aims and priorities which may include:

—  promote collaboration between UK researchers and the best in world, particularly those in Europe, the US, China and India

—  promote the movement of researchers and students to and from the UK

—  provide UK researchers with access to world class facilities and data

—  influence the international research agenda in terms of strategy formulation, priority setting and research delivery and exploitation

—  raise the collective international visibility of the Research Councils

  17.  Information on profile raising and international offices is given below.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF RESEARCH COUNCIL AND OSI MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

Promoting collaboration between UK researchers and the best in world

  18.  All of the Councils support research collaborations through international visits, workshops and research grants to foster and deepen links between researchers, as well as actively tackling the barriers to international partnership. The Councils also pay international subscriptions for the UK research community, host international facilities and international project offices, represent the UK academic community on key international forums, and lead or belong to major international networks. Information on these activities is provided later in this document. Overall, the Councils emphasise the need for flexible support, given cultural differences and the different ways in which research is funded and organised in other countries.

  19.  Research Councils encourage researchers to pursue collaborations with international partners, wherever they are located, on the basis of scientific excellence. There are, however, instances where other priorities influence international collaborations. Examples of this are UK strategic priorities (eg as identified in the GSIF strategy document), and cases where research is location specific. Many Councils, and RCUK as the collective, are focusing strategic efforts on building and strengthening cooperation with Europe, US, China and India, reflecting the breadth of research opportunities available in these areas and UK Government priorities.

  20.  Many international research collaborations arise from multilateral programmes or international organisations rather than through bilateral working. The EC Framework Programme is the largest such programme and its importance is recognised by OSI and FCO. However other multilateral programmes eg those organised through UN bodies or through the International Council for Science (ICSU) are also important and there is scope for improving UK access to and influence of these programmes.

  21.  Whilst this approach generally works well and the Research Councils work alongside the OSI and FCO in developing collaborative activities, Departments may also wish to develop activities with specific countries which are of less interest to the Research Councils. Whilst targeted workshops and exchanges can encourage contacts and exchanges of information, it is important that all parties are realistic from the outset about the level of research funding Councils may subsequently be able to make available and the chances of securing this in competition with other proposals.

  22.  All of the Research Councils offer forms of funding to enable UK researchers to travel overseas and to develop collaborative ideas through networking or workshop activities—some Councils build this provision into their normal grant applications and others run separate schemes. A range of examples are given below, with more information provided in the attached annexes. Information on awards to promote mobility of students and researchers are covered at paragraphs 98 to 117.

—  AHRC supports a Research Networks and Workshops scheme which provides funding for researchers to exchange ideas and expertise via workshops, conferences and symposia which are can be used to initiate and develop international links and act as a springboard for sustained collaboration. The scheme is targeted at building research capacity and relationships in countries and regions which are not well serviced by existing funding mechanisms.

—  BBSRC enables any grant holder to apply for funding to visit, or send research staff to visit, any other country during the course of their research. It also provides funding for workshops between UK and international researchers and invests in "Partnership Awards"" to provide support for up to four years for specific interactions with researchers in Japan, China or India.

—  EPSRC provides its researchers with the flexible means to pursue international collaboration with their chosen partners, including funding for overseas travel and workshops to initiate partnerships and meetings, as well as exchanges of staff and students.

—  NERC has established an International Opportunities Fund to stimulate high-profile, high-impact international activities. Rather than directly funding research, this fund supports international collaboration and leadership, encourages and facilitates planning of international activities and supports new international partnerships.

—  PPARC's rolling grants give researchers the flexibility to use some of the funding they receive to travel abroad and form partnerships without having to submit a separate application for funding to travel. This approach has been adopted by STFC.

—  MRC facilitates international collaboration in medical research through Grant Terms and Conditions which permit co-applicants and collaborators on Research Grants to be based overseas. MRC Grants can include significant allocations for travel.

  23.  Councils also support a number of schemes with specific countries as well as joint calls with UK Government Departments and overseas funding agencies. Details are given in the Council Annexes and, for example, include:

—  On a bilateral basis, BBSRC has co-funded specific calls for research proposals with DFID (£2 million from BBSRC) in the UK and with ANR (BBSRC up to £5 million) and INRA (BBSRC £1.7 million so far) in France;

—  EPSRC funds activity with China, India and Japan via its INTERACT scheme, which supports small grants for UK academics to visit research groups in these countries with a view to raising awareness of the quality of UK research and forging new partnerships leading to collaborative research;

—  ESRC funds a Transatlantic Visiting Fellows programme, enabling Directors of ESRC centres and programmes to nominate either an inward or an outward visitor, with the aim of developing ideas for new international collaborative research projects. ESRC supports specific visits programmes with South Asia and the Middle East, in partnership with the British Academy;

—  NERC's RAPID programme (£20 million from NERC) has had contributions from, and joint calls with, the USA (NSF and NOAA) the Netherlands (NOW) and Norway (RCN).

  24.  Research Councils welcome participation by leading scientists from other countries in the research they fund, even though that participation is not normally eligible for funding by the Councils. The Councils are currently examining ways of recognising such participation by recording the status of international scientists as non-funded co-investigators in our systems. Research Councils have a variety of approaches to supporting research overseas, either directly or indirectly. These are designed to encompass and facilitate the mobility of staff and students between UK and overseas institutions and the funding of projects or other research activities that are performed in the UK or overseas. This flexibility ensures that the Research Councils remain responsive to the individual and specific needs of their own communities. The ability for UK researchers to transfer active grants to European institutions through the `Money follows Researcher' initiative is one successful aspect of this flexibility.

  25.  Building relationships between Research Councils and overseas funding bodies is an important means for promoting information sharing, identifying opportunities and building partnerships between national research communities, enabling access to facilities and tackling administrative barriers to collaboration. To facilitate such relationships, the Research Councils have over many years had discussions with potential funding partners and developed Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) or similar agreements with many overseas funders. For example, in 2006, Research Councils had some 35 agreements with US funding agencies or research organisations, 30 with Chinese organisations and smaller numbers with other key funders or research organisations in Japan, Germany, India, France, Korea, Canada etc. Further details are provided in the Annexes.

  26.  Agreements and MoUs are often developed for strategic purposes and are also used to pave the way for removing or limiting double jeopardy in collaborative proposals. The Research Councils are aware that the issue of double jeopardy—where a collaborative proposal has been peer reviewed or assessed in some way by the funding body in the UK and also in the other country—can be a real barrier to collaboration and a source of frustration to the academic community. Where a dual process exists, timescales between application and funding decision are likely to be extended, and problems may arise if the two potential funding bodies take a different view over peer review standards or the quality of the research. The Councils remain committed to tackling this through building agreements with overseas funders to establish a single application, single peer review and single decision making process. Although Councils have been successful in removing the double jeopardy issue in specific areas or through the establishment of specific programmes (eg AHRC's MoU with the NSF's Human and Social Dynamics Programme, EPSRC's agreement with the NSF's Materials World Network), this remains a piecemeal approach to a difficult problem. The Research Councils will continue to work with OSI, FCO and other agencies to influence overseas funding agencies.

  27.  As well as the double jeopardy issue, there are other structural and operational barriers to successful international collaboration. In some countries, different structures for funding research means that there are no obvious counterparts for Research Councils to engage with to build collaborations, this is a particular issue for the AHRC. Further, since national research funding comes from national taxpayers, there are often legal—or simply attitudinal—barriers or restrictions on how and where research funding can be used. In the UK, the research funding system seeks to balance national interests and the sectoral interests of research communities, so the case can be made for UK international engagement including, where appropriate, spending UK research funds overseas. This is not always the case in other countries. Also, many foreign research funding agencies support research either through permanent institutes or directed programmes, with little or no scope for competitive bottom-up funding requests. Finding ways to work productively with such agencies requires sustained effort on both sides. Experience shows that a good starting point can be small visits and workshops which enable researchers from the UK and partner country to explore research challenges, leading to the development of specific programmes if there is sufficient interest.

  28.  Specific initiatives, such as the UK/India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI), can also help to address differences in funding systems. UKIERI is a Government consortium that aims to improve educational and research links between the UK and India by, for example, funding mobility awards to stimulate ideas for research collaboration. The Research Councils are working with a Government consortium to help with the review of proposals and explore ways of building linkages with Councils research programmes.

Establishing international laboratories

  29.  A number of Research Councils fund research units or collaborative centres based overseas to undertake location specific research, examples include:

—  STFC contributes to astronomical observatories in Hawaii and Chile, taking advantage of the favourable observation conditions at these locations

—  MRC has two overseas units, the MRC Laboratories in the Gambia, and MRC Unit on AIDS Research in Uganda. The units host a number of international researchers, and participate in a large number of international collaborations. They engage with international bodies such as WHO, OECD, Global Fund, Gates Foundation, and with national Governments

—  BBSRC's Rothamsted Research has three joint laboratories in China, one on crop genetics (Huazhong University of Science and Technology), one on novel pest control (Nanyang Normal University) and one on soil science (China Agricultural University, Beijing)

—  NERC has a facility at Ny Ålesund in Norway to facilitate Arctic research as well as research stations in the Antarctic

Establishing international RCUK Offices

  30.  The establishment of RCUK overseas offices is another mechanism for achieving the Research Council's international aims. Overseas offices will provide additional resources in priority countries/regions to help raise the collective profile of the Research Councils amongst national research funders and academia and promote and engender collaboration opportunities. The offices provide dedicated funding and local expertise (in tandem with the FCO's Science and Innovation Network posts) to enable UK research funders, research organisations and individual researchers to collaborate effectively. The exact nature of the support and resources provided varies depending on the nature of the existing relationship between the country and the UK and the priorities and objectives for strengthening collaboration.

  31.  The Research Councils have been sponsoring the UK Research Office (UKRO) in Brussels since 1984 to ensure the research community they fund has the information and guidance to participate in EU programmes. RCUK will be opening offices in Beijing and in Washington in 2007. Work is underway to explore the opportunities for an RCUK office in India.

Promoting the movement of researchers and students to and from the UK

  32.  This is addressed at paragraphs 98 to 117 below.

Providing UK researchers with access to world class facilities and data

  33.  All of the Research Councils are committed to providing their academic communities with access to world class facilities, wherever these are located. As such the Councils pay the UK subscriptions to a number of major international facilities and are actively engaged in shaping the underpinning technology and development of these facilities. For example CCLRC managed the UK subscriptions to the multinational European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble and to the Institute Laue Langevin (ILL) also in Grenoble whilst PPARC managed the UK subscription to CERN, ESA and ESO. MRC led the UK bid which successfully acquired Beamline 14 at the ESRF Synchrotron in Grenoble to support UK crystallography efforts. Further examples are given at paragraphs 70 to 85.

  34.  A key advantage of taking part in international collaborations is that it entitles partners to data rights, thus even small scale UK involvement in collaborative programmes can prove very cost effective. In each of their fields the Councils are responsible for enabling the curation and accessibility of data from UK research for international audiences and helping to secure access to international data for UK researchers. For example, ESRC has developed National and International Data Strategies, which provide frameworks for key stakeholders to discuss the usability of data for research, as well as any practical, ethical and attitudinal hurdles that need to be overcome.

Influencing the international research agenda in terms of strategy formulation, priority setting and research delivery and exploitation

  35.  All of the Research Councils seek to influence the international agenda throughout the research lifecycle ie influencing the development of international strategies, setting of priorities, and the funding, management and exploitation of research.

  36.  In terms of influencing the research agendas and priorities of trans-national funders the Research Councils seek to exert influence through OSI and Government Departments as well as by hosting international meetings, belonging to major networks (such as European Research Area Networks) or international consortia and by ensuring that leading UK researchers are nominated to governing or management boards of international bodies and programmes, and to their peer review panels.

  37.  Likewise these approaches are also valuable in influencing how trans-national research is carried out—its peer review, funding model, ethical and governance frameworks, its evaluation, the curation of data and use and exploitation of outputs. In all of these areas, the UK Research Councils and the UK academic community have particular strengths and expertise and are keen to promote good practice, whilst learning from other nations. To facilitate this, the Research Councils also encourage secondments between their own staff and overseas funding agencies. In recent years, there have been exchanges with the German funding agency DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), the NSF and ESF.

Raising the collective international visibility of the Research Councils

  38.  All of the Research Councils undertake activities to raise their profiles internationally and, within their fields of expertise, individual Councils are well known by overseas research funders. Following the publication of the GSIF international strategy the Councils are exploring collectively what further steps might be taken to promote the Councils collectively, utilising the FCO Science and Innovation Network and RCUK overseas offices.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES, INCLUDING RESOURCES FOR ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH COUNCILS AND EU AGENCIES IN THE NEW FP7 INITIATIVE. THE PROVISION OF RESOURCES TO STIMULATE UK PARTICIPATION IN EU PROGRAMMES. BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF RESEARCH COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT FPS

  39.  All of the Research Councils support the principles of the European Research Area and increasing collaboration between the best researchers across Europe. Engagement is primarily via the European Union's Framework Programmes (FPs), which support research, researcher mobility and knowledge transfer activities across the European Research Area.

  40.  The Research Councils have been active participants in FPs since their inception, and fulfil a number of roles, which include:

—  influencing and shaping overall policy direction and thematic priorities

—  promoting opportunities and stimulating the participation of UK researchers and UK business

—  encouraging the adoption of good practice in the funding, delivery and exploitation of research

—  supporting greater cooperation and integration between European national research funding bodies

—  participation in research through research council institutes

  41.  These responsibilities are addressed through a variety of means and approaches, including discussed below.

Dialogue with OSI and direct engagement with FP management and decision making structures

  42.   The objectives of Framework Programmes are set out in the EU Treaty of Amsterdam, which states that:

"The Community shall have the objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international level, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of this Treaty" (Article 163)

  43.  Due to the policy-led objectives of Framework Programmes, Government Departments lead on the majority of Framework negotiations, with overall activity coordinated by OSI. In FP7, as in the earlier FPs, the Research Councils play an important role in advising on the research which may be needed in areas of the Framework Programme to deliver the agreed policy objectives. This is achieved by working in partnership with OSI and the lead Government Department, or through the Research Councils representing UK interests on the relevant EU programme committee. For example:

—  In FP6, Research Council officials were part of the UK delegation on the following Programme Committees:

—  EPSRC on the EURATOM Fusion Programme Committee

—  ESRC on the Citizens and Governance and Science and Society Programme Committees

—  MRC on the Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health Programme Committee

—  NERC on the Global Change and Ecosystems Programme Committees

—  PPARC on the Research Infrastructures Programme Committee

—  UKRO on Programme Committee for Human Resources and Mobility

—  In FP6 BBSRC worked closely with Defra and FSA representation on the Food Quality and Safety Programme Management Committee, on issues such as topics to be covered in calls for proposals. This continues in FP7 for the Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and Biotechnology programme

—  In FP6 EPSRC hosted the UK National Contact Point (NCP) for the New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) Programme. This involved managing a helpdesk and promoting the NEST programme within the UK research community through a programme of visits and conferences. The positive response to NEST from the UK academic community would indicate that this model of working was well received. NEST was innovative both in its emphasis on frontier research and its bottom-up driven model. As such, NEST could be considered a precursor to the ERC, but with a closer relationship to the Commission

—  FP7 now includes humanities explicitly in the cooperation programme for the first time. Consequently, AHRC represents the UK (together with ESRC) on the FP7 Social Sciences and Humanities Programme Committee. Through this forum, AHRC has been successful in pressing for a more humanities-friendly programme specification. Other Research Council involvements includes MRC on the Health Programme Committee

—  In FP7, NERC worked closely with environmental scientists in its Institutes and more widely, with OSI and Defra (the UK policy lead on FP Environment Programme negotiations) to influence the content of FP7's Environment (including Climate Change) Theme; NERC sits on the Environment (including Climate Change) Programme Management Committee). In collaboration with Defra and the EC Environment Directorate General, NERC co-funded a joint FP7 Energy and Environment Themes launch in 2006, timed to immediately precede the start of FP7

—  In FP7, UKRO is the nominated expert on the "People" Committee and frequently attend other Programme Committee meetings as nominated experts

—  In FP7, STFC will continue the role formerly undertaken by PPARC on the Research Infrastructures Programme Committee

UKRO

  44.  The UK Research Office (UKRO) promotes effective UK participation in EU-funded research programmes, higher education programmes, and other related activities. See http://www.ukro.ac.uk/about/index.htm.

  45.  UKRO is funded by the Research Councils (with BBSRC as the managing agent) and also by subscriber organisations, some 140 at present. Any UK HEI, charity or public sector research organisation can subscribe to UKRO; with associate membership (restricted services) available to companies and non-UK research organisations. Defra, the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Laboratory of the HSE also have subscriptions to UKRO, as do Universities UK, the British Council, HEFCE and the Scottish Funding Council.

  46.  UKRO's mission is to promote effective UK participation in EU-funded research programmes, higher education programmes, and other related activities by:

—  supporting sponsors and subscribers through early insight and briefing on developments in European programmes and policies;

—  disseminating timely and targeted information on EU funding opportunities;

—  providing high quality advice, guidance and training on applying for and managing EU projects; and

—  exchanging information between the UK research and higher education community, the Institutions of the European Union, and other countries participating in EU programmes

  47.  Annex J summarises the work of UKRO, including its services and policy support, and its relationship with the OSI International Directorate, and other UK and European bodies.

Framework Programme Network (FPN)

  48.  Research Councils and UKRO are members of OSI's Framework Programme Network, which brings together Government Departments, the Research Councils and the RDAs to discuss common issues about the policy and delivery of FPs.

National Contact Points (NCPs)

  49.  The policy leads appointed for each part of the Framework Programme are responsible for delivering the UK National Contact Point, to raise awareness amongst potential participants in the UK of opportunities and funding available under the respective area of the Framework. In some instances this is routinely contracted out. Under FP6 and increasingly FP7, the Research Councils are increasingly taking on the policy lead and this NCP role—although OSI retains a coordinating, cross-cutting role which works well.

For example under FP6:

—  BBSRC, together with the Food Standards Agency and Defra, provided the UK National Contact Point for the FP6 thematic programme Food Quality and Safety, co-funding a launch event for the theme in London, and advising on scientific issues in the programme. This continues for the relevant part of FP7

—  ESRC provided the NCP for the thematic programme on Citizens and Government and Science in Society

—  MRC provided the NCP for health academics

—  UKRO provided the NCP for the Mobility Programme (under contract from the OSI policy lead)

—  PPARC provided the NCP for the Research Infrastructures Programme

For FP7:

—  MRC is the NCP for health academics

—  UKRO is the NCP for the European Research Council and Mobility programmes in FP7 under contract from the OSI policy lead

  50.  Discussions are underway with OSI for the Research Councils to also take on the NCPs for Science in Society and Research Infrastructures for FP7.

  51.  Additionally, some Research Councils offer additional support to encourage engagement with FPs. For example:

—  BBSRC travel schemes are often used to build consortia for FP proposals

—  ESRC runs a competition to offer seed money to ESRC award holders aiming to lead major European research collaborations.

—  MRC provides resources for its Units and Institutes to assist in the preparation and coordination of FP proposals

—  NERC set up an incentive fund to stimulate leadership for FP6 from within its Institutes

—  EPSRC makes available travel funds to UK researchers to enable them to build consortia to bid for Framework funding

European Research Area Networks (ERA-NETs)

  52.  ERA-NETs are a FP6 funding instrument designed to promote cooperation and co-planning between funders of national research programmes (for the UK, government departments, agencies and/or Research Councils). The scheme, particularly the ERA-NET Plus scheme, is advantageous in attracting EU research funds to bolster national research priorities. The Research Councils have also found ERA-NETs of value as a means for sustained and structured information exchange between European funders and for sharing good practice and improving operational effectiveness. An independent review of the scheme, published in December 2006, identified similar benefits, and the need for more top-down focus and coordination in FP7. RCUK is pleased that ERA-NETs are being maintained and expanded in FP7 as a means for strengthening the European Research Area, but would emphasise that different European research communities are at different stages of maturity and degrees of connectivity and that one size does not fit all.

  53.  The Research Councils are currently involved in more than 20 ERA-NETs including:

—  AHRC is a member of Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA) ERA-NET, which includes 14 other European agencies and ministries. Two agreed trans-national research programmes will operate using single pot funding, removing bureaucratic obstacles to European research collaboration and avoiding double jeopardy

—  BBSRC is a lead in ERA-NET schemes in plant genomics (11 partner countries, BBSRC £5.2 million) and systems biology (14 partner countries, BBSRC £6 million), publishing joint calls for proposals with EU partners. As a result, BBSRC enjoys closer relations with, and greater understanding of, its European counterparts

—  EPSRC is involved in 6 ERA-NETs, including Bio-energy, Applied Catalysis, and Nanoscience in the European Research Area

—  ESRC helped to develop, and now plays a leading role in, the 12-nation NORFACE ERA-NET (New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Collaboration in Europe). NORFACE is developing possible themes for a major trans-national research programme to start in 2008. ESRC are also partners in a Dutch-led ERA-NET on social aspects of Genomics

—  MRC is a partner in the EUROCAN+ study looking at the feasibility of coordinating national cancer research activities

—  NERC participates in 6 ERA-NETs, including Innovative Energy Research, the European Consortium for Ocean Drilling Research, and the EU Water Initiative

—  PPARC participated in 2 ERA-NETs, ASTRONET and Aspera

Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs)

  54.  Under FP7 the Commission is launching JTIs, which will emerge from some of the European Technology Platforms. These will pool funding from the private sector, European and national research programmes towards common research goals in priority technology areas. FP7 identifies six possible areas, with the UK strongly supporting the proposed JTI on Innovative Medicines. MRC was involved in provisional planning for the UK to host the secretariat of the Innovative Medicines Initiative in partnership with the DTI which leads the UK IMI consultative group. MRC represents the UK on the IMI member states contact group and keeps the UK stakeholders up dated on ongoing developments.

Article 169 programmes

  55.  MRC represents the UK at the general assembly of the first European Programme established in FP6 under the terms of Article 169—the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP). The aims of this initiative are to accelerate the development of effective, affordable and sustainable interventions against infectious diseases related to poverty (specifically HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria) by improving co-ordination and co-operation between European public sector and private sector research organisations and research institutions in Africa. This is an area that requires coordinated activity to provide clinical trials in a sustainable research environment in Africa. More information is at Annex F.

European Research Council (ERC)

  56.  From the outset, RCUK has been closely involved in discussions with OSI about the creation of the ERC. The Research Councils have always taken the view that there is a strong case for developing cooperation and integration between research funders in Europe, but has cautioned against additional bureaucracy and complexity in research funding. With the decision to proceed with the ERC, the Councils have sought to influence its structure and mode of operation to ensure the application of scientific rigor and good practice. Chief Executives agreed advice for OSI which was subsequently used by the UK team in these negotiations.

  57.  RCUK welcomes the governance model adopted, including the creation of the Scientific Council with a significant degree of autonomy from the European Commission, European Parliament and Council and individual Member States. Councils have been meeting individually with members of the ERC Science Council and the Chair has been invited to meet collectively with Research Council Chief Executives to discuss how top UK researchers can be encouraged to seek funding from the ERC.

  58.  The Research Councils support the aims of the ERC; it should support the very best researchers and research projects. Given the concerns voiced by participants about the complexity of accessing FP research funds, the Councils have pressed for a simple application and assessment process, based on rigorous peer review of research excellence. The Councils have also emphasised the need for some form of demand management to ensure that success rates are reasonable and that the administrative arm of the ERC is not overwhelmed with applications. The measures taken to date by the Science Council, including the use of outlines, limiting resubmissions, funding arrangements, and portability of awards, all bode well for an effective and robust pan-European funding system.

  59.  The debate now is with regards to how the ERC evolves. The Research Councils are keen to ensure that the ERC will add value to national research activities, and neither duplicate nor undermine national agenda eg by any top slicing of the UK Science Budget. One option Councils would like to encourage is funding of teams of trans-national researchers. UKRO is the UK national contact point for ERC and attends the Programme Committee as an expert.

European Institute of Technologies (EIT)

  60.  The proposed EIT is intended to help strengthen innovation performance across the European Research Area, by building new bridges between research users, HEIs and other research institutions. As set out in commission communiques, it is intended that the EIT will set up strategic long term partnerships between the various players in the knowledge transfer arena. A Governing Board will determine strategic priorities and select, evaluate and coordinate "Knowledge and Innovation Communities", joint ventures between businesses, universities and research organisations. Discussions about the EIT are on-going with the aim of establishment in 2008, with the first Knowledge and Innovation Communities running by 2010.

  61.  Whilst the Research Councils fully support the need to strengthen knowledge transfer in the UK and across the European Research Area, there are a number of significant uncertainties and concerns regarding the EIT proposals. The main issues include:

—  The added value to, and incentive for, HEIs and business of participating in the EIT is unclear

—  The organisational and governance structure of the EIT and its relationship with the European Commission etc is unclear

—  The need to address IPR issues in detail to encourage universities and business to participate in the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (experience in the UK shows differences of opinion over the value, ownership and protection of IPR remains barrier to HEI-business collaboration, even with the introduction of standard contracts following the Lambert Report)

—  The relationship between the EIT and existing national and European knowledge transfer initiatives is unclear eg Networks of Excellence under FP6, the ERC and the new FP7 Joint Technology Initiatives. In the UK is there is a specific need to clarify the relationship between the EIT and the Technology Strategy Board

—  The legal status, role and aims of Knowledge and Innovation Communities is unclear

—  There is no clear budget for the EIT or allocated funding. The proposals assume that a large proportion (up to 85%) of the support will come from the private sector—although at present there is limited incentive for businesses to become involved

—  UK businesses continue to report concerns about the level of bureaucracy as a reason for not engaging in Framework Programmes

  62.  Until these issues are addressed the Research Councils remain cautious about the plans for the EIT. On behalf of RCUK, UKRO is coordinating the Councils' inputs to OSI and relevant European forums to influence the shape of the EIT, particularly to minimise the bureaucracy and ensure that UK researchers and business are able to benefit from the resulting initiative.

