Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-454)
PROFESSOR SIR
KEITH O'NIONS
AND MR
JOHN NEILSON
13 DECEMBER 2006
Q440 Dr Iddon: If you look at the
current reorganisations, some people would say that there seems
to be a deliberate policy of embedding Research Council Institutes
now into universities; for example, by the restructuring of Roslin
Institute on the University of Edinburgh site.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: These
are policies that are determined by the Councils. It is very important
that the Councils are the best equipped to make these judgments.
I have generally concurred, I think, with the conclusions they
come to. Not in all cases but in some cases there are very strong
arguments for putting these alongside university research and
there is probably no better example, frankly, than in medical
research. We are very supportive of the vision. MRC have been
and gone, so I do not know what they said, but I am very supportive
of their vision of co-locating medical research activity with
clinical practice in universities and the Cooksey Report supports
that. It is very evident from my trip to the United States—and
I was recently at the Texas Medical Centre—that there is
immense value to be added by that, but, not as a general prescription,
as there are other institutes that probably do not need that.
There is no policy that emanates from us but I have been rather
supportive of those policies that are coming from the Research
Councils in those areas. I think they have come to the right conclusions.
Q441 Dr Iddon: Of course that restructuring
is putting them in a more competitive environment and one of the
things that some members of this Committee are worried about,
if not all, is the loss of long-term research which is producing
some very valuable data sets. That kind of long-term research
requires scientists with a dedication over a long period of time
and we are concerned that Britain, which has been good at that
sort of research in the past, might be losing those skills. Are
you also concerned about that?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
am always concerned about these things because we do have to find
a balance between the absolute cutting-edge, Blue Skies research
and those things which are, if you like rather longer term, and
produce datasets that maybe enable the next level of cutting-edge.
But at the same time our research councils from every quarter
are compelled to prioritise excellent research. Where we have
seen these significant restructurings, they have been based primarily
on the view of quality and excellence and I think that has to
be right. There are examples where this long-term view is extremely
important. Let me take one which I know quite well. The British
Geological Survey is the national repository for onshore and offshore
data which underpins the oil and gas industry and the environment.
To our peril would we undercut that. That is an institutional
arrangement where it earns quite a lot of its money from external
contracts. I do not disagree with you at all. I think we have
to find the right sort of structure to meet those requirements
and it is rather a general statement to your question rather than
dealing with specifics.
Q442 Chairman: Has OSI considered
the issue of ring-fencing those activities which are long-term
datasets and taking them out, therefore, of the mainstream of
funding?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
have thought about it but I have not done it. Let me add: I am
thinking about it.
Q443 Chairman: You are thinking about
it.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: And
have yet to do it.
Q444 Dr Iddon: I thought one of the
reasons for setting up Research Councils UK, Sir Keith, was to
promote interdisciplinary research and bring the Research Councils,
the seven of them, closer together and make them interact across
the boundaries. But yesterday we had two representatives, one
from the Tyndall Centre and one from CEH, who said that was still
quite difficult. For example, the Tyndall Centre, I think it was,
said they were barred from applying for grants to some of the
Research Councils, yet they were doing research in both areas.
Do you feel the promotion of the interdisciplinary work has worked?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: With
apology I cannot comment on the specifics because I do not have
the detail on those specifics. Let me make two brief comments
about interdisciplinary research. Whatever structure you have,
whether you have one Research Council or eight Research Councils
or a national science foundation and a national institute of health,
you really have to keep working hard at interdisciplinary research.
There is always a tendency to relax into silos but I believe things
have changed enormously in the last years. I am sure there will
be examples where it has worked imperfectly but interdisciplinary
working has changed enormously. The Research Councils no longer
feel in competition with one another just for a slice of the cake.
I am engaged with them at the present time about their priorities
for the present comprehensive spending review. We have started
this one round of dialogue with all the Research Councils. I am
able to tell you—I will tell you—that each of the
Research Councils has as its highest priorities for CSR issues
that are interdisciplinary. That would not have happened even
three or four years ago. If you were to write down what you think
are the most important things for the nation to do interdisciplinary
research on, I could guarantee those would be what are picked
up in their priorities. I think things have improved enormously
and will continue to improve, as, indeed, they have in the universities.
Ultimately, that is where a lot of the research is done and if
universities are not working in an interdisciplinary way, it is
. . . But I think things have changed a great deal. I am disappointed
that I cannot comment on the specifics of the one you mentioned.