Participation in previous and current FPs

  63.  During discussions about the development of FP6 and then FP7, the Research Councils have been keen to emphasise a number of important aspects in seeking to influence the European agenda. Issues have included:

—  ensuring that thematic priority areas and research objectives are well defined so that resources are not spread too thinly and that real progress can be made in the chosen areas

—  the need to do more to address the fragmentation of some areas of research effort across the European Research Area, through better networking

—  pressing the Commission to allow for adequate consultation with Member States about the development of research priorities and new funding instruments

—  making it easier for researchers and businesses to apply for FP funding

—  minimising bureaucracy in establishing new European funding instruments and institutes (eg ERC and EIT as outlined above)

—  making it easier for non-EU countries to joint FP partnerships

  64.  Research Councils and UKRO invested a great deal of effort to alert the UK community to the new modes of funding under FP6 and the expected requirements to secure funding. As well as launch events, the Research Councils have provided practical and in some cases financial help for consortium building, and UKRO operated a partner search service in conjunction with similar Member State research offices. The European Commission has also provided timely information through its websites, and on-line partner search facilities, and officials have participated in national and regional information events. For FP6 the application forms have been simplified and the electronic application software for FP6 is a significant improvement to the much criticised FP5 system. RCUK, through UKRO, has ensured that the UK research community has been fully involved in the design and testing of the new system.

  65.  OSI statistics show that the UK continues to secure more funding through competitive bids to Framework Programmes than it pays through UK membership of the EU, and in FP6 the UK's performance in securing funding was second only to Germany. Although the overall picture is healthy, there is a decline in the level of return. Statistics also show a low level of participation by UK businesses. The Research Council's private sector stakeholders suggest that this is in part due to increasing complexity, the lack of flexibility in building collaborations (a particular challenge for SMEs) and the overall level of bureaucracy. Discussions in various RCUK forums indicate that there are different concerns in different parts of the UK research base, and that large companies and SME also have their own issues.

  66.  As part of FP7, the Commission will be introducing further improvements to the administrative process including a simpler registration procedure and reduced audit requirements. It is hoped that these measures will go some way to address the UK's concerns. Additionally, the Global Science and Innovation Forum have been exploring the options for better aligning regional, national and European activities and making better use of existing UK networks to increase business engagement.

European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCs)

  67.  EUROHORCs brings together the heads of the major public national funding organisations across Europe. It is an active player in the field of European research policy, aiming to promote and enhance inter-country cooperation and serving as an advisory body for the European commission. The Chief Executives of the Research Councils are all members of EUROHORCs and the Chief Executive of MRC represents RCUK interests on the EUROHORCs steering committee. More information is at: http://www.eurohorcs.org/

Research Infrastructures

  68.  The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) supports a coherent approach to policy-making on research infrastructures in Europe, and acts as an incubator for international negotiations about specific projects. The Research Councils represent UK interests on ESFRI. It is chaired, in an independent capacity, by Professor John Wood, Director International Affairs for the Science and Technology Facilities Council. UK representation is being reviewed in light of the establishment of the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

  69.  The ESRFI roadmap was published in October 2006. It describes the scientific need for a range of research infrastructures for the European Research Area over the next 10-20 years (excluding infrastructure projects in the field of high energy physics which appear in the CERN and ESA roadmaps). The Councils have identified potential UK interest in each of the projects and advised OSI accordingly, and are developing a coordinated approach to engagement, including determining which, if any, of the projects the UK might want to host.

THE ROLE AND SUCCESS OF RESEARCH COUNCILS IN FACILITATING UK PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME) PROGRAMMES

  70.  The Research Councils are responsible for facilitating UK participation in other, non-FP, international programmes through a wide variety of means, including payment of international subscriptions on behalf of the UK, hosting international facilities and international project offices, representing the UK academic community on key international forums, leading or belonging to major international networks and providing key personnel for the steering committees of international programmes. These activities help to ensure that the UK is part of large-scale research endeavour and that UK researchers can benefit from the use of facilities and opportunities open to them. Directly and indirectly, these efforts also raise the international profile of the Research Councils, which helps to forge strategic partnerships and alliances, and contribute to the UK being a partner of choice for research collaborations.

  71.  There are many examples of this involvement given in the individual Research Councils annexes, and the Research Councils lead for the UK in its membership of major intergovernmental collaborations such as the European particle physics laboratory (CERN), the European Space Agency and the European Southern Observatory. A selection of major international programmes highlighted here:

—  the European Science Foundation (ESF)

—  CERN

—  the European Southern Observatory

—  Human Frontier Sciences Program

—  European Molecular Biology Laboratory/European Bioinformatics Institute

—  Fusion research

—  Fostering Collaboration in the Social Sciences

—  Research vessels

—  Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme

—  European Space Agency

European Science Foundation & EUROCORES

  72.  All of the Research Councils and the British Academy are members of the European Science Foundation (ESF), a pan-European association of scientific organisations, which seeks to facilitate European cooperation through networking and various collaborative initiatives. Within the UK there is also a UKESF Coordinating Group facilitated by ESRC; the MRC Chief Executive represents RCUK Executive Group on the Governing Council of ESF.

  73.  Under the ESF framework Member Organisations benefit from opportunities to participate in the joint funding of trans-national programmes, forward looks, and funding for the community for research networking (Research Networking Programmes). A major scheme is EUROCORES, which brings together national research funding organisations to support interdisciplinary research in selected priority themes, thereby opening new horizons in science. Research Councils have previously expressed concern about the standards of peer review being applied and the ESF have made improvements in this direction; although EUROCORES is a useful mechanism in promoting European research collaboration, it is felt that there is scope for improvement in the operation and timescales for each round. EUROCORES have been evaluated by an independent agency and proposals for future development are being discussed by EuroHORCS and the Governing Council of ESF. Current UK engagement includes:

—  AHRC is involved in EUROCORES programmes on the Origins of Man and Language and Consciousness in a Natural and Cultural Context. Research Network Programmes with UK components include Associated Chronologies of the Ancient Near East and From Natural Philosophy to Science

—  EPSRC is supporting five programmes (including European Quantum Standards and Metrology, Smart Structural Systems Technologies and Fundamentals of Nano-electronics) with a total portfolio worth £3 million

CERN

  74.  Understanding the origins of matter and developing theories towards possible unification of all particles and forces, including gravity, is an enormous undertaking. World-class particle physics and astronomy can usually only be achieved through international partnerships to share the cost of investment and to have a community of researchers large enough to undertake the experiments.

  75.  The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) is the world's leading centre for particle physics research. CERN employs almost 3000 people and some 6500 visiting scientists, half of the world's particle physicists, come to CERN for their research. Through STFC the UK is an important partner in CERN and membership ensures UK particle physics researchers have access to the best facilities and opportunities possible.

  76.  The highest priority in particle physics in the next two years will be the completion of the construction, and the commissioning of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and its detectors at CERN. UK groups are playing leading roles in all four detectors for the LHC.

European Southern Observatory

  77.  In July 2002 the UK became a member of the European Southern Observatory (ESO). Membership has enabled UK astronomers to have full access to the four 8-metre-class telescopes that comprise ESO's Very Large Telescope. The UK's membership of ESO will also enable it to play a major role in the Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA) project—an array of 64, 12-metre radio telescopes.

  78.  Membership of ESO helps enable the UK to remain one of the leading nations in astronomical research and in addition to having access to some of the world's most advanced telescopes it will help enable UK researchers to play a major role in future developments.

Human Frontiers Science Program

  79.  BBSRC and MRC pay the UK subscription to the Human Frontiers Science Program, which funds collaborative international research grants and fellowships into the complex mechanisms of living organisms. To encourage new approaches to understanding complex biological systems, HFSP brings biologists together with scientists from physics, mathematics, chemistry, computer science, bioinformatics, nanoscience and engineering. Many EU member states are involved together with Japan, Australia, Canada and the USA. More recently India, South Korea and New Zealand joined the Program. The UK contributes about 3.5% of the HFSP budget. In 2006 the UK received 9.5% of the research grants awarded and 6% of the long-term fellowships and remains a net beneficiary of the programme.

European Molecular Biology Laboratory/European Bioinformatics Institute

  80.  MRC pays the UK subscription for the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), which carries out fundamental research and promotes co-operation between European countries in the field of molecular biology. It also provides essential services to scientists in EU member states, provides high-level training for staff, students and visitors, and develops new instruments for biological research. One of EMBL's laboratories is the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge. It hosts the world's largest collection of expertise on genomics and bioinformatics. MRC and BBSRC provide significant additional funding. EPSRC and BBSRC support the development of grid-based projects. This is an extremely valuable resource for the bioscience research community and is an example of effective international cooperation.

Fusion research

  81.  The international fusion programme is on the verge of taking the first step towards the development of a first fusion plant with the construction of the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER). ITER represents a major development in international research collaboration, whose partners are the EU, China, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US. The UK's fusion research programme will develop in such a way as to ensure optimum alignment with the ITER project.

Fostering collaboration in the Social Sciences

  82.  Fostering Collaboration in the Social Sciences is a major initiative co-funded by ESRC and the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and managed by the Social Science Research Council in New York. It brings together around 40 national and multi-national agencies from all continents to explore ways to enhance co-working in social and economic research. Six strands of activity have been identified as priorities and ESRC is leading the International Data Forum strand, which will be launched at a workshop in Beijing in June 2007. This will be a tangible sign of global UK leadership.

Research vessels

  83.  NERC provides three ocean-going research vessels with associated specialist oceanographic equipment. Over the past five years, 50% of NERC's research cruises have involved collaboration with international scientists, from 49 institutions and 17 countries. NERC is also heavily involved in ship-time bartering, which has grown markedly since 2000 to a point where NERC now exchanges approximately 200 barter days per year. NERC has a ship/marine facilities barter agreement with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the USA (NSF).

Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme (IODP)

  84.  Participation in IODP allows UK scientists to influence and benefit directly from more than $1.5 billion investment in drilling platforms and their operation, in order to undertake research to improve climate change predictions. NERC is investing £12.5 million in IODP through membership of the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) comprising 16 European nations plus Canada. ECORD is a partner in IODP alongside the NSF and the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

European Space Agency (ESA)

  85.  NERC provides the UK's subscription (-£34 million per annum) to ESA's environmental sciences programmes (EOEP), and Envisat/ERS operations, and a share of the UK's subscription to the general budget (around £7 million per annum). EOEP funds the development and operation of Earth explorer science missions, providing earth observation data in support of environmental sciences. NERC engagement helps to assure scientific excellence in the mission selection and maximise scientific benefits for the UK's environmental sciences community. Please see Research Councils recent evidence to the Committee on the Space Policy inquiry for further information.

EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH COUNCILS AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES

  86.  As outlined above, the Global Science and Innovation Forum (GSIF) is the primary means for the Research Councils to influence the Government's international science and technology agenda, and to work at the high level with the other major players across Government and others including the British Council and Royal Society. The paragraphs below cover the Councils major relationships with OSI and other Government Departments. Equally importantly, the Councils work closely with Universities UK on international issues, and it is anticipated that their new International Team will work closely with RCUK.

OSI and OSI International

  87.  The Research Councils work individually and collectively with OSI on a number of levels, particularly with the OSI International Directorate. The engagement is regular and highly varied. Research Council representatives are invited to join UK delegations to priority countries, which helps to further high-level dialogue with overseas funders and government agencies, Councils also routinely provide inputs and representation to Ministerial visits and activities (eg G8 agendas, bilateral meetings).

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  88.  Although the Research Councils' experience of working with the FCO Science and Innovation (S&I) Network is largely positive; we are identifying areas for improvement. Research Councils use individual S&I Network contacts informally to inform their international strategy development and have found the S&IN contacts in country extremely valuable when organising visits for Chief Executives and senior academics from the UK. The local knowledge and contacts that these posts provide has proved invaluable in brokering high-level meetings between the players, opening the door for discussions about collaborative agreements and collaborative research. This is particularly the case in Asia where there are significant cultural differences and research relationships are less mature. For example, MRC's visits to South East Asia to explore potential research on avian flu was greatly facilitated by the local FCO S&I Network team, resulting in the establishment of an MoU with the Beijing Municipal S&T Commission to cooperate on research about emerging infections. Likewise, the FCO's regular regional S&I Network conferences are valued by Research Council staff as they provide a good opportunity to exchange information with Network contacts.

  89.  Research Councils have formal input to FCO business planning, advising on the draft business plans of each member of the S&IN. For 2007-08 this was coordinated through BBSRC.

  90.  In developing their plans for RCUK international offices, the Research Councils are working very closely with the S&I Network teams in China, Washington and India, who have provided invaluable guidance, advice and practical support.

  91.  Although the Research Councils have collaborated successfully with the FCO on specific projects (eg AHRC is providing financial and intellectual support to the FCO Year of Science in Brazil and BBSRC has collaborated with the S&I Network working with British Embassy Tokyo on structural genomics and the British High Commission New Delhi on biotechnology), the Research Councils have found that some country specific initiatives developed by the FCO team would have benefited from earlier dialogue with the Councils and other stakeholders about potential levels of interest and available resources, and also better planning in terms of delivery. AHRC has experienced particular difficulties in utilising its S&I Network as there is a lack of coverage of arts and humanities research issues by science attaches. Regular attendance of FCO representatives at the Research Councils International Network meetings helps to address communications issues and the recent appointment by the FCO of a specific stakeholder manager for the Research Councils is welcome. Further RCUK/ S&I Network discussion could enable the better achievement of mutual aims through multilateral organisations and networks.

  92.  Conversely, the Research Councils are aware that some S&I Network contacts have experienced difficulties in obtaining comprehensive information about Research Councils interactions with particular countries or sectors, and that consistency of information has also been an issue. The Research Councils are working together to put in place more robust means for gathering and verifying information on international activities. The new RCUK international team is expected to play a specific role in this regard.

Department for International Development

  93.  The UK research base can make an important contribution to helping the poorest countries meet the Millennium Development Goals and all Research Councils (with the exception of STFC) contribute to the research base for international development, and to the training of scientists and technicians from developing countries.

  94.  Building on the recommendations made by the Development Sciences Working Group, DfID established the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences in 2006 to provide a framework for a more coordinated approach to development sciences research in the UK. RCUK will be represented by BBSRC, ESRC, MRC and NERC as appropriate and in addition, he Wellcome Trust hosts the Collaborative's Secretariat team with HR support from BBSRC. RCUK is fully supportive of the Collaborative and will work with DfID and other partners (including OSI, DH, Wellcome Trust, HEFCE, UUK) to realise the aims of the partnership, including raising the profile of development sciences research and strengthening linkages with Framework Programmes.

  95.  Other collaborative international activities with DfID include:

—  Joint DfID and BBSRC £6 million call for proposals to translate UK research on crop science into practical solutions and benefits in the developing world.

—  BBSRC provides input to DFID lead on CIGAR (International Agri-Food Research Institutes in the developing world)

—  ESRC-DfID co-fund a £13 million programme on Poverty Alleviation, which supports high-quality basic research projects led by researchers anywhere in the world, to underpin efforts to alleviate poverty. The successful launch of this programme has led to a further co-funded programme with the US William & Flora Hewlett Foundation to enhance the quality and impact of social science research addressing the key international development issue of how population dynamics and reproductive health outcomes impact economic growth and poverty reduction

—  MRC has a concordat with DFID to facilitate development research in Africa. Under the five year agreement (which has been renewed twice following external evaluation since being established in 1993) MRC receives £4 million per annum to support an agreed portfolio of research projects. In addition to the activities supported under this concordat MRC and DFID have jointly collaborated on funding a number of important studies in Africa, including studies on the best methods for distributing antiretroviral drugs to adults and children with AIDS in Africa. MRC has established a Funders' Forum with DFID, Wellcome Trust and ESRC to address issues of health research in developing countries. The Forum enables UK funders to work together and position themselves in relation to new international initiatives

—  NERC has a long history of working closely with DfID, and is currently working with them and ESRC on a new joint research programme on Ecosystems Services and Poverty Alleviation

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  96.  Engagement with Defra on international issues is primarily within the remits of BBSRC and NERC. At policy level, BBSRC supports Defra in the annual Tetrapartite meetings, the annual agri-food research and policy forum involving USA, Canada, France and the UK. BBSRC also supports Defra in its lead on representing the UK in the EU's Standing Committee for Agricultural Research (SCAR), which was particularly effective in ensuring appropriate coverage of agricultural and related research in FP7. Other examples are at Annex B.

Department of Health

  97.  MRC works closely with the Department of Health and has a concordat that ensures that research activities are complementary and cover the UK's health needs without duplication. On international issues the concordat with DH further clarifies that MRC will take the lead on behalf of the Department and DTI on EU framework programmes for health and that both parties will work together to promote mutual international research interests including global health.

IMPACT OF RESEARCH COUNCILS' POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

  98.  In an increasingly competitive international market the Research Councils and other funders are keen to maximise the mobility of students and researchers, both to and from the UK. International mobility of researchers helps to share expertise and cross-fertilise ideas, and enables UK researchers to benefit from international training and development programmes. Furthermore, researcher mobility underpins cross-disciplinary activities that may be difficult to achieve within a single country, contributes to the sustainability of basic disciplines, and helps research to address international development challenges.

  99.  The RCUK `Strategy for Research Careers' sets out the Councils' aspirations for enhancing the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for the best researchers. The forthcoming RCUK international strategy articulates the need promote the movement of researchers and students to and from the UK—both to contribute to the Government's agenda of making the UK one of the best places in the world to undertake research and to help UK researchers seize opportunities for working overseas.

  100.  The Research Councils support international mobility in a variety of ways, including postgraduate training in another country, individual research fellowships, visiting fellowships, overseas travel grants, networks of researchers and through collaboration on grants. Many of these activities are undertaken at the research subject level, and are therefore delivered most effectively through individual Councils and their research strategies, although Councils continue to review and develop collective policies and approaches where appropriate. The sections below focus on students and individual fellowship awards. Information on travel awards and enabling mobility to stimulate new research collaborations is provided earlier in the submission.

European Framework Programme mobility activities

  101.  The UK has also been successful in Framework mobility programmes, with approximately 30% of all EU fellowships held in the UK . This section focuses primarily on students, and awards to individuals. Research Councils support for international visits and collaborative research are outlined earlier in the document.

  102.  UK engagement in FP Researcher Mobility activities is largely co-ordinated through UKRO. The Research Careers and Diversity Unit of RCUK works closely with UKRO, and with OSI, to ensure that Government policy is fully represented in their activities. UKRO is a key support provider for the main EU funding initiatives concerning researcher mobility and is formally contracted by OSI to be the National Contact Point for the Marie Curie Actions (funded under FP5/6 and 7). Marie Curie Actions remain popular with UK researchers and are an important aspect of EU policy on researcher career development, mobility and cooperation.

  103.  UKRO is also a UK delegate on the FP7 "People" Programme Management Committee alongside the OSI. UKRO plays a key enabling role in informing the HE sector with regard to mobility of researchers and the relevant EU funding opportunities. RCUK provides the UK delegate to the DG Research Steering Group for Human Resources and Mobility—UKRO provides a nominated expert as necessary. The steering group advises DG Research on the wider policy issues related to human resources and mobility in the context of the Lisbon agenda.

  104.  RCUK and UKRO are working together to influence the developing guidelines for the co-funding of national fellowship schemes planned as part of FP7. Through this scheme the Research Councils anticipate that many more Research Fellows—many of whom are likely to be research leaders in future—will be able to gain experience of working abroad during the course of their fellowships. It is anticipated that a call will be issued for this scheme later in 2007.

The Bologna Process

  105.  The Bologna process aims to create a European higher education area by making academic degrees, and accompanying quality assurance, more comparable across the EU. Although mobility in itself is not a responsibility of the Research Councils, RCUK is aware of the benefits that can accrue from researchers who have experienced education and research in other countries.

  106.  The Research Councils have, through the RCUK Research Careers and Diversity Unit, taken steps to engage fully with the development of the doctoral cycle of Bologna. RCUK has been represented at the official Bologna Process seminars on Doctoral Programmes in Europe and has co-operated strongly with the UK Higher Education Sector Europe Unit with the overall objective of maintaining the position of the UK as an attractive destination for doctoral studies and to continue to ensure the high quality of its doctoral graduates. RCUK assisted the Europe Unit in producing a co-ordinated view from the UK HE sector on the doctoral cycle A key outcome of that collaboration was publication by the Europe Unit of a briefing note outlining the UK position and highlighting examples of UK good practice with regard to 10 key areas of doctoral education.

The European Charter and Code for Researchers

  107.  The European Commission has adopted the European Charter and Code for Researchers as key elements to make research an attractive career in the EU. RCUK believes that for the UK to demonstrate that it is fully engaged with the European Higher Education Area and ERA, it important to show that the UK is supportive of the principles of the Charter and Code. In co-operation with UUK and sector representatives, RCUK has undertaken a gap analysis which has demonstrated that in most cases the UK already meets the requirements of the Charter and Code.

  108.  The Charter and Code will be linked formally into UK guidance when the new Concordat for Research Staff—of which RCUK is leading in the development—is published in late 2007. RCUK will also continue to engage, together with the HE sector, in constructive dialogue with the European Commission to take forward these principles in order to make the UK and Europe a more attractive place for researchers.

A European Network on Research Careers

  109.  The Research Careers and Diversity Unit of RCUK is a key partner in a proposal—led by DFG from Germany—to establish formally a European Network on Research Careers under the auspices of the European Science Foundation. The forum will serve as a joint platform for the exchange of views and experiences and for the development of strategy concepts. It will involve experts from national Research Councils, the European Research Council, the European Commission and the European University Association. The long-term goals will be to create or improve programmes aimed at promoting different career stages and to work on marketing campaigns to raise the international visibility of the ERA in the global competition for research talents.

PROMOTE THE MOVEMENT OF NON-EU RESEARCHERS AND STUDENTS TO AND FROM THE UK

Studentships

  110.  It is a key aim of the Research Councils that the UK should produce internationally competitive postgraduates. The Research Councils collectively support 15,500 (mostly full-time) doctoral students of whom approximately 12% are from other EU member states. The Research Councils provide support for a limited number of non-UK students through sponsorship and the operation of the Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate awards and through project studentships driven by the needs of peer-reviewed research projects. The Councils aim to assist the universities to improve the quality of UK doctoral programmes and to enhance the international attractiveness of UK research training noting that the HE sector is already an attractive destination for non-UK doctoral students. Of 58,000 full time doctoral students in 2004-05 48% are non-UK and 14% are from other EU member states—in addition of 54,000 part-time doctoral students 33% are non-UK and 11% are from other EU member states.

  111.  Individual Council activities include:

—  AHRC, in collaboration with ESRC, makes Library of Congress Scholarships available to UK doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows and research assistants who wish to pursue a course of study for a short period in the US

—  ESRC offers all its postgraduate studentship awardees a three-month paid extension to undertake an overseas visit relevant to the studentship

—  MRC recently signed a MoU with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore to enable Singapore PhD students to work in MRC Units in the UK. A*STAR is expecting to send around half of its overseas PhD students to the UK

—  NERC encourages PhD students on NERC awards to undertake collaborative fieldwork overseas, and provides an extra £600k per year funding for this purpose

—  Due to the nature of the research supported, PPARC has always had a significant amount of international mobility amongst its research community. The majority of PPARC PhD students spent a significant period (up to 2 years) of their studentship overseas

  112.  The Research Councils support the Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate scheme which brings outstanding students from India, China, Hong Kong, South Africa, Brazil, Russia and the developing world to come and study for PhDs in top rated UK research facilities. This scheme is seen as a success and HEIs like it but challenges remain in finding industrial partners to match Research Council funding.

  113.  In addition the Councils are continuing to explore removing the eligibility barrier for PhD stipends for non-UK EU students on a discretionary basis by Council.

Fellowships

  114.  The fellowships offered by the Research Councils have world-wide visibility and significant recognition within their target subject communities both in the UK and beyond. The majority of the fellowships are open to UK and overseas candidates regardless of nationality, and are assessed in competition with each other. Many Research Council Fellowships have a strong international element as international collaboration is actively encouraged as part of the process of building an international reputation; many awards include the option to undertake research training outside the UK. A survey of Fellow's nationalities suggests that, depending upon the discipline, between 20% and 50% of all Research Council Fellows are non-UK nationals.

  115.  Individual Research Councils activities include:

—  BBSRC's five-year postdoctoral fellowships (David Phillips Fellowships) are available to the very best scientists whatever their country of origin. In the past five years 43% have been awarded to non-UK nationals to be taken up in UK Institutions

—  The EPSRC Life Sciences Interface programme runs an annual Overseas Post Doctoral Fellowships Exercise. A key aim of the scheme is to allow physical sciences or engineering researchers, who wish to work at the life sciences interface, time in leading international research laboratories

—  MRC fellowship schemes allow both clinical and non-clinical fellows to work for 1-2 years overseas and Fellowships can be held full time in one of MRC's overseas Units. MRC also have an agreement with the Wellcome Trust over Fellows wishing to work in their overseas Units and vice-versa

—  the agencies to which MRC pays subscriptions such as Human Frontiers Science Programme, European Molecular Biology Organisation and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, all support fellowships that facilitate international movement

—  PPARC's postdoctoral fellowship scheme enables Fellows to spend an extended period of the fellowship at a university overseas. During the course of their fellowship, many fellows spend a significant period on research at overseas facilities/experiments

Money follows researcher scheme

  116.  All of the Research Councils have signed up to the "money follows researcher"" initiative developed by EUROHORCs. This scheme allows academics within Europe moving between institutions in different countries to take certain research grant funding with them when they move, promoting researcher mobility in Europe.

RCUK alumni scheme

  117.  RCUK is planning to launch an alumni scheme principally for overseas nationals holding Research Council fellowship awards. The scheme will be informed by improved information about Councils' fellowship holders, practices in alumni tracking used by universities and by the German Humboldt Fellowships Programme. RCUK will use the scheme to pilot activities/events designed to maintain the connections to UK research of those alumni who have gone abroad or returned home. Specific attention will be given to the key target countries (China, India etc). In implementing this, RCUK will continue to explore synergies with the schemes run by the Royal Society, RAEng and other funders.

April 2007

Annex A

Evidence from the Arts and Humanities Reseach Council (AHRC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  AHRC became a research council on 1 April 2005 and published its first strategy for international engagement March 2006. The strategy built on a low level of international engagement which had been developed by its predecessor body (Arts and Humanities Research Board), principally participation in multilateral European funding mechanisms such as European Science Foundation (ESF) and the humanities ERA-NET initiative (HERA). In all other respects, the Council's international activities began ab initio. The international strategy covers the period 2006-08 (http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/about/international/international_ research_ policy.asp), and has three principal aims. The aims are as follows, together with examples of how the Council has implemented them:

—  Facilitating access to other funding sources

In September 2006, AHRC signed a landmark agreement with NSF which facilitated the participation of UK researchers in its Human and Social Dynamics programme and other NSF programmes which overlap with AHRC remit. The agreement promotes UK-US collaboration while avoiding double jeopardy.

—  Fostering collaboration to improve the quality of funded research

AHRC provides funding for researchers to exchange ideas and expertise through its Research Networks and Workshops scheme. The scheme provides funding for the costs of workshops, conferences and symposia which are can be used to initiate and develop international links and act as a springboard for sustained collaboration. The scheme is targeted at building research capacity and relationships in countries and regions which are not well serviced by existing funding mechanisms. Increased funding is available for Networks and Workshops with those regions identified in the international strategy (see below). The scheme also draws in matching funding from counterpart agencies overseas to foster and enhance collaboration. In the past 6 months, AHRC has signed agreements with the National Science Council of Taiwan and the Korean Research Foundation which allow for joint funding of networks in the arts and humanities.

—  Improving operational effectiveness and evaluation through cooperation and sharing of best practice.

AHRC is committed to improving its peer review processes by learning from best practice and drawing on expertise from across the globe. The agreements with the National Science Council and Korean Research Foundation include provisions for sharing expertise in evaluation and peer review. HERA projects on best practice in European peer review have informed AHRC policy at a national level, for example in its participation in the Research Councils Review of Peer Review.

  2.  To maximise the benefit and impact of the Council's activities, the strategy focuses initially on 4 geographical regions: Europe, US, China Region and South Asia.

  3.  The location-specific nature of much arts and humanities research means that it may be as beneficial for sections of its research community to engage with areas such as Brazil or Tibet as much as Japan or Switzerland, for example. The breadth of its community's research interests, as well as its continuous evolution, demands a flexible framework for international engagement.

  4.  Nonetheless, where clear overlapping interests with other Research Councils have been identified, AHRC has found the framework provided by the RCUK umbrella to be very beneficial. This is true of individual collaboration—such as the AHRC/ESRC Anglo-French workshops co-funded by the CNRS—and collective collaboration, such as the RCUK office in Beijing.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING AHRC MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  5.  The current portfolio of activities, and their relation to AHRC Strategic Plan, is shown in the table below.

Strategic Plan Aim	Activity	Country /region	Mechanism
1: To promote and support the production of world-class research in the arts and humanities	Networking	US China South Asia	Research Networks and Workshops (RNW) scheme RNW, RCUK Beijing Office RNW
		South Korea	MoU (KRF)
		Taiwan	MoU (NSC)
		Europe	European Science Foundation (ESF)
		France	Bilateral Workshops series (w/ ESRC)
		Brazil	FCO SIN Year of Science
1: To promote and support the production of world-class research in the arts and humanities	Co-funding	US Taiwan Europe Europe	MoU (NSF) MoU (NSC) ESF ERA-NET (HERA)
1: To promote and support the production of world-class research in the arts and humanities	Exchange of Expertise	Taiwan South Korea Europe	MoU (NSC) MoU (KRF) ERA-NET (HERA)
2. To promote and support world-class postgraduate training designed to equip graduates for research or other professional careers.	Researcher Mobility	US	Library of Congress placements
4. To raise the profile of arts and humanities research and to be an effective advocate for its social, cultural and economic significance.	Policy & Influence	Europe Europe Europe	Framework Programme Committee ESF Standing Committee ERA-NET

Strengths of AHRC approach

  6.  The strategy aims to facilitate international links by removing obstacles to collaboration and identifying strategic partners, while allowing the arts and humanities community to define its own research priorities and determine who they should collaborate with.

  7.  This approach to international collaboration avoids double jeopardy by seeking to establish a single application, peer review and decision-making process.

  8.  The strategy avoids ring-fencing funds for international activity. This approach (a) maximises the quality of funded international collaboration by ensuring that proposals compete with the best research nationally, and (b) places no limits on international activity other than normal budgetary constraints. The Council has reviewed existing international funding commitments (eg its participation in ESF EUROCORES scheme) to ensure this principle is enshrined in all international engagement.

  9.  In designating priority geographical areas to devote efforts and resources, AHRC has acknowledged the work carried out by the Global Science and Innovation Forum in identifying those countries where it serves UK strategic interests to develop closer research links. Consequently, the priority areas highlighted in the international strategy are closely aligned with GSIF priorities under the "Research Excellence" category.

Weaknesses of AHRC approach

  10.  Only signing agreements which avoid double jeopardy potentially constrains the range of potential partners available to the organisation.

  11.  The structure of S&T funding system in other countries means that there is often no clear counterpart funding agency in the humanities with whom the Council can enter into co-funding agreements. This, again, can constrain both the range and level of international engagement.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (INCLUDING ERC AND ERA-NET)

Framework Programmes

  12.  AHRC believes that the European Commission has been slow to recognise the contribution humanities research can make to economic growth and policy. FP4 (1994-98) provided limited scope for social science research for the first time. Since then the political evolution of the European Union and the prospect of major enlargement has meant a greater role for social sciences and humanities. In FP6 (2002-2006) the co-operation programme featured a theme on "Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society".

  13.  The Commission does not break down its official statistics by discipline and so there are no separate figures for the performance of UK arts and humanities researchers. Nonetheless, UK participation in "Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society" (FP6) was very strong in relation to other countries. There were 226 individual participants from the UK in 108 contracts valued at 35 million Euro. The entire budget for this theme in FP6 was 230m Euro.

  14.  In both these programmes, there were limited opportunities for humanities researchers. However, AHRB/C has worked with the UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO—supported by the Research Councils) to ensure these opportunities are highlighted to the UK community, through its website and cycle of HEI visits.

  15.  AHRC is delighted that in FP7, the humanities are explicitly included in the co-operation programme for the first time. With calls on topics such as migration and religions, attitudes and values, the programme will support pan-European collaborative research in priority areas which AHRC is also supporting collaborative research. The culture of collaborative project-based work which AHRC promotes should ensure a positive response to the calls which have been issued this year. It will continue to actively work with UKRO to ensure maximum take-up of the funding available, and has invited UKRO representatives to talk to early careers researchers at AHRC events about opportunities both in the Framework Programme and in the European Research Council (ERC).

  16.  AHRC is represented on the FP7 Social Sciences and Humanities Programme Committee (the Member States body that oversees the relevant cooperation theme). Through this forum, AHRC has been successful in pressing for a more humanities-friendly programme specification, and it will continue to press for an enlarged role for the humanities in future rounds of funding.

European Research Council

  17.  AHRC enjoys good relations with members of the ERC Scientific Council. In January 2006, Senior Officers from AHRC and ESRC met with SSH representatives of the Scientific Council of the ERC (including Vice-President Helga Nowotny) to discuss how humanities research might be best supported and how top UK researchers could be encouraged to reply.

  18.  AHRC welcomes this new and significant source of funding for the humanities at European level, as well as the focus on basic research. It believes that the best way for the Council to evolve so as to provide added value to the efforts of national research councils is to focus on funding teams of transnational researchers. The Council should avoid schemes which duplicate efforts at national level, such as those designed to help early careers researchers.

ERA-NET

  19.  AHRC welcomes the ERA-NET initiative as a method of allowing national research agencies to manage and fund transnational research that complements and adds value to their strategies domestically. Through the ERA-NET Plus scheme, the initiative has the additional advantage of attracting EU research funds to priorities that have been set by national research councils. The opportunity for sustained and structured exchange of information and best practice is also valued as a way of improving operational effectiveness and avoiding wasteful duplication of effort.

  20.  AHRC is currently a member of one ERA-NET funded through FP6: Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA). It is partnered by 14 other European agencies and ministries. The members of HERA have agreed to jointly fund 2 transnational funding programmes in 2009 on the following themes:

—  The Humanities as a Source of Innovation and Creativity

—  The Dynamics of Culture

  21.  These programmes will operate a single peer review mechanism and will fund research on a "common pot" basis ie the funding of successful transnational teams will not be based on the principle of juste retour.

  22.  This is a major advance in the funding of collaborative research in Europe and removes a number of bureaucratic impediments to joint funding. It will represent a significant improvement on existing multilateral mechanisms for the joint funding of collaborative research in the humanities, such as the ESF EUROCORES programme.

  23.  The HERA platform is also valuable in allowing humanities funding agencies to develop a common and coherent approach to European-wide challenges. Examples include the place of arts and humanities infrastructure projects in the EU ESFRI roadmap and the development of tools for the assessment of arts and humanities research outputs, beginning with the creation of a European Reference Index for the Humanities in partnership with ESF.

  24.  As the largest humanities funding agency in Europe, the AHRC has a played an important role in forums such as HERA and ESF in ensuring that the voice of UK humanities researchers are heard in key European research debates.

ROLE AND SUCCESS OF AHRC IN FACILITATING UK PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES

  25.  The agreement signed with NSF in 2006 allows for UK participants in the Human and Social Dynamics programme to be funded by AHRC. NSF also agrees to formally incorporate the comments of one UK-based peer reviewer nominated by AHRC. The agreement extends to all other NSF programmes which overlap with AHRC remit.

  26.  AHRC is a member of the European Science Foundation (ESF). It supports the UK component of transnational collaborative research (EUROCORES) and networking programmes (RNPs) on an a la carte basis. EUROCORES programmes to be funded include Origins of Man and Language (2002: 2 UK participants) and Consciousness in a Natural and Cultural Context (2006: 5 UK participants). RNPs with UK components to be funded include Associated Chronologies of the Ancient Near East (ARCANE) and From Natural Philosophy to Science (NPTS).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN AHRC AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES

  27.  As previously mentioned, AHRC international strategy takes into consideration GSIF priorities in designating certain countries and regions a priority. In doing so it broadly aligns itself with the international strategies of the Government departments and agencies represented on that forum.

  28.  There is also direct collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. AHRC is providing financial and intellectual support to the FCO Year of Science in Brazil (launched March 2007). The aim of that initiative is to promote the UK as the partner of choice for UK researchers, and AHRC is sponsoring an event on creativity, focussing on such issues as art and design, media and intellectual property.

  29.  An enduring problem in establishing closer links with the FCO and utilising its Science and Innovation Network more effectively is the lack of coverage of arts and humanities issues and researchers by science attaches. The examples of constructive liaison, for example with the South China post in Guangzhou on the theme of Heritage Science and the Sao Paulo post on Creativity, have sadly been rare.

IMPACT OF AHRC POLICY ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

  30.  AHRC, in collaboration with ESRC, makes Library of Congress (LoC) Scholarships available to UK doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows and research assistants who wish to pursue a course of study for a short period in the US. The scheme was initiated in 2005 as a result of the recommendations made by Sir Gareth Roberts on UK-US links. The scheme gives extensive access to the LoC's world-class facilities in Washington D.C. 16 placements have been made to date.

  31.  Mobility is also encouraged through AHRC's Research and Networks scheme and other networking schemes such as 5 Anglo-French bilateral workshop series supported in collaboration with ESRC. These series were focused on topics of strategic interest such as consciousness and cognition, migration and security.

AHRC

April 2007

Annex B

Evidence from the Biology and Biotechnology Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  BBSRC's Strategic Plan (2003-2008, updated in 2005) has a specific objective on partnerships—to "Seek new and stronger partnerships with a range of other funders and stakeholders, national and international, where there is benefit to the science base."

  2.  A refreshed international strategy was considered by BBSRC Strategy Board and endorsed by Council in January 2007, and is available on the BBSRC website at: www.bbsrc.ac.uk/international. Our stated aim is to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in the biosciences, and that academic research, industrial R&D and the UK economy benefit from the increasing scientific activity across the globe.

  3.  BBSRC aims to deliver its international strategy through four interrelated areas of activity:

Promoting the movement of people

BBSRC supports a range of schemes to encourage mobility such as David Phillips Fellowships, Dorothy Hodgkin Awards, and financial contribution to international programmes such as the Human Frontiers Science Program (HFSP) and the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO).

Enabling international research and collaboration

BBSRC supports research collaborations through international visits, workshops and research grants to foster and deepen links between researchers and between countries. "Partnership Awards" provide support for up to four years for specific interactions with researchers in Japan, China or India. Some research support is made through partnership with counterpart funders in other countries, eg through the EU "ERA-Net" scheme. In addition, the EU Framework Programmes offer a wide range of opportunities for joint research and associated activity. BBSRC is the managing partner of the UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO) which is the leading source of information and guidance on EU funding to the UK research community (www.ukro.ac.uk). For the life sciences, HFSP is also a key source of support for joint research (www.hfsp.org).

Ensuring access to world-class infrastructure and information

Within the EU, BBSRC plays a key role with STFC within the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) prioritising future infrastructure needs of Europe. We also take forward issues through RCUK and with other stakeholders (eg OSI)

Discharging our global responsibilities

Much of the research funded by BBSRC has considerable potential in addressing Millennium Development Goals, and BBSRC has co-funded research programmes with DFID in specific areas. BBSRC is also a co-founder of the UK Collaborative for Development Science to achieve closer coordination between DFID, the Research Councils and other stakeholders (eg the Wellcome Trust).

RC AND OSI MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

BBSRC funding to promote collaborative activities

  4.  Visits (£110k pa): BBSRC grant holders can apply at any time to visit (or send research staff to) any other country to:

—  Initiate, scope and develop collaborative activity

—  Access or share research data, facilities, skills

—  Write joint applications to international programmes

  In the last five years, we have funded 356 visits to 44 countries at a total BBSRC contribution of over £500k.

  5.  Partnering Awards (£300k pa): BBSRC focuses strategically on promoting collaborations with countries that are rapidly expanding their scientific capability. Partnering Awards enable leading UK laboratories to link respectively with collaborators in Japan, China and India. They provide support (£20k-50k) over four years to BBSRC grant holders for activities including the short-term exchange of postgraduate students, postdoctoral researchers or established scientists plus workshops. In the last five years, we have funded 68 awards at a BBSRC contribution of over £2 million. A scheme with the USA is in early stages of preparation. Access to facilities, training and data are a key feature of successful Partnering Awards.

  6.  Workshops (100k pa): awards of around £10k to enable grant holders to initiate activity through a workshop with UK and overseas researchers. In the last five years BBSRC has funded 40 workshops at a contribution of over £300k.

  7.  Fellowships: BBSRC's five-year postdoctoral fellowships (David Phillips Fellowships) are available to the very best scientists whatever their country of origin. In the past five years 43% have been awarded to non-UK nationals to be taken up in UK Institutions. Similarly, RCUK Academic Fellowships and Dorothy Hodgkin Awards continue to provide significant opportunity for researchers to establish themselves in the UK.

  8.  Joint funding: BBSRC contributes to large projects with other funders (eg genome sequencing), or enters funding schemes with partners such as ERA-Nets or EUROCOREs—see below. On a bilateral basis, BBSRC has co-funded specific calls for research proposals with DFID (£2M from BBSRC) in the UK and with ANR (BBSRC up to £5 million) and INRA (BBSRC £1.7 million so far) in France. A small number of responsive mode-funded grants involve related activities funded in another country.

  9.  International Programmes: BBSRC (together with MRC) pays the UK subscription to HFSP and to EMBO. As with other Councils, BBSRC is a member of ESF and participates in EuroHORCs such as their Money Follows Researcher Scheme.

  10.  BBSRC signs formal Memoranda of Understanding with counterpart Agencies overseas where doing so reduces barriers for UK researchers to collaborate with partners, or where there is strategic benefit. No specific budgets are allocated to such agreements, but activities are covered by the range of schemes detailed above, or through workshops to instigate collaborations (especially with China). BBSRC has signed agreements with the following organisations:

—  Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

—  China: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), China National Centre for Biotechnology Development (CNCBD), National Natural Science Foundation Centre (NNSFC);

—  France: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA);

—  India: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Department for Biotechnology (DBT)

—  Japan: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Research Council (AFFRC) of the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture;

—  Korea: Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF);

—  Netherlands: Wageningen University Research Centre

—  USA: US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

  11.  International opportunities are identified through Council interactions with partner organisations, through subject-specific reviews undertaken to input to policy development, and in responding to higher-level strategy development eg at RCUK or GSIF level.

EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

  12.  BBSRC is the managing partner of UKRO on behalf of the Research Council sponsors. For FP6, BBSRC, together with the Food Standards Agency and Defra, provided the UK National Contact Point for the FP6 thematic programme Food Quality and Safety, co-funding a launch event for the theme in London, and advising on scientific issues in the programme. BBSRC made effective input to Defra and FSA representation on the Programme Management Committee, on issues such as topics to be covered in calls for proposals, drawing on input from BBSRC-sponsored Institutes and the wider community. In the first call for proposals in FP6 Food Quality and Safety programme, 12 large-scale projects were selected for funding. Of these 11 had UK participants, and eight had participation of BBSRC-sponsored Institutes.

  13.  BBSRC is a lead in ERA-Net schemes in plant genomics (11 partner countries, BBSRC £5.2 million) and systems biology (14 partner countries, BBSRC £6 million), publishing joint calls for proposals with EU partners. Commission support to these schemes allows for staff in Swindon to lead on negotiations and programme management. BBSRC now enjoys closer relations with and greater understanding of its European counterparts, and we have also embarked on bilateral calls in specific areas with French agencies in crop science and in systems biology outside of the ERA-Net scheme. Similar bilateral activity is planned with Switzerland. The benefits to the community include accessing support for collaborative research within well understood national programmes, and the focus of resource on key challenges. BBSRC involved the research community in planning ERA-Nets through town meetings.

  14.  BBSRC has been closely involved in developing and strongly supports the RCUK lines on the ERC and EIT, and appreciates the strategic input from UKRO on these issues. BBSRC is raising awareness of early ERC opportunities to young scientists eg through its Next Generation seminars. The ERC will only fund the best in Europe if the best apply.

  15.  In addition to UKRO, BBSRC raises awareness of EU and other opportunities at meetings of researchers through grant workshops, town meetings, and other BBSRC events such as Next Generation seminars for young researchers.

  16.  BBSRC relations with EU partners such as INRA (France), WUR (Netherlands) and others (eg through the European Agricultural Research Initiative) ensure effective joint approaches can be made to the European Commission (eg BBSRC/INRA/WUR meeting with Commissioner Potocnik in run up to FP7).

  17.  BBSRC is the lead UK representative on the Life Sciences Working Group of ESFRI, prioritising the first calls for proposals in the FP7 infrastructures programmes. The workprogramme for this first call includes the following life science priorities from the ESFRI Roadmap:

—  European Advanced Translational Research Infrastructure for Medicine (EATRIS)

—  European Bio-Banking and Biomolecular Resources

—  Infrastructure for Phenomefrontier and Archivefrontier (INFRAFRONTIER)

—  Infrastructure for Clinical Trials and Biotherapy

—  Integrated Structural Biology Infrastructure

—  Upgrade of European Bio-Informatics Infrastructure

ROLE AND SUCCESS OF RCS IN FACILITATING UK PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES

  18.  BBSRC and MRC pay the UK subscription to the Human Frontiers Science Program, which funds collaborative research grants and fellowships across many countries. (BBSRC contribution £175k 2006-07). See MRC annex for UK statistics.

  19.  BBSRC and MRC pay the UK subscription to the European Molecular Biology Organisation which operates fellowship schemes for young researchers and associated activity (BBSRC contribution £180k for 2006-07). See MRC annex for statistics.

  20.  BBSRC is a member organisation of the European Science Foundation with the other Research Councils (BBSRC Contribution £100k 2006-07). Benefits range from participation in joint funding (EUROCOREs) programmes, forward looks in nanomedicine and systems biology and funding to the community eg in research networking (eg Frontiers in Functional Genomics involving Babraham Institute).

EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN RCS AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  21.  Formal collaboration is undertaken through the Global Science and Innovation Forum (GSIF, RC representation via EPSRC, and via BBSRC on the GSIF Core Officials Group). BBSRC ensures its international strategy complements GSIF priorities (eg Partnering Awards with Japan, China and India). Examples of specific interactions are below.

  22.   OSI—BBSRC works with OSI on a number of levels, particularly with the OSI International Directorate. BBSRC joined the UK delegations to OSI-led bilaterals with priority countries eg Ministerial-level meetings with China (October 2001, Beijing; November 2003. London; April 2006, Beijing), India (June 2006, London) and Japan (February 2004, Tokyo; June 2006, London). Attendance has helped further BBSRC Corporate links with counterpart agencies. BBSRC also inputs to all OSI requests for briefings for Ministerial visits, activities (eg G8 agendas, bilateral meetings). BBSRC is also a member of the OSI Framework Programme Network.

  23.   Defra—at policy level, BBSRC supports Defra in the annual Tetrapartite meetings, the annual agri-food research and policy forum involving USA, Canada, France and the UK. BBSRC also supports Defra in its lead on representing the UK in the EU's Standing Committee for Agricultural Research (SCAR), which was particularly effective in ensuring appropriate coverage of agricultural and related research in FP7. BBSRC has also joined Defra in activities of the European Agricultural Research Initiative (EURAGRI), which has played a key role in integrating new Member States to EU networks. Defra takes the UK lead on the Agriculture and Biotechnology committees in the COST Programme.

  24.   Food Standards Agency—joint approaches to Framework Programme management and defining the structure and calls for proposals (with Defra), to ensure FP7 opportunities are appropriate for the UK community.

  25.   DTI—again joint work on defining FP7 priorities, and also in specific activity eg the DTI UK-Texas bioscience collaboration programme (BBSRC represented on Steering Committee).

  26.   FCO—BBSRC has led on Research Council interactions with the FCO recently through involvement in FCO SIN Business Planning meetings; SIN regional Conferences (Ottawa September 2006 ; Singapore December 2006; Berlin March 2007). Specific activity with SIN Posts includes FCO funding of collaborations with British Embassy Tokyo (structural genomics) and British High Commission New Delhi (biotechnology). BBSRC also benefits from SIN expertise in planning Corporate Missions eg to China, Singapore, Japan, USA, and India. BBSRC also hosts FCO-sponsored delegations to the UK where appropriate.

  27.   British Council—BBSRC undertakes review of applications to several British Council schemes such as networking of young researchers, and serves on the committees of British Councils schemes such as Alliance (UK-France programme).

  28.   DFID—good relations in recent years culminating in a £6 million joint call for proposals (£2 million BBSRC to date) to translate UK research on crop science into practical solutions and benefits in the developing world. BBSRC also provides input to DFID lead on CIGAR (International Agri-Food Research Institutes in the developing world) and BBSRC provides human resource services underpinning our involvement in the new UK Collaborative for Development Research.

BBSRC

April 2007

Annex C

Evidence from the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  On 1 April 2007, the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC) combined with the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council to form The Science & Technology Facilities Council.

  2.  The CCLRC provided UK academics with access to advanced research facilities such as Synchrotrons and Neutron Sources, as operated at CCLRC's Daresbury Laboratory, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory The CCLRC also provided expertise in many scientific disciplines and particularly in technology (instrumentation), engineering and IT.

  3.  The CCLRC also managed the UK subscriptions to the ESRF and the ILL which provided a further range of experimental facilities to UK academics.

  4.  Unlike its sister Research Councils, CCLRC did not provide grant funding to academics, apart for a very small scheme connected with the development of UK based national facilities.

  5.  While CCLRC has always been involved in international activities, the development of the next generation of current Facilities eg 4th Generation Light Sources and the need for the UK to be able to access new types of Facility eg European X-Ray Free Electron Lasers, pose additional challenges. The ever increasing costs of these new facilities and potential human resource shortages, ensured that the internationalisation of facilities has become a more important consideration for strategic development planning.

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING RC AND OSI MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  6.  There has been some lack of clarity in the partitioning of responsibility between OSI and CCLRC in promoting international collaboration, particularly at a strategic level in Europe, but also with other countries. An example of this has been the UK position with regard to the European Spallation Source.

  7.  There is no clearly identified central diary of visits abroad by senior staff or Ministers nor of incoming visitors. This reduces the capacity to capitalise on such visits by planning complementary activities or suggesting people or locations to visit.

  8.  CCLRC has a great many scientific contacts internationally through its staff, typically on a person to person basis, both at researcher-to-researcher level, and at Director to Director level. However, this did not naturally extend to relationships at an organisational/Funding Agency/Ministry level and CCLRC has worked at developing these. Much of the improved international esteem of CCLRC in recent years can be attributed to the development of these relationships which have been enabled by CCLRC's membership of ESFRI, the establishment of the ERF and targeted visits to overseas agencies.

  9.  CCLRC's three major facilities (ISIS, SRS and CLF) operate a Free-at-the-Point-of-Access Policy Applications to use the Facilities are subject to Peer Review and if successful all the costs of using the Facility (including travel and subsistence for a defined number of researchers) are paid for by the Facility. Some of the time on each Facility is reserved for "World Class Science" which enabled international researchers to have access whilst further time was reserved for European Users under the EC's Transnational Access programmes.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FP, INCLUDING RESOURCES FOR ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RCS AND EU AGENCIES IN THE NEW FP7 INITIATIVE. THE PROVISION OF RESOURCES TO STIMULATE UK PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES. BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF RC PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT FPS

  10.  CCLRC staff have been involved in the development of EU framework programmes as expert advisors to the EU in particular areas. In some cases this was done in cooperation with colleagues in other European countries via a "not for profit" organisation, for example in the area of IT, ERCIM (www.ercim.org). In general there was no funding provision for this, but the activity was considered an investment to improve success in subsequent project proposals.

  11.  There have been great benefits to CCLRC participating in FPs for several reasons: (a) provision of part of the necessary R&D funding for development, (b) development of trained staff, (c) awareness of scientific competence in other countries, (d) exchange of experience and techniques. In many cases FP projects have led to the production of new equipment or services to support researchers using CCLRC and also to stimulate knowledge and technology transfer to UK industry.

ESFRI

  12.  The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) was founded in 2002 and supports a coherent approach to policy-making on research infrastructures in Europe, and acts as an incubator for international negotiations about specific projects. The Research Councils represent UK interests on ESFRI. CCLRC has provided the two UK delegates; Professor John Wood who was the Chief Executive of CCLRC and a senior Director. Professor Wood is currently its independent Chairman and has recently had his term extend until the end of March 2008, in this role he has been instrumental in identifying the need for a European Roadmap and put forward proposals for how to go about this.

  13.  The UK representation on ESFRI is being reviewed in light of the establishment of the Science and Technology Facilities Council. It is likely that another Research Council will take the second delegate place.

  14.  The ESRFI roadmap (the first) was published in October 2006. It describes the scientific need for a range of research infrastructures for the European Research Area over the next 10-20 years (excluding infrastructure projects in the field of high energy physics which appear in the CERN and ESA roadmaps). Many other international countries have shown great interest in the process and result.

  15.  The Research Councils, in consultation with OSI have identified potential UK interest in specific projects listed in the Roadmap, and are developing a coordinated approach to engagement, including determining which , of the projects the UK might want to host.

Benefits:

  16.  Membership of ESFRI has allowed CCLRC to meet and establish relationships with similar organisations from all the Member States plus the Associated Countries. As ESFRI delegates are personally appointed by Research Ministers this means that these contacts are particularly knowledgeable and influential.

  17.  The ESFRI Roadmap has allowed CCLRC to identify potential partners, potential rivals, and potential opportunities. In particular, it has allowed CCLRC to identify countries whose interests in hosting a project are largely based on EC Structural Funding being available as opposed to be being based on National Funding and /or an established scientific base being available.

Drawbacks:

  18.  The ESFRI Roadmap has attracted the enthusiastic support of the European Commission but unfortunately there has been some downside to this. However, linking eligibility for EC FP7 funding to being on the Roadmap and the Commission's unfamiliarity with capital scientific project life cycles has also raised some issues. An example is that while the EC is willing to contribute to the capital costs of new Research Infrastructures,(through FP7) there is no programme to support the development of the technologies that will be needed e.g detector, instrumentation and IT technologies.

ERF

  19.  CCLRC initiated the formation of ERF (European Association of National Research Facilities open to International Access). This association aims to coordinate development of leading facilities for European research to improve best practice, to act as expert opinion for national and international policy making and to facilitate the availability and use of facility resources for cooperation and specific joint initiatives. Membership of ERF gives CCLRC excellent oversight of the strategy of other national facilities and potential opportunities for UK researchers. Of course ERF is linked tightly with ESFRI and triangulates with the provision of EC funding. Furthermore, ERF has been discussed as a possible pilot Knowledge Innovation Community for EIT.

EIT

  20.  CCLRC staff have been active in discussions on the EIT both from a CCLRC and ERF point of view and representation. This has included discussions with UKRO, briefing appropriate UK representatives, briefing the local MEP and discussing with members of the task group set up by the European Parliament to report on EIT. CCLRC has expressed the concerns outlined in the RCUK section of this document and additionally, jointly with university groups, has raised questions about EIT degree-awarding.

  21.  In the field of IT, ERCIM (with CCLRC as the UK member) has been funded by the EU to produce strategic documents on the future of IT in Europe over the next 20 years.

  22.  CCLRC was disadvantaged by the imposition of the "Treasury Cap"; a Treasury imposed financial regime whereby Treasury reclaimed funds from CCLRC once CCLRC's EC receipts exceeded a certain level. This Regime has been abolished for FP7 but undoubtedly caused huge strategic damage to CCLRC as it was unable to lead on projects. CCLRC led the NMI3 project, the largest of the EC's I3 projects but this single project brought CCLRC very close to the threshold at which the Treasury Cap would kick in, ruling out CCLRC leading on further projects

THE ROLE & SUCCESS OF RCS IN FACILITATING UK PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES.

  23.  CCLRC, because of the nature of the organisation, can not claim to have facilitated UK participation in such programmes through funding. Many organisations (both in academia and industry) benefited from CCLRC's involvement in such programmes, either directly as project partners or indirectly through technology transfer from CCLRC. Because CCLRC participates as the or a UK member in various European and International research groupings, this beneficial effect is leveraged strongly.

  24.  International programmes involving advanced science and/or the development of advanced technology around research facilities are a particular CCLRC interest where CCLRC involvement provides a gateway for UK researchers. Current projected programmes around facilities include XFEL, FAIR and HIPER.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE RCS, OSI AND OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING, DEFRA, THE FCO'S SCIENCE AND INNOVATION NETWORK AND DFID

  25.  CCLRC's principal interactions are with OSI and FCO and while CCLRC "knows" the other Departments, it does not generally get directly involved with their activities.

  26.  CCLRC work closely with FCO SIN staff who provide an excellent level of support for CCLRC staff. This is particularly true where the FCO staff have a science rather than language background. Such support is particularly useful when dealing with unfamiliar cultures.

  27.  However, CCLRC makes less use of the European SIN Network as CCLRC already has a well established network of contacts in the national funding agencies and the Ministries through its involvement with ESFRI. Whilst we recognise that the SIN Network has other objectives beyond just science and innovation, we understand FCO is already reviewing the placement of SIN Officers.

IMPACT OF RC POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

  28.  CCLRC's Facility Access policies enable mobility in the sense that they allow researchers to bring their research to the facilities.

  29.  Some of the international groupings to which CCLRC belongs encourage mobility and in the past some have been supported with EU funding. This has increased the number of non-UK young researchers coming to the UK, some of whom remain to make their career in the UK.

  30.  CCLRC had approximately 1800 staff and a significant proportion are of non-UK origin. CCLRC has always been keen to welcome employees from overseas and to maintain contact with them once they have left; this has paid off in the longer term as many of these ex-staff are now in senior positions in other organisations or other laboratories which provides for a very personal level of interaction.

STFC

April 2007

Annex D

Evidence from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The EPSRC international strategy aims to provide the means to encourage international collaboration. EPSRC's role is to provide its community of individual researchers with the means to pursue international collaboration in a flexible manner with their chosen partners wherever they are in the world, but with a particular focus on USA, Europe, China, India and Japan.

  2.  Within the EPSRC Strategic Plan are five strategies, developed to inform our actions and operations to enable us successfully to address the challenges of the Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 and subsequent Next Steps paper.

  3.  EPSRC has a long history of facilitating and taking advantage of opportunities for international partnership. However in order to grow the strength of the UK research base within an evolving global context, and to maximise its influence on the direction and exploitation of world science, technology and engineering, EPSRC must evolve its policy and target investment decisions so that the community can take full advantage of global opportunities.

  4.  Ideas do not respect national boundaries: science is international and opportunities will be developed within a global context. We work to give emphasis to fostering and enabling "best with best" science-driven international interactions. To this end we will seek to stimulate global partnerships, overseas collaborations, alliances with multinational companies and international funding agencies and leading international people. This will benchmark UK research and promote global recognition of the best UK research and researchers. Figure 1 below gives data on recent international collaborations with companies, while Figure 2 shows the number of Visiting Fellowships by country supported by EPSRC.

Figure 1

Figure 2

  5.  Also from the Strategic Plan, in the context of research, we will particularly encourage collaboration with researchers in the USA, Europe, China, India and Japan at peer to peer as well as the strategic level, forming alliances with international bodies and agencies with the aim of lowering the barriers to collaboration. EPSRC will also continue to work in concert with the other Research Councils and through RCUK in promoting the strength of UK research internationally to ensure we provide a clear and unified voice. Figure 3 shows the value of EPSRC grants which contain an international element for the period of the previous five years.

Figure 3

  The following Annex gives details of the international activities of EPSRC. Where appropriate, these are indicated under the headings below.

5.1  Strengths and weaknesses of existing Research Council and activities to maintain and promote international collaboration.

  EPSRC continues to provide a huge community of individual researchers with the means to pursue international collaboration with their chosen partners. These mechanisms include: Visiting Fellowships, Overseas Travel Grants, N+N meetings and networks, together with the appointment where appropriate of Research Assistants employed on EPSRC grants, overseas postgraduate students, etc.

  Data showing the breadth of EPSRC activities is grouped by region in the following Annex. EPSRC operates to enable the entire range of the UK research community within its remit to benefit from flexible mechanisms and responsive funding schemes. The issues of double jeopardy are being addressed through specific experiments with NSF and DFG as highlighted below.

  EPSRC recognises the complexity of the international research landscape and is therefore addressing priorities through the development of its international strategy.

5.2  INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

  EPSRC's activities in ERA-NETS are described below. EPSRC also provides travel funds to enable UK researchers to travel to Europe and build partnerships with a view to submitting a bid to the Framework programmes. EPSRC welcomes the establishment of the ERC and will monitor its portfolio to respond to the changes in the funding landscape as a consequence of this new player in Europe.

  EPSRC has encountered difficulties in gaining a true picture of the extent of UK involvement in Framework programmes and would benefit from clearer information exchange for influencing the European research agenda.

5.3  ROLE AND SUCCESS OF RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR FACILITATION OF UK PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES.

  EPSRC enables its community of researchers to participate in international programmes through the provision of funds and representation on international bodies. As well as close links to the European Science Foundation, it assists with peer review on British Council and FCO operated programmes. Further details are provided in the following annex.

5.4  EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN RESEARCH COUNCILS AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  Through its individual programmes, EPSRC has interactions with a number of Government departments including DfID and DoH as well as UKTI for knowledge transfer activities.

  Such activities are operated at Programme level where individual working relationships are established between EPSRC and departments. This lower level of organisation is considered to be effective for matching the structure of EPSRC programmes.

5.5  IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH COUNCILS' POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF SCIENTISTS

  EPSRC's Fellowship and Visiting Researcher schemes are designed to offer flexible solutions to enabling mobility. In addition, individual Programmes offer specific ring-fenced initiatives to build capacity within a particular discipline.

  Within EPSRC's strategy is the objective to build `best-with-best' relationships between researchers in the UK and overseas.

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

  6.  UK researchers already collaborate strongly internationally. The world map in Figure 4 shows the extent of collaboration within the current research grants portfolio. It excludes involvement in, eg, Framework programmes, which builds on UK expertise funded at the core level by EPSRC. Both corporately, and through programmes, EPSRC seeks to influence research opportunities.

Figure 4

Asia

  7.  EPSRC's previous strategic focus on Japan, China and India has led to the funding of INTERACT, which recently completed a fourth funding round, to support networks and travel grants to initiate research collaborations. To date, the INTERACT portfolio has made 30 awards worth a total of £1.2 million.

  8.   A number of focused activities are planned or have been completed in the energy area, for example a recent workshop has been held in Xiamen between the DTI, EPSRC, members of the UK and Chinese research communities and MOST.

  9.   Where there is a strategic need, EPSRC has Memoranda of Understanding with agencies around the world to promote international collaboration. Memoranda of Understanding with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC), National Science Council (Taiwan) and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS).

  10.   In August 2005, Arup was contracted to design and masterplan the world's first sustainable city, Dongtan in Shanghai, China. EPSRC has supported 4 network proposals which will enable UK and international researchers to undertake further visits and workshops to discuss research challenges associated with the construction of Dongtan in more detail.

USA

  11.   The SUPERGEN initiative has supported US/UK Scholarships in hydrogen technologies with Sandia National Laboratories, exchanging PhD students between the UK and US laboratories.

  12.   EPSRC is actively promoting collaboration between universities in the UK and the USA. In addition to providing funding opportunities, EPSRC will build relationships with appropriate agencies in the USA to underpin this. For example, EPSRC has successfully initiated joint funding opportunities with the National Science Foundation and is now moving forward to establish a single process for Peer Review between EPSRC and NSF.

  13.  In September 2005, we issued a call to support participation in the 2005 National Science Foundation (NSF) `Materials World Network: Cooperative Activity in Materials Research' between UK and US researchers. EPSRC has funded 17 grants, £3.8 million over the past 4 years to 2005-06. The calls have succeeded in their aim of attracting and funding internationally leading groups. Highlights from funded projects include a publication opening up prospects of including computational functionality within optical communications fibres themselves which featured on the front page of Science by the Southampton Optoelectronics Centre jointly with Pennsylvania State University.

Europe

  14.  Current activities in Europe focus largely in involvement in Eranets, for example in e-health, nanoscience, complexity and bioenergy. The mathematical science Programme Manager meets with counterparts in a European network "heads of maths programmes", and the ICT Programme Manager is similarly involved with European networks. The Mathematics Programme supports the Institute Hautes Etude Scientifique.

  15.  The Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences (INI) at Cambridge is a research institute which attracts leading mathematical scientists from the UK and overseas to interact in research over extended periods (typically 6 months). The INI runs research programmes on selected themes in the mathematical sciences, with applications to a wide range of science and technology. Between 2002 and 2005 the EPSRC funded the Institute to the value of just over £1.3 million.

  16.  EPSRC also supports the Research Councils' UK Brussels Office (UKRO) which has close links with most UK universities and provides detailed advice and guidance on EU funding opportunities and is working with RCUK on the establishment of the RCUK Beijing China Office and planning for an RCUK Washington, USA office.

  17.  A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is being drawn up between 14 interested European countries (with EPSRC representing the UK) to cover the preparatory work required to establish a formal European research infrastructure for the provision of high end computing facilities. As part of the work in the MoU, EPSRC is part of a consortium that is preparing a proposal to the European Commission, through its first call in e-infrastructures in FP7, to fund the preparatory phase for developing such a research infrastructure.

  18.  EPSRC has supported its own staff in secondments to other funding agencies in order to share experience and best practice in science funding. In November 2005 an Associate Programme Manager from EPSRC's Life Sciences Interface programme spent six weeks at the German funding agency DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). This followed a successful visit to EPSRC by a DFG staff member.

  19.  The EPSRC welcomes the establishment of the European Research Council. The interests of engineering and physical sciences are represented on the Scientific Council by Professor Wendy Hall of the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton.

  20.  EPSRC has active participation in European programmes, particularly ERANETS and EUROCORES. The EUROCORES portfolio is worth about £3 million.

  21.  As part of our ongoing involvement in ERA Net Bioenergy, a small pilot call for joint collaborative proposals in small scale combustion of biomass was launched. This call has been developed jointly with partner funding bodies in Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden. Eight of the eighteen proposals submitted were recommended for funding, including one from the UK (ranked top of the list) from the University of Nottingham on a small scale biomass-fired CHP system.

Rest of the World

  22.  The Energy Programme is strongly engaged internationally including the role of the Energy Senior Research Fellow, Professor Nigel Brandon, who is focussing, amongst other things, on strengthening the UK's links with research communities and industry with Europe, USA, India, China and Japan.

  23.  The Life Sciences Interface programme runs an annual Overseas Post Doctoral Fellowships Exercise, this year being the third time the exercise was run. A key aim of the scheme is to allow physical sciences or engineering researchers, who wish to work at the life sciences interface, time in leading international research laboratories. Currently up to half of the three year fellowship should be spent in one or more such laboratories.

  24.  EPSRC is looking to support research in energy that will promote links between UK universities and developing country universities and facilitate the transfer of technologies that will help alleviate developing country poverty and contribute to meeting the Government's millennium development goals. A recent call for proposals resulted in two funded proposals totalling £2.5 million. The leading proposals at the panel involves collaboration with African Universities and user communities, and with Los Alamos labs the US and involves the adaptation and transfer of NASA technology that uses heat to generate both electricity and clean water. In a related activity EPSRC have contributed to a DFID panel on energy and development, strengthening the working relationship between our organisations.

  25.  EPSRC is happy to share its experience in peer review and systems with other agencies. It assists with review of schemes for the British Council, FCO and national funding agencies.

International facilities

  26.  Through its programme activities, EPSRC researchers are able to access the best international facilities across the globe, from working on the ITER project to using advanced light sources in the US to probe the nature of matter. In Europe, EPSRC funded researchers are using international facilities at ILL (Institut Laue-Langevin) in Grenoble to understand fracture mechanisms in metals.

  27.  Fusion: Fusion research thrives on international collaboration. EPSRC has the stewardship of the £46 million, two-year UK Fusion Programme, carried out by UKAEA at the Culham Science Centre and activities through Framework programmes in EURATOM. The UK contributes to fusion research in two ways: through the UK's own programme focused on the spherical tokamak experiment MAST; by contributing to the Joint European Torus (JET) programme. The MAST and JET facilities are situated at Culham Science Centre.

  28.  The UK fusion programme also contributes to the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER). ITER is to be built at Cadarache, France, and is an international collaboration between the European Union, USA, Japan, the Russian Federation, China, South Korea, and India.

EPSRC

April 2007

Annex E

Evidence from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The ESRC has set itself the goal of becoming, by 2010, one of the global champions of international social and economic science. It is pursuing a vigorous strategy to become a truly open and internationalist research funding agency and a world-leading social science funding body. To this end it is working to:

—  remove barriers to international research collaboration;

—  achieve a leading status for the UK in European collaboration;

—  establish the UK as the partner of choice for US social and economic researchers, and as a key partner for newly-emerging regions of research strength;

—  become a world leader in social science data issues; and

—  work productively with relevant UK Government departments in procuring the best possible research evidence for public policy.

  2.  Achieving these ambitious goals requires sustained and committed engagement with a wide range of counterpart organisations within and beyond the UK. The ESRC's international office team, advised by Council's International Advisory Committee, develops strategies for such engagement and undertakes initial discussions and negotiations with partner agencies. But Council aims to embed international engagement in every aspect of ESRC's activities, so all Boards and Committees are required to develop explicit international strategies for their remit areas, including training, capacity development and mobility; research resources and infrastructures; major research investments such as centres and programmes; responsive grant schemes; knowledge transfer and impact activities; and the international benchmarking of UK social science.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF CURRENT MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  3.  There are many strengths. The UK is a major player in the social sciences as in other sciences, second only to the United States, and in some areas second to none. This means that there are many international researchers who seek to collaborate with the UK, and who are open to UK approaches.

  4.  Key strengths are:

—  The openness of UK research grants schemes to cross-border collaborations, including supporting fieldwork carried out in partnership with overseas researchers, and associating international researchers with UK projects.

—  Openness to funding projects on any subject irrespective of their national focus, and involving researchers from those countries in relevant work.

—  Transferability of research grants in appropriate cases to other countries when researchers move there.

—  Full participation in EU and other European (eg ESF) programmes and networks.

—  International bilateral agreements to foster co-funded collaborative work across national boundaries (ESRC currently has eleven of these).

—  Fellowships, travel and collaborative grants so that researchers in parallel areas can be attached to related groups and centres in other countries or in the UK to foster collaboration.

—  International scientific associations and their work to foster collaboration between associated researchers.

—  International infra-structural developments like the European Social Survey which bring together researchers from different backgrounds and allow international comparative work.

—  Participation in international organisations such as the European Science Foundation and the International Social Science Council to promote stronger collaboration across national boundaries.

—  Provision on PhD studentships to spend up to three months in a foreign institution and longer on international fieldwork as part of postgraduate training.

—  Openness of UK PhD studentships to all EU residents and nationals.

—  Participation in European Research Area networks, including co-funding of collaborative research.

—  The use of English as the international scientific language.

  5.  There are some notable weaknesses across the research base that remain to be addressed. The ESRC is actively addressing each of these from a social science perspective; collectively they present major challenges over the next five years.

—  Different processes and cultures of decision-making which mean that related research projects in different countries may find it difficult to obtain co-funding in separate countries simultaneously. Our bilateral partnership agreements provide a mechanism for aligning processes and understanding cultures.

—  The absence of parallel bodies to those in the UK in many countries, or the presence of bodies with much more limited resources

—  The inability to accept and co-fund leading international researchers based in other countries as Co-Investigators on UK grants. Research Council Directors have recently agreed jointly to address this issue.

—  Inadequate provision in the UK to provide logistical and administrative support for UK teams wishing to lead on European projects, leading to their being in a disadvantageous position to for example French, Dutch, Scandinavian or other teams.

—  The logistical challenges of providing access to significant comparative resources (data and information sources) to facilitate high level international comparative research. The ESRC's International Data Strategy provides a basis on which stakeholders can make progress with this agenda.

—  Language skills of UK researchers, especially where English will not be the lead language. With AHRC and HEFCE, the ESRC has commissioned five new Language Based Area Studies Centres that will enable young researchers to develop language skills.

—  International comparative research presents particular challenges in terms of methodological techniques, understanding and skills. The ESRC is currently scoping needs and requirements in this area with a view to initiating activities aimed at ensuring that the UK research community is appropriately equipped and skilled for these challenges.

—  Very high competition for UK funds so that while proposals in other countries can obtain funding those of a similar quality in the UK fall below the line for funding in UK social science competitions.

—  The weakness of some international bodies which need stronger support from the more well-resourced nations in order to operate effectively.

—  Less than adequate provision for trans-disciplinary research at the international level (such as that at the interstices between social and life sciences, and social and earth sciences).

—  Different funding systems such that the funding available in other countries is not on a par with that available in the UK under full economic cost provision, or contrary-wise that the cost at the margin in the UK may be significantly higher than in other countries.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

  6.  The UK has been reasonably strong in obtaining Framework funding in the social sciences, but has been less strong under FP6 than earlier programmes, and there is a worry that this will be weaker again under FP7. This is partly of course because there are now more competitors, but also for two other reasons. Firstly there are many bureaucratic hurdles to obtaining and then administering FP funds. UK researchers, especially those based in Universities, do not always have the support necessary to minimise the effort in overcoming these hurdles. Greater funding available for this from UK sources might help overcome this issue. Secondly there is not full cost recovery from EU, related as well to the first point. In the context of full economic cost awards, this can act as a disincentive to participation by UK researchers. The Committee might wish to investigate with leading research teams what they perceive as the major obstacles to taking the lead in major FP projects.

  7.  The emergence of the European Research Council (ERC) may help overcome some of the problems identified above, though much will depend on how their schemes develop. There are some concerns about how this will operate in the social sciences, where conditions may be somewhat different from those in the natural sciences. Senior ESRC and AHRC officers have held a valuable meeting with relevant members of the Scientific Council of the ERC (Professors Castells, Dewatripont, Nowotny and Peyraube) to discuss relevant issues. However, more detailed discussions held with EU officials jointly with social science counterparts from France, Germany and the Netherlands have not fully resolved continuing concerns over structure.

  8.  There is concern that current schemes for ERC Advanced grants (up to €500,000 per annum for up to 5 years) and Starter Investigators (up to €400,000 per annum for up to 5 years for those within 9 years of their PhD) simply parallel those in member states. There are no (as yet) obvious distinct reasons for an applicant to go to their national Council or the ERC. The enterprising or indeed just active researcher might therefore go to both, merely duplicating bureaucratic and peer review processes, with no added value. We believe there needs to be closer co-ordination between the ERC and the national councils to clarify their respective roles. To this end there will be further meetings in June with European counterparts and ERC members. We believe that the establishment of the ERC will be a major step in re-enforcing the European Research Area. Although the current schemes themselves do not require any element of cross-national collaboration, they have the potential to enhance research excellence.

  9.  The ESRC currently participates in two major ERA-Nets—that on New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Collaboration in Europe (Norface) and that on Social Aspects of Genomics (Erasage). These both operate well and have provided excellent opportunities to learn about different approaches to research, to foster closer collaborative working, and in appropriate cases to co-fund collaborative work. ESRC is concerned that there may be limited funding for ERA-Nets in the social sciences under FP7, and less provision than expected for ERA-Net Plus arrangements, which include EU parallel funding for joint programmes.

  10.  The system of National Contact Points appears to have worked reasonably well as a means of collecting and channelling relevant information to UK researchers. In some countries National Contact Points play a more active role, advising and promoting those who wish to and can compete strongly for EU funds. There is a genuine question as to whether the UK should be more active and directive in this area. On the one hand researchers need to be left to decide their own priorities on whether or not they wish to bid for certain types of funds. On the other, the absence of pro-active mechanisms may put UK researchers in a weaker position to lead European projects than those in other EU countries.

ROLES AND SUCCESS IN FACILITATING UK PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES

  11.  It follows from the comments above that there may be a need to review activities in these areas. There is relatively little problem with UK participation in European and wider international programmes, as British researchers are always seen as valuable contributors, and the use of English as the major language of communication removes one possible difficulty in that area. There is however the issue in the social sciences as to how far UK teams are logistically well placed to lead such collaborations, even where scientifically they are well placed to do this. This is not a simple question. There are cases where ESRC has not funded joint programmes where the UK might be in the overall lead because it is not satisfied of the overall quality and strength of the programme. We do not believe we should sacrifice quality standards merely to lead in particular projects. Equally there are cases where the UK has clearly not taken the lead for logistical reasons where it might have been best placed to do so.

EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION WITH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  12.  ESRC has strong relations with both the Department for International Development and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office for developing relevant work of common concern. In the case of DfID the joint ESRC-DfID £13 million programme on Alleviating Poverty has been seen as a trail-blazing collaboration in several other leading countries. As well as supporting critical areas of research it has opened up UK research funding to collaborations which can be led from other countries. It has also provided the basis for attracting other funding such as the Hewlett Foundation £2 million funding with ESRC on population dynamics and reproductive health.

  13.  The ESRC also works well with the FCO and has recently launched a joint research call on understanding radicalisation. It also works closely with the FCO and / or the British Council when seeking to establish stronger links with research in particular countries. The FCO and British Council have been particularly helpful to ESRC in its current initiative to strengthen working links with appropriate social science research in India. ESRC would hope to work closely in this initiative with the FCO/DTI UK-India Education Research Initiative (UKIERI).

IMPACT OF RC POLICIES ON INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

  14.  In the social sciences the UK is a net attracter of overseas researchers, with some outward movement, significantly to the US especially in subjects such as economics, but also to other countries. Our postgraduate systems, open to all EU residents, encourage significant inward migration of PhD students, and non-UK residents have accounted for up to 17% of the total number of studentships in recent years. The ESRC Post-Doctoral Fellowship scheme has also attracted significant take-up from non-UK researchers. In addition, at the postgraduate / post-doctoral level approximately 10% of researchers spend reasonable periods abroad each year in the pursuit of their research.

  15.  Other schemes which ESRC uses include:

(a) Visiting Fellowships, particularly to link researchers in leading centres in the UK with those in the Americas;

(b) The ESRC-British Academy China Exchange scheme, which we are currently in the process of reviewing and expanding, to promote closer collaboration there;

(c) the launch in the past year of training and centres addressing links with Japan, China, Eastern Europe and the Arabic speaking worlds, which will develop and train a significant number of research staff in these areas over the next 5-10 years, including placements in relevant overseas countries; and

(d) the scheme introduced this year with the British Academy to offer post-doctoral fellowships for 3-4 month exchanges in leading centres in the UK for innovative younger researchers from South Asia and the Middle East.

  16.  "Money follows researchers" is not a major issue for ESRC but provides an enabling mechanism should researchers wish to take their grants to other countries. ESRC's bi-lateral agreements with various European countries and Australia do however also allow joint grants to be held in some countries. The agreement with Germany, the Netherlands and one or two other countries also permit (with reciprocal arrangements from DFG and NWO) up to 30% of ESRC grants to be expended on collaborative researchers in those countries. These collaborative agreements were only made 18 months ago, but are now beginning to come into operation. ESRC is also actively reviewing with our sister organisations how to make the schemes more user friendly.

  17.  We hope this addresses the questions posed by the Committee. Greater detail about ESRC's approach and operations are attached as an appendix.

Appendix

Evidence from ESRC

INTRODUCTION

  1.  ESRC's international strategy page is at:

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/international/index2.aspx

ESRC'S INTERNATIONAL POLICY GOALS

  2.  The ESRC has always facilitated international engagement by UK social and economic researchers, for example by funding fieldwork anywhere in the world, allowing costs of collaboration with research partners outside the UK, and subscribing to international agencies such as the European Science Foundation. But by the turn of the century it became clear to Council that a more targeted strategy was needed, both to enable the UK's strengths in social and economic research to play a suitably influential role in a world where many major research issues transcend national borders, and to ensure that UK researchers are continually challenged to match themselves against the best in the world. Council has set ESRC the goal of becoming, by 2010, a truly open and internationalist funding agency, recognised as a world leader in championing excellent social science research and the systems that underpin it.

  3.  Given the complexities of engaging with counterpart agencies that have different agendas, priorities, constraints and ways of working, achieving this goal requires sustained strategic action on several fronts. These can be grouped under three headings: removing barriers; strengthening the UK's leadership role; and embedding international working in all aspects of ESRC's business.

ESRC'S INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY—REMOVING BARRIERS

  4.  The ESRC believes that, just as free trade in goods and services has by and large brought benefits to populations around the world, so a "free trade in research brains"" is both desirable and necessary. Barriers arise mainly from the different national structures and traditions of research funding. Although some supra-national funding opportunities (such as the EU Framework Programmes) have been developed in recent decades, these supplement rather than substitute for national funding. The ESRC is therefore working to remove barriers between national research funding regimes.

  5.  As a first step, the ESRC has developed bilateral agreements with 11 overseas partner agencies[23] covering responsive-mode collaborations between UK researchers and partners in other countries. Early experience in implementing these agreements has revealed several challenges to overcome before barriers can be fully removed.

  6.  Firstly, common understandings must be negotiated on issues such as: What constitutes "excellent" social research? What counts as social science, especially when it is pursued in interaction with other sciences (as now happens with many important cross-Council initiatives in the UK)? What counts as acceptable peer review processes and standards? At present each national agency has its own assumptions about such matters, which require open discussion before alignment around a common view is possible.

  7.  Secondly, since national research funding comes from national taxpayers, there are often legal—or simply attitudinal—restrictions on applying funds to activities beyond the national territory. In the UK, the research funding system seeks to balance wider national interests and the sectoral interests of research communities, so the benefits to the UK of international engagement, including where appropriate spending national research funds overseas, can quite easily be argued. This is not always the case in other countries.

  8.  Thirdly, the systems for processing research applications and awards differ from agency to agency. Aligning systems to allow for common cases for support, common peer review processes and common decision processes is normally not a trivial matter, even when the agencies concerned share goodwill and a determination to succeed.

  9.  In December 2006 the ESRC organised a workshop to explore with its bilateral partners the prospects for making national borders invisible to researchers, in ways which could benefit researchers (enhanced user-friendliness), funding agencies (improved administration of applications), and national science systems (enhanced quality of applications and awards). As a result, several partner agencies (including those in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) are now seeking endorsement of their governing Boards for actions to remove barriers to cross-border research.

  10.  Agreements with agencies who operate responsive-mode funding schemes are, in a sense, the easy challenge. Many agencies fund research through other means, such as permanent institutes or directed programmes, with little or no scope for competitive bottom-up funding requests. Finding ways to work productively with such agencies requires sustained effort on both sides. The ESRC is working with agencies in several parts of the world who are eager to collaborate with ESRC, but whose ways of working present somewhat different challenges. In general, the favoured initial step is a small visits scheme, to enable researchers in the UK and the partner country to come together to explore research agendas.

ESRC'S INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY—STRENGTHENING THE UK'S LEADERSHIP ROLE

  11.  The ESRC is engaging actively with agencies in Europe, North America, Asia and other world regions to develop more effective ways of working across borders.

  12.  Within Europe, the ESRC has worked with the European Science Foundation to improve the operation of the European Collaborative Research projects (ECRP) scheme (which requires at least three countries to collaborate on a research project); and to enable UK researchers to participate in Eurocores programmes . An ESRC officer, having been elected Chair of the 35-country COST committee which covers social science, played a leading role in implementing the first COST open call in 2006, and in a working group set up to improve guidance and procedures for future open calls. The ESRC helped to develop, and now plays a leading role in, the 12-nation NORFACE ERA-net (New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Collaboration in Europe). NORFACE is developing possible themes for a major trans-national research programme to start in 2008. We are also partners in a Dutch-led ERA-net on social aspects of Genomics. We have sought to engage with the Scientific Council of the European Research Council, to explore ways to avoid duplication and ensure that this new agency can add maximum value to European research funding. We also participate in the informal forum bringing together heads of social science funding agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, France, UK, Canada and the US to discuss common concerns and strategic developments.

  13.  In the wider world, three significant current initiatives are: the ESRC-DfID co-funded programme on Poverty Alleviation, which funds high-quality projects led by researchers anywhere in the world; "Fostering Collaboration in the Social Sciences", co-funded by ESRC and the US National Science Foundation; and the ESRC's Data Strategies.

  14.  The £13 million ESRC-DfID programme launched in 2005 is funding high-quality basic research to underpin efforts to alleviate poverty: a multi-dimensional problem requiring inputs from across the full range of social sciences and beyond. It provides the basis for a new strategic framework for development research based on raising human and technical capacity with developing countries, and joining up development and research agendas linked to wider issues such as climate change, security, migration and trade liberalisation. The programme is innovative in being open to researchers based outside as well as in the UK. It provides maximum flexibility for researchers to define issues and methodologies for delivering new insights for academic and non-academic stakeholders. Underpinning the scheme, and all projects funded through it, is mutual respect and understanding for different cultural, ethnic, social and economic beliefs and practices in the belief that solutions to poverty must be rooted in, and acceptable to, the institutions, communities and societies where they will operate. The successful launch of this programme has led to a further co-funded programme with the US William & Flora Hewlett Foundation to enhance the quality and impact of social science research addressing the key international development issue of how population dynamics and reproductive health outcomes impact economic growth and poverty reduction.

  15.  The "Fostering Collaboration" initiative brings together around 40 national and multi-national agencies from all continents to explore ways to enhance co-working in social and economic research. It has been co-funded by ESRC and the NSF, and managed by the Social Science Research Council in New York. Six strands of activity have been identified as priorities.[24] The ESRC is leading the International Data Forum strand, which will be launched at a workshop in Beijing in June 2007. This will be a tangible sign of global UK leadership.

  16.  The quality, comparability and accessibility of social and economic data from various sources within and beyond the UK is a key challenge for researchers. The ESRC's Research Resources Board has developed National and International Data Strategies, as a framework for key stakeholders to discuss the usability of data for research, and the practical, ethical and attitudinal hurdles that must be overcome. Advances in computing make it possible for social science researchers to investigate datasets on a larger scale than has previously been possible, and the ESRC is making substantial investments in e-social science resources and methodologies. The ESRC, through its joint programme with DfID and its participation in the Fostering Collaboration initiative, is seeking ways to enable social researchers in poorer countries to undertake data collection and analysis of a kind needed to make international development policies more context-aware.

  17.  ESRC strongly supports the European Social Survey (ESS), and has committed funds to cover UK data collection up to 2008. Professor Roger Jowell, the co-founder of the ESS, won the 2006 Descartes Prize, the most prestigious European award for science. We closely monitored the progress of the ESFRI exercise which has proposed priorities for European investment in research infrastructures, and are pleased that core funding for the ESS is one such priority, along with the proposed Survey on Health, Ageing and retirement (SHARE), and the Collaboration of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA).

   18.  In 2006 five new Centres were commissioned to boost the UK's capacity to conduct social, economic and cultural research requiring skills in the languages of East Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.[25] These are co-funded by ESRC, AHRC and HEFCE. Over the next five years they will collectively produce a large number of Masters and Doctoral degree holders, and will provide a focus for value-added research activities in these regions.

  19.  The International Advisory Committee has launched a programme of international benchmarking reviews to assess the comparative performance of academic disciplines in the UK. The first review provided a very positive assessment of UK Social Anthropology. The review of Political Science and International Studies will be completed shortly, and the Committee has recently started a review of Economics in partnership with the Royal Economic Society and the Conference of Heads of University Departments in Economics. The learning from the international work of exceptional quality addressed in these reviews will enable UK social scientists to consolidate their world-leading position.

ESRC, THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME, AND STIMULATING UK PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES

  20.  The ESRC offers support to UK researchers aiming to lead a major European research proposal. Modest seed-money is awarded through competition to facilitate planning workshops and proposal preparation. Because the budget for this is limited, and to keep administration simple, only current ESRC award holders are eligible for the seed-money competition. In FP6 we made some seed funds available to existing award holders. One successful project, led by researchers at an ESRC-funded Centre, then requested substantial additional funding from ESRC to cover project management overheads. To safeguard its large investment in the Centre, ESRC acceded to this request, although conscious that this raised questions of equity vis-a"-vis other UK institutions faced with meeting the overhead costs of hosting a major FP project. For FP7, after an invitation to all major award-holders we have made 13 seed-money awards.

  21.  The ESRC believes strongly that research projects with international collaborators should be selected on a basis which is no less (but also no more) competitive than that which applies to single-country projects. We therefore do not favour ring-fenced funding, but seek to enable UK researchers to collaborate in overseas-managed research programmes by submitting UK partner projects to our responsive-mode Research Grants Scheme. Current examples include ESF Eurocores programmes, and a Finnish/Swedish programme on Work and Wellbeing. Any project funded in this way is by definition of very high quality. Through relationships built up in the NORFACE Eranet, we are exploring opportunities to link up in other productive ways with overseas-managed research programmes, for example by collaborating on methodological, data-sharing and capacity-building activities. Agreement on decision processes (eg to avoid double jeopardy) is an important aspect of such discussions.

  22.  The ESRC believes that a wide spectrum of international research funding opportunities must continue to be available to European researchers. These include:

(i)  schemes positioned at various points on the directive—responsive scale. More directive schemes, where broad topics are specified in advance by the funders, are exemplified by the Capacities strand of Framework Programmes. More responsive schemes, where researchers are invited to submit proposals on their own topics, are exemplified by the new European Research Council and the ESRC research grants scheme;

(ii)  schemes positioned at various points on the applied—basic science scale. The main aim of Framework Programmes is research to inform policy or boost European competitiveness. National responsive-mode grant schemes, and the European Research Council, aim mainly to support "blue skies" research.

(iii)  schemes which fund individual researchers, and those which fund coordinated groups of researchers. The European Research Council aims to fund only individual researchers. The Eurocores programmes run by the ESF invite coordinated research projects from multi-national teams. The major instruments offered by the Framework Programmes require (or are perceived to require) very large international teams that present real management challenges.

(iv)  Schemes which fund research, and schemes supporting networking among researchers. In Europe's fragmented research funding landscape, networking opportunities such as COST and ESF Networking Programmes are essential.

ESRC AND INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

  23.  "International mobility" covers a range of activities, from education and/or postgraduate training in another country, or permanent relocation to another country for career purposes, to short-term collaborations with researchers from other countries on scholarly visits or specific research projects. The ESRC seeks to promote international mobility of researchers in several ways: by facilitating UK/overseas collaborations on ESRC-funded research awards; by encouraging UK postgraduate students to gain experience outside the UK; and by offering support for visits aimed at developing ideas for collaborative research projects.

  24.  Under current cross-Council eligibility rules, all applicants and co-applicants on a research proposal must be located at a UK institution. Since the UK is an attractive destination for many overseas academics, many such applicants originate from outside the UK. Once UK researchers move overseas, however, they are normally no longer eligible to apply for UK research funding. The ESRC is in discussion with its RCUK partners to relax the requirement for co-applicants to be located in the UK, firstly because there are no legal implications, and secondly because it hampers the ability of UK-based researchers to collaborate with colleagues based overseas (including those originating from the UK) other than on a paid-consultancy basis. The ESRC-DfID programme already enables researchers (including lead researchers) based anywhere in the world to apply for funding, and this is providing valuable practical experience in managing such mobility-friendly schemes.

  25.  The ESRC's Training and Development Board offers all its postgraduate studentship awardees a three-month paid extension to undertake an overseas visit relevant to the studentship. Since its introduction over 150 awardees made use of this facility. In March 2007 the Board began to develop a strategy to internationalise its process for "recognising" excellent post-graduate training locations. This will facilitate the development of postgraduate training courses involving collaboration between UK and overseas institutions.

  26.  For many years the ESRC has co-funded with the British Academy and several Chinese Academies a small-scale programme of visits between the UK and China. We envisage that the opening of the RCUK Office in China in 2007 will provide a basis for expanding ESRC activities with China.

  27.  Since 2004 we have funded a Transatlantic Visiting Fellows programme, enabling Directors of ESRC major investments (centres, programmes etc) to nominate either an inward or an outward visitor, with the aim of developing ideas for new international collaborative research projects. About 15 awards have been made each year. In 2007 the programme is being extended to cover all the Americas.

  28.  In 2006 the ESRC in partnership with the British Academy launched two new visits programmes, one focusing on South Asia, the other on the Middle East. Twelve inward visitors to the UK from the Middle East, and seven from South Asia, were funded in the first round of the competition. Again, there is a strong expectation that the visits will lead to substantive collaborative research proposals.

  29.  If visits schemes are to lead to solid research activity, it is essential that ways be found for agencies in different countries to work together so that co-resourcing models can be devised even where funding systems operate in very different ways (eg agency in country A has a responsive grants scheme, while the agency in country B works through institutes with fixed budgets and programmes).

ESRC

April 2007

Annex F

Evidence from the Medical Research Council (MRC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  MRC's international strategy addresses two main themes:

—  Global health research where the outcomes will benefit health in the UK and developing countries; and

—  International research that enhances the competitiveness of the UK knowledge and health base.

Global health research

  2.  MRC's strategy for global health research is primarily addressed through long term investments in our overseas research units. MRC has managed a unit in The Gambia for nearly 60 years and currently employs around 750 local and international staff at the main campus in Fajara and in four field stations across the country. The Gambia Unit is the UK's single largest investment in medical research in a developing country. The Unit's research focuses on infectious diseases of immediate concern to The Gambia and the continent of Africa, with the aim of reducing the burden of illness and death in the country and the developing world as a whole.

  3.  The MRC/UVRI Research Unit on AIDS in Uganda is based at the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI). It was established following a request in 1988 from the Ugandan Government to the British Government for assistance regarding research on and the control of HIV/AIDS. The Unit is situated on the shores of Lake Victoria in Entebbe, and has three field stations in Masaka and Jinja District. It is multidisciplinary, reflecting the wide-ranging nature of the problems caused by HIV and today employs over 200 staff. Together the investment in the two overseas units is around £10 million per annum.

  4.  MRC provides grant support to UK based researchers working on global health issues, including research programmes wholly based in developing countries. MRC also supports the strengthening of research capacity in developing countries for example through support for the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnerships (EDCTP), through investment in an interventions trial facility in Mwanza, Tanzania and through MRC's concordat with the Department for International Development (DfID).

  5.  MRC looks for opportunities to fund large collaborative projects in developing countries through partnership with national and international organisations. We jointly fund clinical trials in Africa with funding from agencies such as the Rockefeller Foundation, NIH and DfID, and from drug companies, including GSK and Boehringer Mannheim,.

International research strategy

  6.  MRC's strategy for international research more generally is:

—  To influence and shape the international research agenda.

—  To encourage international collaboration in biomedical research.

—  To encourage the movement of researchers and promote the UK as the partner of choice.

  7.  By having an input into what global research gets done, the MRC tries to add value to what can be achieved in the UK alone. The MRC is well-placed for worldwide scientific leadership—its researchers publish their work in widely-read and highly-respected international journals. This is reflected in the MRC's reputation as a funder of high-quality, high-impact science.

  8.  We carry out our role as a leader in worldwide science by holding international meetings, exchanges, infrastructure development and research collaborations. The MRC specifically encourages informal as well as formal collaborations.

  9.  The MRC aims to influence international research strategies, policies, ethical and governance frameworks, and legislation in ways that will enhance UK research and encourage collaborations between scientists in the UK and overseas. This involves interactions with many bodies, especially agencies of the UK Government; in particular the Office of Science and Innovation (OSI), DfID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the NHS and regional health departments, but also governments in other countries, usually through the UK Government.

  10.  MRC's international strategy is captured within the publication "MRC Strategic plan 2004-07" http://www.mrc.ac.uk/AboutUs/CorporatePublications/StrategicPlan/index.htm

MRC MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  11.  International collaboration in medical research is facilitated by MRC Grant Terms and Conditions, which permit co-applicants and collaborators on Research Grants to be based overseas. Researchers in developing countries are particularly encouraged to be co-applicants and are eligible to receive a contribution towards both their direct and indirect costs. Some MRC grant-funded research is carried out fully overseas, for example in India (on diet and diabetes) and Tanzania (HIV intervention studies) although the awards are made through UK based HEIs. MRC Grants can include significant allocations for travel, and for this reason we do not offer specific, additional international travel awards.

  12.  To evaluate the international collaborations arising from MRC research grants we have been developing better mechanisms to capture this information from our electronic grant submissions. Of around 950 currently active research grants to University-based researchers, about one third report international co-applicants or collaborators. The most common partner country is the USA (33%) followed by Germany (10%) France (7%) Netherlands and Canada (5% each). 8% of international partners are from developing countries.

  13.  The MRC has 27 units and three institutes in the UK, in addition to the two units in Africa. This intramural programme covers research across the biomedical research spectrum, from fundamental science at the molecular level to large-scale epidemiological studies. All of the units and institutes actively pursue international collaboration. For example the Human Genetics Unit has a joint research programme on complex human genetics with Croatia. As well as engaging with international bodies such as WHO, OECD, the Global Fund and the Gates Foundation, and with national Governments, the two overseas units host a number of international researchers from around the world. The former MRC Sickle Cell Unit is now a research centre within the Tropical Medicine Research Institute of the University of the West Indies and continues to receive MRC funding.

  14.  Data from across all MRC units and institutes show that around one third of papers published in 2005 were co-authored with researchers from overseas. One fifth of these involved co-authors from more than one country. The USA was the most frequent country of co-authorship (18%) followed by France (9%), Germany (9%), Netherlands (7%), Italy (5%) and Japan (5%). 14% of papers included authors from developing countries.

  15.  To facilitate relations with other countries MRC regularly receives delegations from overseas funding organisations and policymakers. In 2006 we received 20 international delegations in London. These may have been organised by the FCO, British Council or directly by the visiting delegation.

  16.  MRC has signed Memoranda of Understanding to facilitate international collaboration and specific research projects with organisations and countries including the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Science, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, A*STAR, Singapore and Max-Planck Gesellschaft, Germany.

  17.  MRC has supported opportunities to ensure UK researchers have appropriate access to large facilities. In biomedical research this has mostly been facilities associated with high-resolution structure determination for proteins and nucleic acids. MRC led the UK bid to acquire Beamline 14 at the ESRF Synchrotron in Grenoble to support UK crystallography efforts. In 2005 BM-14 had 132 users. UK researchers have benefited from access to European facilities for structural biology. MRC will be the lead Research Council on five out of the six biomedical research facilities proposed under the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).

(a)  Integrated Structural Biology Infrastructure.

(b)  Infrastructure for Phenomefrontier and Archivefrontier (INFRAFRONTIER).

(c)  European Bio-Banking and Biomolecular Resources.

(d)  European Advanced Translational Research Infrastructure for Medicine (EATRIS).

(e)  Infrastructure for Clinical Trials and Biotherapy.

  BBSRC will lead on the upgrade of European Bio-Informatics Infrastructure (ELIXIR).

  18.  MRC has led on the project to establish an RCUK research office in Beijing. The office will be located on the Tsinghua Science Park close to Tsinghua and Beijing Universities and the offices of leading Chinese science academies and foundations. The office will develop information resources about high-quality research in China and provide a mechanism, in partnership with FCO SIN and the British Council, for showcasing the work of the Research Councils to the Chinese. The office will develop small grant schemes to help promote collaborations between China and UK through workshops and exchange visits. MRC is currently engaged in a collaborative project with China to describe the frameworks of ethics as applied to medical research.

  19.  To date the MRC has committed over £7.5 million to support research that will strengthen the international medical response to the challenges of pandemic influenza. Awards made through the call include Chinese partnerships with University of Hong Kong, China CDC, Beijing You-An Hospital, and Nanfang Medical University, Harbin Veterinary Research Institute, and Institute for Viral Disease Control & Prevent. These collaborations have been supported through four awards totaling £735k.

  20.  The European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge is an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. It hosts the world's largest collection of expertise on genomics and bioinformatics. EBI facilitates international exchange of information on genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics, and provides tools for analysis and evaluation. EBI is particularly important in providing access to data internationally so that it can be used more easily (and rapidly) thus pushing back the frontiers and accelerating translation. 45% of the funding comes from EMBL (for which the MRC pays the UK's subscription), 25% of funding comes from the EU. MRC and BBSRC provide significant additional funding. EPSRC and BBSRC support the development of grid-based projects. This is an extremely valuable resource for the biomedical research community and is an example of effective international cooperation.

  21.  MRC launched the International Stem Cell Forum (ISCF) in 2003 along with eight other international funding agencies with similar scientific principles. These agencies share concerns about the need to create standardised global criteria for creating, storing and maintaining stem cell lines. Today, the ISCF has a total of 21 members from 19 countries. There are a number of collaborative initiatives currently being undertaken by the Forum, on stem cell characterisation, stem cell banking, ethics and IPR. The MRC successfully brokered significant co-funding from all the member organisations (a total of nearly £1.5 million) for the work of the International Stem Cell Initiative—a collaborative international project, led by Professor Peter Andrews of Sheffield University, aimed at producing internationally agreed criteria for characterising stem cell lines. In 2004, MRC worked with the BBSRC to set up the UK Stem Cell Bank at NIBSC—an important facility for stem cell scientists in the UK and around the world.

  22.  MRC works with other European research organisations and the EU to support the European Mouse Mutant Archive and MRC has an agreement to collaborate on post-genome research with the Riken Genomic Sciences Centre in Japan.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

  23.  MRC plays an active role in EU framework programmes. For both FP6 and FP7, MRC represents the UK on the Programme Management Committee for health and provides the National Contact Point for academics in the health theme. Of the contracts signed with the EU by June 2006 the UK received 15.7% of the EC budget for life sciences (thematic priority 1) under FP6 and also receives significant funding under Marie Curie actions. MRC Units and Institutes are encouraged to participate in Framework programmes and resources are made available from Head Office to assist in the preparation and coordination of proposals. Over the last few years, income received by MRC establishments under framework programmes has averaged £3.25 million per annum. Professor Colin Blakemore is participating in a personal capacity on the advisory group for the Health theme in FP7.

  24.  MRC has had some engagement with ERA-NET activities and is a partner in the current EUROCAN+plus study to carry out a feasibility study for coordination of national cancer research activities. We are also observers on the NEURON Era-NET and are one of the funders of the New Dynamic of Ageing Programme, who are partners in the Era-AGE network. ERA-NETs are often resource intensive and only a small proportion of the funding feeds into new research knowledge. There are advantages to this scheme where there is a strong need to establish best practice in relation to key resources across Europe (eg establishing brain banks via NEURON). ERA-NETs are particularly welcomed by those member states whose funding ministries operate a top-down allocation approach to funding themes. There is a risk that ERA-NETs established at the time of a perceived research need do not become sufficiently established quickly enough to influence funding of that need. It is clearly in the area of long-term coordination of policies, harmonisation of practices and collaboration on infrastructures that ERA-NETs offer the greatest strengths.

  25.  MRC welcomes the creation of a European Research Council (ERC) through FP7 as the first step to providing a European agency similar to the US National Science Foundation. Before it has funded a single grant, ERC is already perceived as the most influential body for research at a European level, and that position is likely to strengthen once it is fully operational. We are concerned to ensure that the organization has adequate resources to manage and administer the funding schemes and that there is an appropriate governance arrangements to establish a sustainable funding council. There is discussion amongst the European Heads of Research Councils (EuroHORCS) about the provision of a strategic or policy-driven activity for ERC and the relation with the European Science Foundation. It is important that UK Research Council's international activities and partnerships are not compromised by top-slicing of the UK Science budget to fund a future expansion of ERC as demand and influence grows.

  26.  MRC acknowledges the need to maintain European competitiveness and endorses the Commission's support for innovation. However, MRC shares the concerns of UK Government about the proposed use of EU budget reserves to fund a proposed EIT and the lack of clarity around the governance arrangements. MRC is also concerned that the various proposals for Knowledge Innovation Communities do not appear to address the opportunities for knowledge and innovation in the biomedical sciences.

  27.  MRC represents the UK on, and currently chairs, the general assembly of the first European Programme established in FP6 under the terms of Article 169—the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP). The aims of this initiative are to accelerate the development of effective affordable and sustainable interventions against infectious diseases related to poverty, specifically HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria by improving co-ordination and co-operation between European public sector and private sector research organisations and research institutions in Africa. 14 member States plus Norway and Switzerland support this activity. This is an area that requires coordinated activity to provide clinical trials in a sustainable research environment in Africa. The complexity of the task of coordinating European funding agencies research and capacity building programmes in Africa as the first exemplar of an activity funded under Article 169 inevitable led to the programme developing competence more slowly than would have been desirable. However, all parties to EDCTP believe that the programme is on track and that it is necessary to secure funding for continuation of the programme through FP7 to build on the investments and achievements to date. The EU is currently reviewing EDCTP and lessons learnt from this first programme will benefit the future development of other article 169 proposals.

  28.  In the early stages of FP6 the UK Government's restrictions under the EU departmental expenditure limit rules for FP6 created additional bureaucracy for the MRC in monitoring applications from researchers within our Units. MRC was pleased that a decision was made to withdraw this at the end of FP6 and not to set a limit for FP7.

  29.  Marie Curie actions remain popular with researchers and are an important aspect of the integrated EU policy on personal career development, mobility and cooperation. The UK received 24% of the awards available under Marie Curie by June 2006.

  30.  MRC is one of the few Research Councils that provide a national contact point facility for Framework programmes. This activity is supported by training organized by the EC and benefits from the overall cross-cutting role that OSI plays for the UK. We have found the activities of OSI International on the coordination and networking activities related to the UK's response to FP7 to be well organized and of value.

  31.  MRC represents the UK on the member countries contact group for the Joint Technology Initiative in Innovative Medicines. The UK has been very supportive of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) and there has been close working between DTI, OSI international, MRC DH, MHRA and UK Pharma in the development of a UK position.

MRC SUPPORT FOR FACILITATION OF UK PARTICIPATION IN PREVIOUS AND CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES

  32.  MRC chairs the meeting of Heads of International (biomedical) Research Organisations (HIROs) which includes NIH, NSF, CIHR, and has representatives from organisations in 13 countries as well as the European Commission and EMBL. This provides a useful informal forum and discusses a wide range of issues—from international mobility and open access publishing through diseases of poverty and emerging infections.

  33.  MRC is represented on a wide range of international bodies. Through representation on Governing councils or boards of trustees MRC can ensure good governance of these agencies and help set strategic objectives. MRC provides UK subscriptions to the following organisations.

European Molecular Biology Laboratory

  34.  The European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) carries out fundamental research and promotes co-operation between European countries in the field of molecular biology. It also provides essential services to scientists in EU member states, provides high-level training for staff, students and visitors, and develops new instruments for biological research. The EMBL has a main laboratory in Heidelberg and four outstations at:

—  Grenoble, France—the European synchrotron.

—  Hamburg, Germany—facilities to study protein structures.

—  Hinxton, UK—the European Bioinformatics Institute.

—  Monterotondo, Italy—mouse genetics resources.

  These EMBL facilities offer important research opportunities for UK scientists and EMBL is often regarded as a model for a coordinated European research strategy. MRC's contribution to EMBL in 2007 is £8.3 million and at 18% of total is the second largest contribution after Germany.

The European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC) and European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO)

  35.  The European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC) is a partnership of European member states established in 1969. It funds the European Molecular Biology Organisation's general programme, which includes visiting postdoctoral fellowships, short-term fellowships, workshops and short courses. Some EMBC member states are also involved in EMBO special projects, such as the young investigator award scheme. MRC currently contributes £123k to EMBO and £1.6 million to EMBC.

  36.  Over the last five years the UK produced 22% of the EMBO Young Investigators (23 of 102 recipients) and is the most successful of the 25 eligible countries in receiving these awards. UK researchers are less inclined to apply for long-term fellowships and in 2005 only 6 of 198 fellows came from the UK. However, the UK remains the most popular destination for fellows with 64 of the 198 moving to the UK, compared with 47 who took their fellowship to the USA, 19 to France and 16 to Germany. Similarly there were 12 recipients of short-term fellowship in the UK (out of 201) with 46 fellows choosing to move to the UK.

Human Frontiers Science Program (HFSP)

  37.  The Human Frontiers Science Program (HFSP) supports basic research, into the complex mechanisms of living organisms, in Europe and many other countries throughout the world. The scientific areas range from molecular and cellular approaches to biological functions, to systems and cognitive neuroscience, with a focus on multidisciplinary research. To encourage new approaches to understanding complex biological systems, the HFSP brings biologists together with scientists from physics, mathematics, chemistry, computer science, bioinformatics, nanoscience and engineering. Many EU member states are involved together with Japan, Australia, Canada and the USA. More recently South Korea and New Zealand joined the Program and in 2006 MRC successfully presented the case to the Board of Trustees for India to become a member.

  38.  The UK contributes about 3.5% of the HFSP budget. In 2006 the UK received nine. 5% of the Research grants awarded and 6% of the long-term fellowships, and thus remains a net beneficiary of the programme.

European Science Foundation (ESF)

  39.  The European Science Foundation (ESF) is an association of 75 member organisations supporting scientific research across all disciplines in 30 European countries, including research councils, academies and other scientific institutions. Its principal function is to co-ordinate co-operative research in Europe. MRC's contribution to ESF is currently £160k per annum.

  40.  The MRC represents the UK on the ESF's Standing Committee for European Medical Research Councils, and provides information on ESF activities within the UK and its funding opportunities for biomedical researchers. We also nominate UK scientific experts to take part in the development of ESF research funding programmes, including the EUROCORES schemes for national basic research funding bodies, Forward Look calls for proposals, and exploratory workshops. MRC currently supports 8 projects under three separate EuroCORE activities and has agreed to support up to 3 projects in a new EuroCORE on stress and mental health.

  41.  Professor Colin Blakemore represents RCUK executive group on the Governing Council of ESF and on EuroHORCS (European Heads of Research Councils).

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

  42.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) coordinates and conducts research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and develops scientific strategies for cancer control. The IARC is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research, and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships. MRC contribution is £680k per annum. Since 1966 there have been 547 fellowships awarded to researchers from 66 countries. The UK has received 25 IARC fellowships.

Tri-National Funders

  43.  MRC has developed a programme of collaboration with the US Veterans Administration and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to fund international clinical trials that address health care questions of common concern. The tri-national partnership is currently supporting the OPTIMA trial to determine the optimum management strategy for patients who have failed antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS.

Autism Genome Project

  44.  The Autism Genome project combines clinical and scientific expertise from 13 sites in North America and Europe to identify genetic risk factors for autism. The total budget for this initiative is £7.44 million of which MRC contributes £711k. MRC hosted the international review process that led to the funding of the project and has been charged with exploring options within Europe for DNA banking for the project.

EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN MRC AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  45.  MRC has initiated visits to South-East Asia to develop the potential for collaborative research into avian flu and other emerging (and re-emerging) infections. This international endeavour builds on the MRC's pioneering work with Chinese scientists in 2003 to investigate the immune system's response to the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) virus. The visit was greatly facilitated by interaction with FCO-SIN who played a major role in establishing appropriate contacts and ensuring that that the visit ran smoothly. This recently resulted in the signing of an MOU with Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission to cooperate on research in the area of emerging infections.

  46.  In order maximally to leverage MRC/MRCT's limited resources in early-stage drug discovery, we are actively seeking collaborations both within the UK and internationally. As a direct consequence of a government-sponsored mission to China at the end of 2005, a collaboration agreement was signed with the Chinese National Drug Screening Centre in March 2006. NDSC will screen a potential malaria drug target (PfSub-1) discovered at the National Institute for Medical Research against their 100,000 compound collection; this collection includes a large number of extracts from traditional Chinese herbs.

  47.  MRC established a Funders' Forum with DfID, The Wellcome Trust and ESRC to address issues of health research in developing countries. The Forum enables UK funders to work together and position themselves in relation to new international initiatives.

  48.  MRC has a concordat with DfID to facilitate development research in Africa. In addition to research activities supported under this concordat, MRC and DfID have jointly collaborated in funding a number of important studies in Africa. This includes studies on the best methods for distributing antiretroviral drugs to adults and children with AIDS in Africa (DART and ARROW trials). DfID and MRC jointly fund the Microbicides Development programme to accelerate the evaluation and development of vaginal microbicides for the prevention of HIV transmission. The central goal of the partnership is to complete a phase III effectiveness trial of candidate microbicides in multiple sites in sub-Saharan Africa.

  49.  MRC works closely with the Department of Health and has a concordat that ensures our research activities are complementary and cover the UK's health needs without duplication. Following the Cooksey report we are further developing our joint position within the single health research fund. On international issues the concordat with DH further clarifies that MRC will take the lead on behalf of the Department and DTI on EU framework programmes for health and that we will work together to promote mutual international research interests including global health.

IMPACT OF THE MRC'S POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF SCIENTISTS

  50.  MRC fellowship schemes not only encourage international research but provide opportunities for UK fellows to work overseas. MRC intermediate and senior fellowships are open to applicants of any nationality. MRC studentships and junior fellowships are subject to residential eligibility requirements and a relevant connection to the UK/EAA is required. MRC fellowship schemes allow both clinical and non-clinical fellows to work for 1-2 years overseas (depending on the particular fellowship scheme). Fellowships can be held full time in one of MRC's overseas Units. Currently about 12% of awardees take up the opportunity to work overseas. We also have an agreement with the Wellcome Trust over Fellows wishing to work in their overseas Units and vice-versa. These are considered on a case-by-case basis.

  51.  MRC runs a "Strategic appointments" scheme to encourage high-quality scientists to return or come to the UK from overseas. The scheme, which employs fast-track peer review, aims to assist Universities in attracting scientists to senior university positions by providing significant financial support without them having to submit a full grant application.

  52.  MRC recently signed an MOU with A*STAR Singapore to enable Singapore PhD students to work in MRC Units in the UK. A*STAR is expecting to send around half of its overseas PhD students to the UK—a significant shift from the present situation, in which the vast majority study in the United States.

  53.  MRC was a founding partner of the Anglo-French alliance to facilitate interactions between tropical medicine research in Anglophone and Francophone countries in Africa. This alliance has successfully managed two African based training workshops in bioinformatics and clinical trials and is negotiating a new visiting scientist scheme to further facilitate interactions between Anglophone and Francophone African scientists.

  54.  The agencies to which MRC pays subscriptions such as HFSP, EMBO and IARC all support fellowships that facilitate international movement.

  55.  The Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate scheme bring outstanding students from India, China, Hong Kong, South Africa, Brazil, Russia and the developing world to come and study for PhDs in top-rated UK research facilities. This scheme is seen as a success, and HEIs like it, but the main difficulty is finding industrial partners (in particular for the biomedical field) to match funding available from the Research Councils. There is always more Research Council funding available than can be matched by industrial funding.

MRC

April 2007

Annex G

Evidence from the Natural Environemnt Research Council (NERC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  NERC trains the next generation of independent environmental scientists. Its three strategic research priority areas are: Earth's life-support systems, climate change, and sustainable economies. Details of NERC's Research and Collaborative Centres (RCCs) can be found at www.nerc.ac.uk.

  2.  NERC's comments are based on input from the Centre for Population Biology (CPB), the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS), the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) and Swindon Office staff.[26]

  3.  NERC's International Strategy statement, which recognises the benefits of conducting high-quality research jointly with international partners, is available at: www.nerc.ac.uk/research/international/strategy.asp. It recognises that NERC science addresses the global needs and challenges of sustainable development by providing fundamental understanding of our planet and its resources. NERC's community collaborates internationally to generate knowledge, stimulate technological development and innovation, and provide training. These activities contribute to enhanced economic growth and poverty alleviation.

  4.  Environmental science is, by its nature, often undertaken in an international context and provides many opportunities to work on bilateral and multinational projects and programmes. NERC's investments support science that:

—  goes beyond the UK in its scope and application (eg Global Change, Earth Observation);

—  involves collaboration with non-UK scientists;

—  is carried out in overseas countries or territories, or in international waters.

  5.  Approximately 38% of ISI publications arising from NERC funding in 2005 had one or more overseas co-authors. This gives an indication of NERC's investment in international activities.

  6.  NERC integrates international considerations into research management. Directed, responsive and core-strategic schemes all allow funds for international collaboration and overseas working. We develop our research programmes in an international context and applicants for responsive funding are encouraged to collaborate with scientists overseas when formulating proposals. Our pre-award assessment criteria emphasise science that is world class; most Programme Committees have international membership; and a large proportion of our reviewers at the full review stage are from overseas. The governing councils of our various Centres/Surveys also have international membership.

  7.  NERC also:

—  engages with the EU Framework (Research and Technological Development, RTD) Programmes (FPs) and other EU programmes and agencies;

—  sponsors the UK Research Office (UKRO) in Brussels;

—  works with the European Science Foundation (ESF) through subscription, participation in appropriate ESF science activities, and by supporting representation on the Life and Environmental Sciences Committee, the Earth Observation Panel and the Marine and Polar Boards; works collectively with other Councils to influence and maximise benefit from ESF activities;

—  participates in the European Space Agency's (ESA) Earth Observation Envelope Programme (EOEP) and other ESA environmental science programmes, and in the joint EC/ESA Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative.

—  contributes to large international programmes and fora such as the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) and the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy; and funds and hosts a number of International Project Offices (IPOs);

—  develops bilateral relationships, eg with the USA, Japan, India and China;

—  responds to strategic collaboration opportunities, eg the collaboration with Japanese scientists on the Earth Simulator;

—  invests in large infrastructure (eg satellite technology, research ships) and benefits from others' (eg EU and ESA) investments through time barter or other exchanges (eg Ocean Facilities Exchange Group—OFEG);

—  works with other Research Councils, OSI, FCO, DFID, British Council, Defra and other UK partners to maximise UK potential for international science collaboration and contribute to wider UK goals;

—  Funds subscriptions to multilateral science partnerships such as InterRidge, ANDRILL and InterMargins.

  8.  More detail and examples of NERC's international activities are given in later sections and in the appendices, and in NERC's recent memoranda to the Committee in response to the inquiries into "UK Space Policy" and "Investigating the Oceans".

  9.  Many NERC RCC activities have an international dimension. For example some core strategic programmes of NERC's British Antarctic Survey (BAS), NOCS, and Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) were designed as national contributions to IGBP or WCRP programmes. The Centres also participate in EU FP and NERC directed programmes or consortia with international collaborators, and some RCCs host IPOs.

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING RC AND OSI MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  10.  By supporting excellent science, NERC ensures that its scientific community is welcomed in international collaborations.

  11.  By developing our research programmes within an international context we are able to properly address our strategic priorities, identify how UK-supported science can complement, without duplication, science supported by other countries and by international organisations, involve potential international partners (increasing leverage of non-UK funding sources and involving other skills) and provide opportunities for the UK to develop or enhance its leadership. This approach also allows us to support the UK Government's international agenda, eg through the joint NERC-DFID-ESRC Ecosystems Services and Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme.

  12.  Many NERC-funded scientists sit as experts on international scientific committees, which allows them to influence the international scientific research agenda[27] . Many NERC-funded scientists who are world-leading authorities on scientific aspects of climate change contribute to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce the IPCC's comprehensive summary of the state of climate science. More than 50 UK scientists were evaluators for the EU FP6. NERC-funded scientists act as reviewers for proposals to ESA.

  13.  Effective international interaction generally stems from the scientific community developing "researcher-to-researcher" links through workshops, conference participation etc. NERC is successful at encouraging international collaboration by allowing grant-holders to involve overseas project partners and supporting visits by senior researchers. Around 50% of NERC-funded PhD students receive additional funding to carry out collaborative research overseas.

  14.  The long-term nature of funding to NERC RCCs particularly enables international collaboration. EC studies have shown the effectiveness of long-lasting collaborations in delivering multilateral research programmes such as FPs. RCCs are also able to establish collaboration at the institution-to-institution level.

  15.  The knowledge arising from NERC-funded science is transferred internationally through collaboration on international programmes, by inputting to EU and other international policy development, by hosting and participating in international meetings, by developing products accessible through international markets, through the availability of data from its data centres, and through publication in the international literature. In common with other UK Research Councils NERC is establishing a repository for open access to peer-reviewed papers arising from Council-funded work.

  16.  Other strengths are covered in the sections on EU and other international collaboration.

  17.  NERC enjoys extensive international collaboration, but recognises there are inherent challenges.

—  Opportunities may arise which have short planning horizons. For example to collaborate with Japanese scientists using the Earth Simulator NERC had to find money at short notice. NERC is developing improved systems for handling short-notice strategic opportunities.

—  Investigators seeking funds to work with overseas partners have to synchronise applications to NERC with partners' application deadlines. Similarly, collaborative projects often face the "double jeopardy" of two peer review systems. Setting up cross-funding schemes, reciprocated by other countries, would help, but significantly more support might flow in one direction than in the other.

—  NERC provides funding for travel within its research grants. NERC recognises this favours established collaborative relationships over more speculative interaction but there are many other excellent travel grant schemes available to UK researchers.

—  International collaboration often requires a large proportion of "glue money", ie money for administering projects, workshops, conferences, synthesis, subscriptions etc. However, since peer review focuses on the quality of science, "glue money" is likely to be cut first when funding is tight. The priority of such activities can be hard to "tension" against other funding requests if funding is sought outside a standard grants call or programme.

—  Many smaller countries are highly dependent on multilateral programmes (eg EU and ESF programmes) to generate a critical mass of funding. The UK, with its relatively large scientific community and funding pool, is less dependent on funding from other countries, and NERC funding may be less easily diverted to facilitate participation in multilateral programmes; this can frustrate UK partners and partner countries.

  18.  Other issues can also be identified within wider UK approaches to international collaboration. For example, NERC and the other Research Councils work alongside FCO and OSI in developing valuable research partnerships. However often FCO and OSI for good reasons focus on country-specific activities eg through Joint Commissions. This often results in a culture of "priority countries" for collaboration. This does not always fit with NERC's focus on excellent science. Targeted workshops and exchanges may encourage initial contacts and exchanges of information between the UK and "priority country" researchers, but a lack of accessible research funding can thwart continued partnerships.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

ERC

  19.  NERC welcomes the establishment of the ERC which recognises the importance of supporting excellent research in the European Research Area. The ERC aims to highlight hotspots of talent within Europe to the rest of the world. NERC hopes that the UK environmental sciences community will respond to ERC calls and be successful. With this in mind NERC has publicised the first ERC call widely. Problems may occur if: (i) the best UK scientists decide not to apply, being already well positioned to gain funding from NERC, and (ii) if the first call is hugely oversubscribed and only a few UK projects are funded, deterring the UK community from applying in future.

EU Framework Programmes

  20.  EU FPs have generally been an important source of collaboration and income for NERC. Participating in FPs, as in other international programmes, generally provides benefits as listed in NERC's International Strategy statement, with particular benefits being funding leverage; shared access to facilities, data and knowledge, and shared networking, communication and science advocacy.

FP6

  21.  For EU FP6, NERC operated an incentive fund to stimulate leadership from within its RCCs. NERC Centres have enjoyed considerable success, participating in 15% of funded projects in the Global Change and Ecosystems Theme under FP6 and leading 3%. More widely the UK research community participates in 70% of FP projects within the Global Change and Ecosystems Theme.

  22.  European Research Area Networks (ERA-NETs) are a FP6 funding instrument designed to promote cooperation and co-planning between funders of national research programmes, ie for the UK, government departments, agencies and/or Research Councils. Environmental topics account for approximately 20%—the largest sector—of all ERA-NETS funded under FP6. NERC currently participates in six ERA-nets, detailed at Appendix 2.

  23.  NERC is a partner in the European Fleet for Airborne Research network (EUFAR)[28]. EUFAR is an Integrated Infrastructure Initiative in EC FP5/FP6 and through its partnership, NERC helps to coordinate the operations of and access to the European fleet of instrumented aircraft in the field of environmental research.

  24.  However, in the context of infrastructure funding, there seems to have been a shift in emphasis from enabling access to existing large-scale infrastructure (large equipment, ships etc) in FP5 to developing "new, often smaller pieces infrastructure such as databases" in FP6. This has made large-scale facilities more difficult to provide and access.

FP7

  25.  NERC worked closely with environmental scientists in its RCCs and beyond, with OSI and specifically with Defra (the UK policy lead on FP Environment Programme negotiations) to influence the content of FP7's Environment (including Climate Change) Theme. UK comments were passed to the EC in 2006 in response to an invitation at working committee level.

  26.  The priorities and content of FP7's Environment (including Climate Change) Theme correspond well with the science priorities in NERC's planned new strategy, suggesting considerable potential for NERC to leverage funding from FP7.

  27.  NERC helped to engage the UK environmental sciences community in information events to launch FP7. In collaboration with Defra and the EC Environment Directorate General, NERC co-funded a joint FP7 Energy and Environment Themes launch in London in 2006, timed to immediately precede FP7.

  28.  In FP7 there may be support for existing ERA-NETs, eg by extending partnership, or aiding them to mutually open their programmes. In the Environment Theme the Commission anticipates high demand as many environmental sciences ERA-NETs move towards common actions, but it concedes that it may be difficult to accommodate this within the available budget.

NCPs

  29.  UKRO provides an excellent information service to the academic and research centre community and is often the preferred source of specific FP advice. Defra and Beta Technology Ltd provide the NCP for the FP6 Environment Theme. Since UKRO's services are not widely used by the non-academic community, eg SMEs, with whom collaboration is expected, delays in making NCP arrangements can have knock-on effects on the NERC community.

COST

  30.  Networking activities under COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) are funded through EC Framework Programmes and implemented by ESF. There is UK involvement in 22 out of 24 current COST Actions in the Earth System Science and Environmental Management domain (which has a UK Vice Chair), many other COST Actions are also NERC-relevant.

NEST

  31.  POL reports positive experience of a project under the NEST "Adventure" programme, which funds projects of high risk with potentially high reward (see Appendix 3).

THE ROLE & SUCCESS OF RCS IN FACILITATING UK PARTICIPATION IN AND CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES

  32.  NERC and its RCCs have a strong track record of hosting, and participating in, international environmental science initiatives involving world-class scientists.

International Programmes and Project Offices

  33.  NERC provides international scientific leadership, influence and partnership within international environmental science programmes, notably the IGBP, the WCRP and DIVERSITAS. These major programmes operate under the auspices of the International Council for Science (ICSU), the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and other inter-Governmental agencies. NERC involvement in the IOC is detailed in Appendix 3.

  34.  Several major NERC directed programmes contribute to international programmes, eg the UK Surface Ocean-Lower Atmosphere Study (UKSOLAS) contributes to the IGBP SOLAS programme; the Rapid Climate Change Programme (RAPID) contributes to the WCRP CLIVAR programme; and the Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System (QUEST) programme contributes to IGBP, WCRP, IHDP, and DIVERSITAS Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) programmes. Further details of these directed programmes are in Appendix 1.

  35.  NERC supports or co-supports six International Project Offices (IPOs) in the UK, located in NERC RCCs or in universities:

—  Climate Variability & Predictability (CLIVAR at NOCS)

—  Surface Ocean-Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS, at University of East Anglia)

—  Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC, at PML)

—  Global Environmental Change & Food Systems (GECAFS, at University of Oxford)

—  bioSUSTAINABILITY International Project Office (part of DIVERSITAS, University of York)

—  International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-09 (at BAS)

  36.  The coordinating function of IPOs is vital for the efficient conduct of large multilateral collaborative research programmes. They ensure efficient planning, management, networking and advocacy; and facilitate data-sharing and the dissemination and uptake of the programmes' research results. IPOs also add value by conducting synthesis activities and providing first-hand advice to relevant policy makers, eg information from CLIVAR has fed into the IPCC assessment reports. UK-based IPOs increase the UK's visibility and influence internationally, help to leverage research funding and expertise from other countries participating in the programmes; give NERC an international leadership role in the environmental sciences; provide a forum to expose NERC's objectives and activities internationally; raise the profile of the host institutions; and increase UK awareness of research happening elsewhere.

NERC's International Opportunities Fund

  37.  NERC's International Opportunities Fund has invested £1.64 million in ten projects (of up to three years in duration, in the period 2005-09) addressing a variety of international collaborative activities aligned with NERC's RCC and directed programmes. The fund was established to stimulate high-profile, high-impact international activities. It does not directly fund research but supports international collaboration and leadership, encourages and facilitates planning of international activities and supports new international partnerships. NERC will evaluate the outcome and overall success of the first call before proceeding with any subsequent investment.

Other international collaboration

  38.  Since 2003, NERC and the Defra-funded Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change have each invested £850k in a climate modelling partnership with Japan. UK scientists will have access to the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer for the purpose of running state-of-the-art UK climate models. Further details are at Appendix 3.

  39.  A strategic opportunity for UK climate change scientists to work with India has arisen following a bilateral workshop, led by a NERC scientist in 2006 at India's Institute of Tropical Meteorology. Details of the planned UK/India collaboration to address monsoon process, simulation, operational prediction and impact assessment are in Appendix 3.

  40.  NERC represents the UK at IGFA: the International Group of Funding Agencies (for Global Change Research). This forum identifies issues of mutual interest and ways to address these through national and, when appropriate, coordinated international actions.

International collaboration through investment in infrastructure and facilities

  41.  NERC provides high-technology research facilities[29], including: three ocean-going research vessels with associated specialist oceanographic equipment; comprehensive airborne research capability operating around the globe on major international projects; access to a range of facilities in support of Earth Observation including design/collaboration in ESA satellite missions; year-round research bases in Antartica and a seasonal base in the Arctic; a High-Performance Computing facility; a new observatory in the Cape Verde islands (see Appendix 1); a range of world-respected specialist analytical facilities; and national data centres.

  42.  Over the past five years, 50% of NERC's research cruises have involved collaboration with international scientists, from 49 institutions and 17 countries. NERC is also involved in ship-time bartering[30] , which has grown markedly since 2000 to a point where NERC now exchanges approximately 200 barter days per year. NERC has a ship/marine facilities barter agreement with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the NSF (USA).

  43.  NERC is committed to the long-term management of data and funds a range of national data centres, many of internationally excellent repute. NERC's Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) hosts the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level[31], which is a member of the Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Data Analysis Services (FAGS)[32] and was established by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) in 1933. The PSMSL is the global data set for mean sea level; the data are used throughout oceanography, climate change, geology and geodesy; especially as the basis for all estimates of "sea level rise".

Earth Observation research and involvement in ESA programmes

  44.  NERC exerts influence on the content and management of the ESA Earth Observation science programmes in its capacity as UK EO lead in the British National Space Centre (BNSC) partnership.

  45.  NERC provides the UK's subscription (approx. 34 million per annum) to ESA's environmental sciences programmes, EOEP, and Envisat/ERS operations, and a share of the UK's subscription to the general budget (around £7 million per annum). NERC also contributes, with Defra, DTI and the MoD, to phase one of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security Space Component Programme (GMES SCP, £2.2 million over three years). NERC's primary interest with regard to its ESA contribution lies in assuring scientific excellence in the mission selection and thus maximising scientific benefits for the UK's environmental sciences community, whilst recognising that ESA's modus operandi is based on geo-return.

  46.  ESA's EOEP represents NERC's primary means of procuring new satellite missions. EOEP mainly funds the development and operation of innovative Earth Explorer science missions, providing EO data in support of environmental science covering a broad range of scientific subjects[33]. Details of UK involvement in the missions are at Appendix 3. The scientific objectives of EOEP, as identified in the ESA's Strategy for EO[34], are substantially similar to those of NERC. NERC also supports the operations of ERS-2 and Envisat, both carrying a wide range of instruments monitoring various components of the Earth's environment.

  47.  GMES is recognised as the major European contribution to the international Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). GEOSS is being led by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), an international partnership comprising 62 member countries, including the UK, the EC and 43 participating organisations. NERC is a member of the UK delegation to the GEO Plenary process, alongside the Met Office and Defra. Effective engagement by NERC in GEOSS over the next 10 years is likely to deliver significant benefits through the provision of access to important global data sets, across a wide range of relevant disciplines and themes. GEOSS is structured around delivering to nine key societal benefit areas, all of which are relevant to NERC's scientific agenda, including in the areas of natural disasters, climate change, water resources, ecosystems, desertification and biodiversity.

  48.  NERC invests approximately £10 million annually in EO activities at a national level (including direct EO Programme spend, responsive-mode grants, and facilities), the majority of which is spent on the exploitation of EO data. This complements NERC's contribution to a "global observing system" through its membership of ESA.

  49.  Examples of other collaboration with international space agencies are provided in NERC's memorandum to the UK Space Policy inquiry.

EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN RESEARCH COUNCILS AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  50.  NERC works with other UK stakeholders (including other Research Councils, Government Departments, the British Council, the Royal Society) to ensure that the UK's approach to international research activities is joined up. We participate in collaborative fora such as the Environment Research Funders' Forum (ERFF), the Global Environmental Change Committee (GECC), UKESF and the Inter-Agency Committee for Marine Science and Technology (IACMST, for which NERC funds the secretariat).

  51.  As a key funder of space activities, NERC is a member of the UK Space Board, along with the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), DTI, Met Office and MoD. NERC is also one of the partners of BNSC[35] and works through this partnership to ensure coordination of efforts and to maximize the benefits for the UK from its investments in civil space activities. This enables the partners to drive international developments and programmes. Particular areas for collaboration, eg on establishing the Centre for Earth Observation Instrumentation, were listed in our memorandum to the UK Space Policy inquiry; some are addressed above.

  52.  NERC has a long history of working closely with DfID, which, prior to the formation of Defra, was the largest single external funder of commissioned research. Income from DfID has declined significantly since then, however, with much less emphasis given to natural science research, or to collaborating with NERC. We were therefore delighted that in 2006 DfID approached NERC to develop the new multi-disciplinary ESPA research programme—see Appendix 3. ESPA also fits under the NERC-led new Living With Environmental Change (LWEC) initiative, currently being developed through RCUK and with other funders, including Defra and DfID.

  53.  Both NERC and DfID, as well as Defra, are core members of ERFF, which facilitates interaction between different funders of environmental research, and helps to maximise the coherence and effectiveness of UK environmental sciences funding. Co-operation between NERC and DfID on the EUWI ERA-NET (see Appendix 2) is also positive.

  54.  NERC has good links with the FCO, including the Science and Innovation Network (SIN). NERC is represented at the SIN annual round-table events, provides induction training for new SIN staff and hosts visitors at FCO request. Increasingly, NERC/BAS work closely and positively with the Polar Research Unit (PRU) through the BAS Review Group, the Cross-government meeting on Arctic Issues and PRU representation on the Antarctic Funding Initiative (AFI) peer review panel. Because there are many interactions between different parts of NERC and different parts of the FCO, in 2004-2006 NERC and the FCO held high-level bilateral meetings with relevant representatives from both sides. We are currently exploring holding more focussed meetings in science areas of particular interest to the FCO.

IMPACT OF RC POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

Employment policy

  55.  Recruitment of staff to NERC Centres, and by HEIs to NERC grants, is subject to EU Employment Law requiring suitably qualified EU applicants to be preferred over non-EU applicants. For selected non-EU applicants NERC must seek a work-permit citing special essential skills, (eg NERC currently employs several Chinese nationals in areas of skill shortages).

  56.  NERC Swindon Office seconds existing employees (mainly science administrators) to European/ international institutions on a case-by-case basis. Recent examples include NSF, ESF and UKRO. NERC does not operate any specific institutional exchange schemes.

  57.  NERC Research Centres second existing staff (mainly scientists) overseas to fulfill contractual obligations, eg with DfID, the World Bank, or the EU, generally on research to underpin sustainable natural resource development, technology transfer or capacity building. The British Geological Survey (BGS) and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) often have several tens of staff working overseas. Secondment typically involves co-operation with overseas institutions, universities, Governments etc. BAS has an all-year-round presence in the Antarctic—about 250 staff during the summer and 50 in winter.

Fellowships and grant awards

  58.  NERC fellowships are open to all nationalities, to be taken up at an eligible UK academic institution where they will be based and employed. We allow/encourage our fellows to spend up to one year (in a three-year fellowship) or two years (in a five-year fellowship) at an overseas institution. NERC is a signatory to the EUROHORCs "Money follows Researcher" transfer of grants scheme. NERC RCCs host EU Marie Curie award holders.

  59.  NERC's current approach, similar to many other Councils, is to build costs for international collaborations into normal grant applications. Project partners do not normally receive direct funding from the award, but play an integral role in the research project through direct and/or indirect means. Visiting researchers can be supported financially to come to the UK for up to 12 months to provide advice and assistance to a research project. Additionally, researchers funded directly on a grant may be supported to visit colleagues abroad. Indeed, this is actively encouraged in the case of a fellowship award. Finally, support for travel to relevant international meetings is important for the development of scientific ideas so that researchers are able to disseminate their results and hear of advances elsewhere.

Postgraduate training

  60.  NERC encourages PhD students on NERC awards to undertake collaborative fieldwork overseas, and provides an extra £600k per year funding for this purpose. NERC is subject to the same funding eligibility restrictions as other Research Councils, such that we can only support UK and EU students (although EU students can get only their fees paid, unless they have lived in the UK for the previous three years, in which case they are entitled to a full award).

  61.  Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate awards do allow international students to undertake a PhD in the UK. They are administered by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) on behalf of all the Research Councils. NERC provided awards to students starting their studies in 2004 and 2005. International (including non-EU) students can also be funded on EU projects because contractually the partner institutions are responsible and the EU does not need information about the individual personnel.

Natural Environment Research Council

April 2007

---

Appendix 1

NERC Directed Programmes with a Strong Element of International Collaboration— Additional Information

  1.  NERC endeavours to include the international context in planning its directed programmes. Examples of effective international engagement include:

  2.  The Rapid Climate Change (RAPID) Programme: Since 2000, NERC has invested £20 million in RAPID, bringing together a community of researchers involved in observation, modelling and the problems associated with rapid climate change. The original programme, which ends in 2008, has grown into an international activity and an important example of where the UK and NERC play a leadership role in climate change science. The USA, Germany, The Netherlands and Norway are collaborating . The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has contributed about £5 million for a prototype system to continuously monitor the strength and structure of the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, and is involved in planning and evaluation. NERC and NSF together developed a common system of calling for proposals and conducting peer review for RAPID. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is also contributing in kind, in terms of observations and ship time. The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) has contributed €1.5m, and the Research Council of Norway (RCN) €1 million towards a joint €4 million funding round with NERC, delegating the administration to NERC. RAPID has also resulted in links with the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg. RAPID's UK Steering Committee includes experts from Germany and Norway and is chaired by a scientist at Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institution.

  3.  The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP): Participation in IODP allows UK scientists to influence the science planning and benefit directly from more than $1.5 billion investment in drilling platforms and their operation. UK scientific engagement in the IODP is enabled through membership of the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) comprising 16 European nations plus Canada. ECORD is a partner in IODP alongside the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). NERC plays a leading role in ECORD. Since 2004, ECORD has mounted two highly successful scientific and technical drilling missions, co-ordinated and managed by NERC's BGS, the ECORD science operator. The first, an Arctic Coring Expedition (ACEX) in 2004, has allowed UK and European scientists to describe (in four Nature articles less than two years later) an Arctic climate history over the past 50-55 million years, including a near-tropical Arctic warming event known as the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, due to natural climate change. The second, a Tahiti sea-level expedition in 2005 aimed to reconstruct events at the end of the last ice age in an area remote from the effects of earthquakes and past ice-sheets. This knowledge should aid scientists' prediction of what may happen in the future as the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets melt. A third IODP drilling mission, taking place March/April 2007, is designed to answer some of the uncertainties over how the Earth's oceanic crust forms in an atypical area of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where the Earth's mantle is, uniquely, extensively exposed. NERC's RRS James Cook has been adapted with a drilling rig for her maiden voyage in service as ECORD/ IODP mission-specific drilling platform. NERC is investing £12.5 million in IODP, which will run until 2013, on behalf of the UK science community.

  4.  The Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System (QUEST) Programme: Through this programme, NERC and the Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers (INSU, France) jointly planned and assessed a bi-national funding opportunity in order to draw together a critical mass of researchers on a key topic, where both countries have a major interest.

  5.  The UK Surface Ocean-Lower Atmosphere Study (UKSOLAS) is well integrated with international SOLAS activities. Examples include non-UK participation in the programme's research cruises; collaborative research flights (including calibration flight with NASA); and the establishment, with Germany and Cape Verdean research institutes, of an Ocean-Atmosphere Observatory on Cape Verde[36].

---

Appendix 2

EU FP6 ERA-NETS WITH NERC INVOLVEMENT

  1.  INNER: (INNovative Energy Research) aims to improve co-operation between national research Programmes that seek to nurture emerging energy technologies. The INNER ERA-NET brings together energy research programme managers from ten European countries to create a platform for co-ordination and collaboration. The project will include analysis of innovative energy research programmes in countries such as the USA, Japan, China and Korea as well as European initiatives.

  2.  EUROPOLAR: unites all twenty-five of Europe's major funding agencies in polar research to improve co-operation and co-ordination of activities, share facilities and optimise a combined annual budget of around €500 million. The project aims to provide strategic oversight and will work to improve the use of research infrastructures and human, technological and financial resources. The project is designed to assess how to overcome barriers and implement a European-wide polar research framework with increased operational capacity and the development of transnational programmes.

  3.  BiodivERsA: Funding agencies from fifteen EU countries have established this ERA-NET to develop coordination of biodiversity research programmes in Europe and to establish a durable co-operation between the national funding agencies. The 18 partners currently allocate more than €110m annually to projects and programmes and aim to co-ordinate policies and practice between the network members to agree common strategies and maximise overall output across national boundaries. Co-operation between the partners will culminate in a common call for research proposals (including collaboration with developing countries) and a formalised structure, through which biodiversity research funding can be coordinated from a European perspective.

  4.  ECORD-NET: Fifteen European research funding organisations have formed The European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD), representing and funding European Ocean drilling studies at an international level and enabling Europe to achieve critical mass and economies of scale in its progress towards equal partnership with the USA and Japan (currently considered the world leaders in marine geosciences). This ERA-NET is designed to help implement Europe-wide strategic planning, funding and research in the field of ocean drilling. In particular it provides a structure through which joint drilling programmes can be managed and co-ordinated and results disseminated to the marine science community.

  5.  MarinERA is designed to co-ordinate national and regional marine RTD programmes in Europe and the fourteen partners include most of Europe's maritime nations. The Main Board of ESF is a core member of the MarinERA consortium together with fourteen research funding bodies and seven observers from existing marine research networks. The overall aim is for better use of existing research mechanisms, co-ordination of research infrastructure, improved cooperation and dissemination and the integration of marine science in Europe.

  6.  EUWI (European Union Water Initiative): The objective of the EUWI ERA-NET is to improve linkages, co-ordination and information sharing between member state research programmes in water science and technology and the developing world. The fourteen partners (which include DfID and NERC for the UK) seek to establish a framework of long term communication, collaboration and co-ordination of member state research programmes, focused on water issues in developing countries. The overall aim is to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals through better communication and co-ordination of research activities.

---

Appendix 3

Other International Collaboration—Additional Information

EC FP6

  1.  UK scientists from NERC's CEH lead NitroEurope, the largest Integrated Project (IP), and ALTERNet, one of the largest Networks of Excellence (NoE), funded under the FP6 Global Change and Ecosystems sub-programme (2002-06). NitroEurope involves approximately 65 contributing partner institutes from 23 countries. It won €16.6 million in additional funding, and addresses the effect of reactive nitrogen (Nr) supply on net greenhouse gas budgets for Europe. ALTERNet involves 24 contributing partner institutions from 17 countries. It won €10 million additional EU funding, and integrates capacity across Europe to assess and forecast changes in biodiversity, structure, functions and dynamics of ecosystems and their services.

  2.  Scientists at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) (one of NERC's Collaborative Centres) lead another of the largest FP6 IPs. HERMES (Hotspot Ecosystem Research on the Margins of European Shelves[37] ) won €15m of EU funding which gears national contributions from 45 research institutes (including other UK partners) and small businesses from 14 European countries. As project coordinators the team has developed engagement with the Commission and other policy makers, ensuring routes for the successful transfer of science to policy making as well as other networking and leverage benefits.

  3.  However the administrative burden for the lead organisation coordinating such large EU FP integrative projects (IP or NoE) should not be underestimated. The Commission recognises this, and such large projects will be the exception rather than the rule at the start of the FP7 Environment (including Climate Change) sub-programme (2007-2013).

4.  NEST PROGRAMME

  "Geophysical Oceanography (GO)" is a project in NEST "Adventure". It is led by Richard Hobbs (NERC Advanced Fellow, Durham) and aims to find out if the detailed seismic images of structure in the ocean can really tell us about the ocean; the project has an uncertain but potentially very beneficial outcome because of the unparalleled combination of resolution and coverage. There was already considerable interaction with allied US work before GO was proposed, but this has been strengthened by NEST's funding of the project.

5.  INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION OF UNESCO (IOC/UNESCO)

  NERC is the designated lead for the UK; the IOC Office is hosted by NOCS, the same personnel also run IACMST which helps to promote greater cohesion with national activities in marine science. The IOC is a co-sponsor of WCRP. The UK has played a strong role in ensuring that the IOC continues its financial contribution to the WCRP. The Joint IOC/WMO Commission on Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) coordinates, regulates and manages a fully integrated marine observing, data management and services system. One of its roles is implementing the open-ocean part of GOOS. NERC and the Met Office have developed a close working relationship to represent the oceanographic and marine meteorological communities in this Commission. Because NERC isn't a Government department it isn't automatically included in departmental briefing meetings on intergovernmental issues. Some ad hoc arrangements are in place whereby NERC's voice gets heard. The UK IOC Office is assisting FCO to develop plans for improving overarching aspects of coordination of UK inputs to international bodies

6.  JAPAN CLIMATE SCIENCE COLLABORATION

  The opportunity for NERC and Hadley Centre scientists to collaborate with Japanese scientists in using the Japanese Earth Simulator has allowed the UK and Japan jointly to make world-leading advances in global climate change modelling. After developing a range of high-resolution model versions that were successfully "ported" to the Earth Simulator, UK and Japanese scientists have performed climate simulations with unprecedented detail, enabling new insights into important processes, and of climate extremes such as cyclones, typhoons, and hurricanes.

7.  INDIA MONSOON COLLABORATION

  The planned UK/India collaboration to address monsoon process, simulation, operational prediction and impact assessment gained Ministerial support at the UK/India Council in June 2006. Subsequently the UK proposers submitted successful bids to the UK India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI) fund sponsored by DTI, FCO, DfES, the British Council and industrial champions, winning some £700k in science networking and training funds. Support from Defra for the Hadley Centre scientists' participation is also understood to be in place. NERC will invest £300k over the next four years to fund a project manager to co-ordinate the UK component of the multi-agency, multi-disciplinary consortium. India's Department for Science and Technology (DST) has promised matched funding.

8.  ESA—EARTH OBSERVATION ENVELOPE PROGRAMME EARTH EXPLORER SCIENCE MISSIONS[38]

  Of the six selected missions in the pipeline, the UK leads the science on two—Cryosat, led by the Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM—a NERC Collaborative Centre), Duncan Wingham (Principal Investigator); and EarthCARE, led by Antony Illingworth of Reading University (Co-Principal Investigator). All six selected missions directly address a range of NERC's key science priorities. Of the six shortlisted proposals for the next mission in the series, two have UK "science leads"—BIOMASS, led by Shaun Quegan, Director of the Centre for Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics (CTCD, another NERC Collaborative Centre) and PREMIER, led by Brian Kerridge of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.

9.  ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION (ESPA)[39]

  The first funding opportunity of this joint research programme with DfID and the ESRC was announced in January 2007. The programme will address how to achieve sustainably managed ecosystems, with the aim of contributing to reducing poverty and improving well-being in developing countries. It is currently focussing on four regions: Amazonia/Andes, semi-arid Africa, India and the Hindu Khush and China.

10.  CPB WORKSHOPS

  The NERC Centre for Population Biology (CPB) and the Institute of Zoology, London (IoZ) were awarded funds from NERC's Medium-sized Initiatives Fund to run a series of working groups in the UK based on the highly successful "NCEAS model". (NCEAS, the US National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, is a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded unit that was set up in 1995 to foster cross-disciplinary work in pure and applied ecology. A major part of their activities is working groups devoted to a particular problem or issue in pure and applied ecology.) CPB would have welcomed more resources for these workshops, especially to enable postdocs to speedily synthesise the workshop outcomes. At NCEAS (US National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis), postdocs analyse and synthesise the data brought together by the working group.

Annex H

Evidence from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) was an independent organisation (a non-Departmental Public Body) established in 1994 by Royal Charter following the Government's 1993 White Paper Realising our potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology.

  2.  PPARC's strategy always had an international focus mainly because of the characteristics of the research it supported. The frontiers of scientific understanding are increasingly being pushed backwards, but pushing the frontiers increasingly requires technologies and efforts on an international (or even global) scale. No one country has the resources to undertake a wide-range of high-level research in basic science on their own so international collaborations are the norm in fundamental physics, planetary science and astronomy.

  3.  PPARC never had a need to devise a separate international strategy because it always had an international focus and a commitment to giving UK researchers access to the best facilities and opportunities in the world.

  4.  PPARC operated three scientific sites: the UK Astronomy Technology Centre[40] (UKATC) in Edinburgh, the Isaac Newton Group[41] (ING) in La Palma and the Joint Astronomy Centre[42] (JAC) in Hawaii. All enjoy good reputations internationally.

  5.  PPARC also funded the UK membership of international bodies such as the European Organisation for Nuclear Research[43], (CERN), the European Space Agency[44] (ESA) and the European Southern Observatory[45] (ESO).

  6.  Because of PPARC's international focus the UK is involved in many more major international projects in fundamental physics planetary science and astronomy than it otherwise would be.

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING RC AND OSI MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  7.  The principle mechanisms by which PPARC promoted international collaborations were:

(i)  via subscriptions to international research organisations such as CERN, ESA and ESO. This allows UK researchers access to world-class facilities.

(ii)  Project grants for the construction of instrumentation through international partnerships, eg for an ESA mission or the CERN detectors (see below).

(iii)  Rolling grants. The rolling grant mechanism was a considerable enabler of international collaboration as it allowed flexibility—making long-term planning easier and enabling strategic partnerships to be built up.

  8.  Rolling grants enable researchers to have some flexibility. For instance they enable researchers to use some of the funding they receive to travel abroad and form partnerships without having to submit a separate application for funding to travel. PPARC also maintained a modest budget for researchers to undertake fact-finding missions to develop new links and partnerships—notably with China.

  9.  The rolling grant approach was endorsed by researchers and institutions and has been adopted by STFC.

  10.  A key aspect of the PPARC approach to international collaborations was to develop and nurture expertise. This promoted international collaborations as it resulted in the UK having a set of researchers with underlying science understanding or technical skills which other nations wanted or needed to make projects a success. This approach made the UK partners of choice in many international collaborations.

  11.  A key advantage of taking part in international collaborations is that it gives partners access to data, sometimes even full data rights, thus even a small involvement in a collaboration can prove very cost-effective. This is something which PPARC was acutely aware of and whilst no collaboration was entered into unless it aligned with PPARC's overall strategy the Council's approach was to ensure that maximum benefits were received from every collaboration the UK became involved in.

  12.  PPARC also established mechanisms to enable knowledge transfer from the major international organisations the UK participates in including CERN, ESA, ESO. This was supported by grants from the OSI Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund (PSRE) which promotes the exploitation of research in publicly funded laboratories for the benefit of the UK economy. PPARC made the case to OSI and Treasury that these international laboratories qualify for PSRE funding because they are where the UK conducts its research in these subjects.

  13.  Other activities undertaken by PPARC included trade promotions in collaboration with UKTI for UK companies wishing to undertake work for CERN and other organisations. This proved useful in enabling UK companies to get contracts from CERN and similar organisations. This activity will be re-launched under STFC to cover the full spectrum of facilities and activities and will also be extended to ITER the international project to prove the feasibility of a full-scale fusion reactor.

  14.  PPARC employed a contractor to identify opportunities for UK companies to bid for contracts at the major facilities PPARC subscribed to. And in addition to this activity PPARC also joined ERIDWATCH (European Research Infrastructure Development Watch), an EU funded policy study led by CEA[46] the French Atomic Energy Commission and with Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden and the UK. This will quantify the commercial opportunity which will be created for European industry if the projects proposed on the ESFRI roadmap are constructed.

  15.  For programmes which are at the planning stage such as ESA's Aurora[47] programme—a long-term plan for the exploration of the solar system—the PPARC strategy was to work with UK industry from the start, so UK companies could be well positioned to win contracts from the start.

  16.  No major OSI mechanisms for promoting international collaborations existed in PPARC's areas of science.

  17.  International collaboration through the EU FP, including resources for enhancing partnership between RCs and EU agencies in the new FP7 initiative. The provision of resources to stimulate UK participation in international programmes. Benefits and drawbacks of RC participation in previous and current FPs.

  The principle benefits of the EU FP programme to PPARC were mainly in research infrastructure and mobility activities.

PPARC's active involvement

  All PPARC major facilities were involved in I3s—Opticon[48] and RadioNet[49].

  18.  Major projects also benefited from FP6 principally through co-funding of design studies for:

SKA—the Square Kilometre Array.

ELT—The extremely Large Telescope.

ILC—The International Linear Collidor.

  In each of the above instances PPARC matched funding.

  19.   Benefits

  From a PPARC perspective the major drawback of working with the European Commission was the level of control and the "one size fits all model". Whilst this is suitable if enough cash is made available it is less suitable if insufficient cash is made available—meaning that the drawbacks could outweigh any benefits.

  20.   PPARC involvement in other initiatives and schemes

  The former PPARC Chief Executive, Professor Ian Halliday, was an active member of the EU Commissioner's advisory board (EURAB) and an active promoter of the European Research Council model. PPARC welcomed the formation of the European Research Council.

  21.  PPARC was involved in two ERANETS—Astronet[50] & ASPERA[51]. Both were beneficial in helping organisations such as PPARC to coordinate activities and develop roadmaps of future facilities. PPARC found the focus of ERANETS on grant schemes to be less relevant to research infrastructures than the roadmap aspects. PPARC found that the amount of reporting required for the level of the funding awards was disproportionate and hence bureaucratic.

22.   National Contact Points

  PPARC provided a member of staff as the national contact point for Research Infrastructures in FP3, 4, 5 & 6. However for FP7 OSI decided that a fuller service was required. Negotiations are taking place on how to provide more resources to provide a fuller service in future, which may involve RCUK working on behalf of all the Councils.

  23.  The role & success of RCs in facilitating UK participation in previous and current international programmes.

  24.  In recent years PPARC was successful in both securing and facilitating UK participation in international programmes across its science areas. Notable successes included:

Negotiating UK entry into ESO (see below).

Participation in the LHC (see below).

Securing UK participation in ESA's Aurora programme. The UK will play a leading role in the first stage of the programme driving the Aurora agenda.

  25.  It was PPARC's role to make these long-term decisions. The science projects undertaken by PPARC and its successor the STFC are, by any measure, long term. Decisions have to be taken far in advance of when the scientific output from projects is expected to be realised (for instance the Cassini- Huygens mission to Jupiter and its moon Titan was launched in 1997 after several years of planning and decision making yet the spacecraft did not arrive and start producing most of its science until eight years later).

  26.  Decisions made by PPARC in recent years will benefit the UK scientific community in several years time including its investment in the LHC and ESA's Aurora programme.

27.   CERN and the LHC

  The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) is the world's leading centre for particle physics research. CERN employs almost 3,000 people and some 6,500 visiting scientists, half of the world's particle physicists, come to CERN for their research. Through STFC and formerly PPARC the UK is an important partner in CERN and membership ensures UK particle physics researchers have access to the best facilities and opportunities possible.

  28.  The highest priority in particle physics in the next two years will be the completion of the construction, and the commissioning of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and its detectors at CERN. UK groups are playing leading roles in all four detectors for the LHC.

29.   European Southern Observatory (ESO)

  In July 2002 the UK became a member of the European Southern Observatory (ESO). Membership has enabled UK astronomers to have full access to the four 8-metre-class telescopes that comprise ESO's Very Large Telescope. The UK's membership of ESO will also enable it to play a major role in the Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA) project—an array of 64, 12-metre radio telescopes.

  30.  Membership of ESO helps enable the UK to remain one of the leading nations in astronomical research and in addition to having access to some of the world's most advanced telescopes it will help enable UK researchers to play a major role in future developments.

  31.  The effectiveness of collaboration between the RCs and the Government Departments involved in international scientific activities, including OSI, DEFRA, the FCO's Science and Innovation Network and DfID.

  Opportunities for PPARC to collaborate with Government Departments were somewhat limited largely due to a lack of synergy between the types of science covered by PPARC's remit and the nature of the activities undertaken by Government Departments. Consequently PPARC did not have any significant involvement with either DfID or DEFRA.

  32.  PPARC did not get involved in any significant collaborations with OSI. The principal involvement came via OSI's career and India initiatives. But here the capacity for collaboration was somewhat limited as the initiatives were mainly targeted at individual researchers rather than at partnerships—which was what PPARC principally focussed on.

  33.  Another factor which inhibited collaborations between PPARC and OSI in recent years was the gradual reduction in the amount of notice given of future opportunities for collaboration. Increasing demands on Ministers' and officials' time has undoubtedly been the principal reason for this.

  34.  PPARC found the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Science & Innovation Network foreign attaches to be particularly important when liaising with countries in the Far-East such as Japan and China. This was mainly due to cultural differences and because relationships with these countries are less well established than they are with other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

  35.  Impact of RC policies on the international mobility of researchers.

  The PPARC research community was always mobile and PPARC actively encouraged mobility indeed international mobility is fundamental in many areas of research funded by PPARC.

  36.  The majority of PPARC PhD students spend a significant period (up to two years) of their studentship overseas. PPARC fellowship schemes were open to applicants from around the world and around 50% of fellowships awarded between 2001 and 2005 went to non-UK nationals.

  37.  Under PPARC's postdoctoral fellowship scheme, fellows were funded to spend an extended period of the fellowship at a university overseas. And indeed during the course of their fellowship, many fellows spent a significant period of time on research at overseas facilities.

  38.  In 2004 PPARC signed up to participate in the "money follows researcher" initiative. This agreement gave UK researchers the ability to negotiate to have his or her grant transferred to the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and vice versa. No researchers opted to participate in this scheme.

STFC

April 2007

Annex I

Evidence from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The Science & Technology Facilities Council (STFC) came in to being on 1 April 2007. The new Research Council's purpose is to ensure the UK will be in a much stronger position to help shape (and exert greater leadership and leverage over) the development of strategies for large research facilities, enabling the UK research community to have access to the best facilities in the world.

  2.  STFC took over responsibility for running the scientific facilities previously operated by PPARC and CCLRC.

  3.  STFC will also assume responsibility for funding the UK membership of international bodies such as the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, (CERN), the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO).

  4.  STFC is still in the process of formulating its policies and strategies but its initial priorities will include maintaining and increasing the influence inherited from PPARC and CCLRC in respect of the European and global research agendas through its membership of co-ordinating organisations such as European Commission Research Programme Committees, ESFRI, EUROHORCS, ESF, OECD and through its membership of Scientific Organisations such as CERN, ESO, ESA and the European "I3" projects.

  5.  STFC will establish a strategy for nuclear physics which will fully address the international collaborations and priorities of the nuclear physics community in the international context.

  6.  The Council will explore the opportunities to collaborate with new partners in countries which are rapidly increasing their scientific prowess and presence on the world stage whilst maintaining and developing strong links with established partners. STFC's commitment to the RCUK China Office and its support for the UK-Brazil Year of Science are examples of new activities that will be undertaken.

  7.  A series of Scientific Workshops in India have been proposed by India which STFC will deliver with the assistance of the British High Commission, Delhi and also with the assistance of OSI International and the Indian High Commission in London.

  8.  A proposed Workshop on High Energy Density Plasma Physics using high power lasers, organised by the British Embassy in Tokyo, is one of many scientific or technical workshops that STFC will be participating in. It will also be represented at all the major conferences including events such as ECRI2007[52] (the German EU Presidency's conference) which have a strategic planning focus.

  9.  STFC will be exploring with OSI the project opportunities offered by the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures[53] (ESFRI) Roadmap in the context of updating the UK's own Large Facilities Roadmap.

  10.  In particular STFC will be keen to drive through the commencement of those ESFRI projects in which it is a likely partner—and, in particular, those projects which the Council has decided to lead on.

  11.  The availability of EC funding in 2007 to kick start these projects provides a window of opportunity for STFC and further EC funding for other types of strategically important projects will become available in 2008; STFC will be using the interim period to influence the EC's project requirements to ensure strategic fit whilst shaping its own projects to meet the EC's requirements.

  12.  STFC will also be keeping a "watching brief" on the development of the European Commission's proposals for a European Institute of Technology and Joint Technology Initiatives.

  13.  The Council's Knowledge Exchange activities already have an international dimension to them and we will continue to seek similar opportunities, particularly for inward investment in respect of both scientific exploitation and facilities development.

  14.  Strengths & weaknesses of existing RC and OSI mechanisms and activities to maintain and promote international collaboration

  15.  The principle mechanisms by which STFC will promote international collaborations will be no different from what they were for PPARC and CCLRC ie:

(i)  Via subscriptions to international research organisations such as ILL, ESRF, CERN, ESA and ESO allowing UK researchers access to world-class facilities.

(ii)  Project grants to UK institutions for the construction of instrumentation through international partnerships, eg for an ESA mission or the CERN detectors.

(iii)  Rolling grants. The rolling grant mechanism to support groups in UK institutions is a considerable enabler of international collaboration as it allows flexibility—making long-term planning easier and enabling strategic partnerships to be built up.

  16.  Rolling grants enable researchers to have some flexibility. For instance researchers can use some of the funding they receive to travel abroad and form partnerships without having to submit a separate application for funding to travel. A modest budget will also be maintained for researchers to undertake fact-finding missions to develop new links and partnerships—notably with China.

  17.  The rolling grant approach is endorsed by researchers and institutions.

  The three major facilities operated by CCLRC all had a "Free-at-the-Point-of-Access Policy" and on each facility time was reserved for "World Class Science" which enabled international researchers to have access. This arrangement will continue under STFC.

  18.  In addition each facility also reserved time for European users under the EC's Trans-national Access programmes. This arrangement will also be continued by STFC.

  A key aspect of STFC's approach to international collaborations will be to develop and nurture expertise. This will promote international collaborations as it results in the UK having a set of researchers with underlying science understanding or technical skills which other nations want or need to make projects a success. This approach makes the UK partners of choice in many international collaborations.

  19.  A key advantage of taking part in international collaborations is that it give partners access to data, sometimes even full data rights, thus even a small involvement in a collaboration can prove very cost-effective. This is something that STFC is acutely aware of and whilst no collaboration will be entered into unless it aligns with overall strategy, STFC's approach will be to ensure that maximum benefits are received from every collaboration the UK becomes involved in.

  The mechanisms that PPARC established to enable knowledge transfer from the major international organisations the UK participates in, including CERN, ESA and ESO will remain.

  20.  The activities undertaken by PPARC such as trade promotions in collaboration with UKTI for UK companies wishing to undertake work for CERN and other organisations will be re-launched to cover the full spectrum of facilities and activities undertaken by STFC and will also be extended to ITER.[54]

  21.  PPARC employed a contractor to identify opportunities for UK companies to bid for contracts at the major facilities PPARC subscribed to. This arrangement will continue under STFC and will include centres such as ILL and ESRF.

  STFC's approach will also be to work with UK industry when projects are at the planning stage so UK companies will be well positioned to win contracts.

  22.  The Council will collaborate with OSI in any relevant major mechanisms devised to promote international collaborations.

  23.  CCLRC operated its own very successful technology transfer company CLIK Knowledge Transfer Ltd. CLIK is supported in its activities through various Government funded schemes to encourage technology transfer from HEI's and the public sector research institutes, such as the Rainbow Seed Fund. These activities will continue under STFC.

  24.  International collaboration through the EU FP, including resources for enhancing partnership between RCs and EU agencies in the new FP7 initiative. The provision of resources to stimulate UK participation in international programmes. Benefits and drawbacks of RC participation in previous and current FPs

  25.  STFC welcomes the formation of the European Research Council (ERC) and expects that members of its community will be successful in winning awards, but the Council will have no formal links with the ERC.

  26.  STFC is not yet in a position to identify what, if any, FP7 projects it will participate in however STFC's laboratories are currently preparing submissions for the first Calls under FP7.

  27.  STFC will participate in the EC's Trans-national Access programmes and STFC facilities will participate in the partnerships in the EU funded network with their equivalents across Europe.

  28.  CCLRC and PPARC provided UK representation to the European Strategy Forum for Resesearch Infrastructures (ESFRI) and it is envisaged that STFC will continue to provide at least one of the two delegates.

  29.  ESFRI provides a tremendous opportunity to engage with other funding agencies particularly with respect to formulating partnerships to build new Research Infrastructures as envisaged under the EC FP7 Programme.

  30.  CCLRC offered its lecture room facilities to UKRO at no cost to run training courses for the UK academic community and STFC will continue to offer its facilities to UKRO

  31.  The role & success of RCs in facilitating UK participation in previous and current international programmes

  STFC will seek to build on the successful relationships it has inherited and will actively seek to form new relationships which will benefit the UK research community.

  32.  The effectiveness of collaboration between the RCs and the Government Departments involved in international scientific activities, including OSI, DEFRA, the FCO's Science and Innovation Network and DfID.

  STFC will seek to collaborate with Government Departments whenever possible.

  The Council will work closely with FCO SIN staff and welcomes the support they can provide—particularly in the Far-East.

  33.  Impact of RC policies on the international mobility of researchers.

  The facility access policies adopted by CCLRC enabled international mobility by encouraging researchers from abroad to bring their research to CCLRC's facilities. These access policies will continue under STFC.

  A significant proportion of the research staff employed by STFC are not originally from the UK and STFC will continue to welcome employees from abroad.

  34.  The research community inherited by STFC is mobile. The Council will actively encourage international mobility as such mobility is fundamental in many areas of research it is responsible for.

  STFC will explore with EPSRC options for development of a joint studentships training programme to ensure a supply of trained people for major facilities.

  35.  STFC will maintain the current level of investment made in PPARC's postdoctoral and advanced fellowship programme, which attracts high-calibre researchers from around the world—50% of applicants are from outside the UK.

  STFC will continue to encourage and fund postdoctoral research fellowships to spend an extended period of time at an overseas university.

  36.  STFC will participate in the development of an RCUK strategy for fellowship alumni that will raise the international profile of UK fellowships. STFC will also participate in the new co-funding fellowships scheme proposed under Marie Curie actions.

  37.  STFC's postdoctoral and advanced fellowships programme, which was inherited from PPARC and which currently supports 100 researchers, will be a key feature of Council's strategy for ensuring the health of disciplines that fall within STFC's remit. These schemes attract high calibre researchers from the UK and overseas to undertake a period of independent research in key and emerging areas of our science programme.

The Science and Technology Facilities Council

April 2007

Annex J

UK RESEARCH OFFICE (UKRO)

BACKGROUND

  1.  The UK Research Office (UKRO), established in 1984 and based in Brussels, promotes effective UK participation in EU-funded research programmes, higher education programmes, and other related activities. See http://www.ukro.ac.uk/about/index.htm. UKRO is sponsored by all seven UK Research Councils. BBSRC acts as managing partner, on behalf of all Councils, employing all 12 UKRO staff: one Director, eight European Advisors, an Information Systems Manager, an Office Administrative Manager, and an Administrative and Publications Assistant.

  2.  There are 140 subscribing members of UKRO. Any UK HEI, charity or public sector research organisation can subscribe; associate membership (with restricted services) is also available to companies and non-UK research organisations. Defra, the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Laboratory of the HSE also have subscriptions to UKRO, as do Universities UK, the British Council, HEFCE and the Scottish Funding Council.

  3.  UKRO's strategy is overseen by a Steering Committee, which includes representatives of each Research Council, as well as Universities UK and two elected subscriber representatives. A smaller Management Committee, a sub-group of the Steering Committee, monitors UKRO's activities and budgets.

  4.  UKRO's Strategic Plan for the period 2005-2010 and the Research Council Agreement establishing the Office can both be accessed from the UKRO website at: http://www.ukro.ac.uk/ukro_ strat_ plan_ and_ agreement/index.htm.

SERVICES

  5.  UKRO provides support for its sponsors and subscribers through a number of services. These include: a comprehensive website; web and email-based Information Service (with over 4000 registered users); a full enquiry service staffed by the team of European Advisors; briefing visits, tailored to the needs of each organisation; and meeting room facilities in Brussels. The Office also organises an annual conference, usually attracting around 200 participants from HEIs, Research Councils, Government Departments and industry, as well as a programme of information and training events on a range of topics. Full details of UKRO services are provide in UKRO's Annual Report, available on the UKRO website at: http://www.ukro.ac.uk/about/06_ ukro_ annual_ report.pdf.

POLICY

  6.  UKRO provides policy support to Research Councils on EU research issues. Recent examples of policy support include: leading on the Research Councils' input to the Commission's proposed European Institute of Technology (EIT); detailed briefings on the European Research Council (ERC) and the implementation of the Bologna process; updates for RCUK on the development of FP7. This is in addition to following up individual policy-related questions raised by Research Councils. Other examples of UKRO's work with the Research Councils include: support to Councils who carry out National Contact Point (NCP) work, where appropriate; speaking at events on European research issues organised by Councils; working with the Research Councils' Internal Audit Service (RCIAS) on FP audit issues; and close co-operation with the RCUK Careers and Diversity Group.

LINKS WITH OSI

  7.  To date, the majority of collaboration has been with OSI's International Directorate. UKRO enjoys close working relationships with OSI, for example in contributing to the development of FP7, through participating in the Member States expert working group on the development of the FP7 Model Grant Agreement, along with OSI.

  8.  OSI, as policy lead for ERC and Marie Curie aspects of FP7, has contracted UKRO to provide the UK FP7 National Contact Point (NCP) services for these areas, open across the UK regardless of UKRO subscription status. The Marie Curie NCP has been run since 2001. The ERC service was launched in January 2007. OSI contracts pay for a staff member to each NCP.

  9.  As well as delivery of support services, both NCPs involve working with OSI, and key stakeholders, on policy aspects of these areas. An example of this would be actively contributing to the development of, and UK line on, the FP7 Marie Curie Work Programme, including running a focus group to gain feedback from practitioners. A member of UKRO staff sits on the European Commission's Programme Management Committee (PMC) for Marie Curie, and UKRO also attends the ERC PMC.

  10.  UKRO is a member of OSI's Framework Programme Network, in addition to the Research Councils.

OTHER LINKS

  11.   British Council: The Office produces a publication on behalf of the British Council: European RTD Insight, which provides an overview of European research news that month. Insight has a wide readership worldwide, and is read by many staff within the European Institutions. It is available on-line (accessible from the UKRO website at http://www.ukro.ac.uk/insight/index.htm) and is also emailed directly to well over 900 individuals each month.

  12.   EU Institutions: UKRO's location in Brussels activities allows for close working with the European Institutions, particularly the European Commission and the European Parliament. Office staff have developed excellent relationships with officials, and interact with them regularly through both formal and informal mechanisms. Specific examples of work with the European Institutions include: assisting MEPs on the research committee (ITRE) with the drafting of amendments to Framework Programme and Rules of Participation, in line with UK interests; speaking at a Parliament hearing on the implementation on FP6; being invited by the Commission to speak to the FP6 monitoring panel, an independent expert group tasked with reporting on FP6; and providing early feedback on FP7 guidance documentation.

  13.   Other Brussels-based organisations: other Brussels liaison includes the Informal Group of Brussels-based R&D Liaison Offices (IGLO), in which UKRO plays an active role, often acting as an example of best practice to new offices, or those seeking to set up offices. It also includes UK regional offices.

  14.   Universities UK: the Office has played a key role over the past two and a half years in looking at the move to Full Economic Costing (fEC) in the UK and its implications on participation in EU programme. Together with Universities UK, UKRO conducted an initial case study project and was then a member of the steering committee in two subsequent projects carried out by JM Consulting on behalf of Universities UK, OSI and the Funding Councils. The projects have resulted in guidance for UK HEIs on adapting their costing systems for use in European projects. UKRO played a particularly crucial role in acting as a contact point between the UK and the European Commission. Beyond this, the Office works closely with Universities UK and the Europe Unit on a range of research and HE-related issues.

  15.   FCO: although the FCO does not subscribe to UKRO services, there is some liaison with FCO staff in London and with science and innovation posts in British Embassies across Europe.

April 2007

---

---

23   Countries covered by ESRC bilateral agreements are Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Quebec Province, South Korea, Sweden, the United States. Back

24   Initiate an International Forum for Funding Agencies; Develop models for co-funded summer schools/training institutes; Develop collaboration in cyber-infrastructures for global social research; Initiate an International Data Forum; Develop models for collaborative international research networks; Promote development-oriented research by building bridges between development agencies and research funding agencies. Back

25   British Inter-university China Centre (BICC-Oxford/Manchester/Bristol); Centre for Advanced Study of the Arab World (CASAW-Edinburgh/Manchester/Durham); Centre for East European Language-based Area Studies (CEELBAS-London/Oxford/Birmingham); Centre for Russian, Central & East European Studies (CRCEES-Glasgow/St Andrews/Nottingham); White Rose East Asia Centre (WREAC-Leeds/Sheffield). Back

26   Some centres, including the British Antarctic Survey, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory are (also) submitting separate individual responses to the inquiry. Back

27   Including Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; International Council for Science (ICSU); Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research; Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research. Back

28   www.eufar.net/ Back

29   www.nerc.ac.uk/research/sites/facilities/ Back

30   www.nerc.ac.uk/research/sites/facilities/marine/ofeg.asp Back

31   www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/ Back

32   http://www2.kms.dk/fags/index.html Back

33   See www.esa.int/esaLP/ASEWGWNW9SC_LPearthexp_0.html and www.esa.int/esaLP/ESADQ0UHN6D_LPfuturemis_ 0.html for further details on the approved and candidate Explorer missions respectively. Back

34   See http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/SP-1234.pdf for ESA's Strategy for EO. A follow-up document-"The Changing Earth-New Scientific Challenges for ESA's Living Planet Programme"-is available at http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/SP-1304.pdf Back

35   For further details on the BNSC partnership see http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/default.aspx?nid=3193. Back

36   www.york.ac.uk/capeverde/ Back

37   www.eu-hermes.net/ Back

38   See www.esa.int/esaLP/ASEWGWNW9SC_ LPearthexp_ 0.html and www.esa.int/esaLP/ESADQ0UHN6D_ LPfuturemis _ 0.html for further details on the approved and candidate Explorer missions respectively. Back

39   www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/espa/ Back

40   http://www.roe.ac.uk/ukatc/ Back

41   http://www.ing.iac.es/ Back

42   http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/ Back

43   http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html Back

44   http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html Back

45   http://www.eso.org/ Back

46   http://www.cea.fr/english_portal/cea/identity Back

47   http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Aurora/ Back

48   http://www.astro-opticon.org/ Back

49   http://www.radionet-eu.org/ Back

50   http://www.astronet-eu.org/ Back

51   http://www.aspera-3.org/ Back

52   http://www.ecri2007.de/ Back

53   http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/ Back

54   http://www.iter.org/ Back

---

Prepared 31 July 2007