Q445 Dr Iddon: Why will some Research
Councils not accept freely grant applications from wherever they
come?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
know where you are coming from but there are quite good reasons
for that. There are eight of them and you could sprinkle your
proposal to eight different Research Councils. Some Research Councils
have a very clear agreed lead. In some of the interdisciplinary
areas there is an agreed lead in certain Research Councils. The
e-science programme had a Research Council lead; we have a research
council lead in energy research through EPSRC. So there are some
natural ways of doing that. All I can say is I would be very surprised
if a rational discussion between really high calibre researchers
who had high calibre research to get funded and a Research Council
just got a thumbs down, "Sorry, the laws don't fit you"
but I cannot comment. It is certainly not the mood of the organisation.
Q446 Dr Turner: You said that you
broadly supported the MRC's co-location vision for NIMR. Do you
think the current proposals truly fulfil the co-location argument?
What role has OSI had in the NIMR renewal project?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Could
I repeat my point, to make sure it is recorded properly. The Department
is supportive of the view of co-locating some of those or all
of those research activities alongside clinical research and universities
because there is a good evidence base, in general, as to the benefits
you will get from that. That does not mean to say we have approved
that but we have supported that view. We are also sympathetic
with the view with NIMR that moving a large body of scientists
very far from London would be difficult. There are an awful lot
of jobs on the way to some other distant place, so we are very
sympathetic with that notion. That is my starting point. All of
the rest of it, from my point of view, really comes down to approving
business cases that demonstrate value for money for a series of
options in the normal way.
Q447 Dr Turner: So far that has not
happened.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: So
far that that has not happened.
Q448 Dr Turner: In your role as DGRC,
as it used to be called, to what extent do you regard the Research
Councils as being totally autonomous and under what circumstances
would you feel the need to intervene? Let us take the NIMR case:
there has been similar controversy, there has been bitterness
on all sides. Do you think OSI has a brokerage role to play to
help sort this out?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: It
is the art of running an arm's length body or the art of the Secretary
of State running a body at arm's length and the degree to which
you intervene. At first call, a fairly high degree of autonomy
is very important. Coming to the specifics of NIMR, which has
probably gone beyond the point of being a bit of grit in the oyster,
the way I see my role is that I make it clear to MRC and its new
chair John Chisholm that this is for the Council to work a business
case and make their recommendations as to what is the best way
forward; insist on a variety of options being worked out in the
conventional way that government does this; and to give every
encouragement and impetus, verging on the cattle prod, to get
a proper professional business case on the table. When we are
able to do that and look at value for money, not second-judging
the scientific or medical judgment, then we have a decision and
that should be the end of what has been going on. That is how
I see my role. Do I see brokering a deal between factious parties?
I think in this case every encouragement of a professional business
case will make a decision.
Q449 Dr Harris: Are you not, to a
certain extent, a midwife in this rather than a cattle prodder?—and
I do not think the two can be brought together in any place.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
do not think we should go there.
Q450 Dr Harris: Even in Harrogate!
OSI have been very clear. The minister said we must have more
translation and he was very keen on the idea, supportive of the
idea of co-location; of everything that the Chancellor has said.
Cooksey goes on and on about the need for translation. Are you
really going to leave the MRC at the altar for the lack of a few
million pounds on a value-for-money relatively subjective judgment,
at the end of the day? Because that would send a terrible signal
about how serious OSI was about seeing translational opportunities
as worth chasing.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: We
are deadly serious. We are strongly supportive of the Cooksey
Report. We think it is absolutely right. We have, as I have said,
given our support to the view of MRC Council. It is still the
view of MRC Council that this should be co-located with clinical
research and academic work. We have supported that. There is no
shift in position there at all. In terms of how much money is
spent on this, that is absolutely a straightforward, business
case, value-for-money of options.
Q451 Dr Harris: Accountants have
the last word.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: On
any expenditure of that magnitude accounting officers have the
last word and the Treasury will have the last word. We are not
in a position on the time scale of this project to be utterly
inflexible in terms of what the cost of this project will be over
the longer term.
Q452 Dr Harris: This is my last question
and I want to bring you back to the first thing. Everything you
said in our first exchange was predicated on departments, including
Defra, understanding the effect that their policies and funding
policies have on Research Councils and Research Council Institutes.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
agree.
Q453 Dr Harris: Can you explain why
Professor Dalton said—in response to the Chairman saying
that "200 scientists have left or are going to leave those
three Institutes" IGR, IAH and Rothamsted—"That
is nothing to do with Defra's organisation of its funding to those
institutions at all, nothing at all"? Professor Dalton continued:
"Can I ask you how you have managed to establish that BBSRC
losing 200 posts is down to Defra. Could you tell me because I
do not understand that." We just delayed a few grants by
90 days, he said to me: How is that anything to do with people's
jobs?
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
would never be presumptuous enough to offer an explanation of
somebody else's words, but I think the situation is that we do
need from Defra a view on the three- to five-year period as to
what capacity, capability and requirements will be in order to
have a proper planning situation. It may well be that on those
time scales there will be job losses. I think it is difficult
to live with if on a year-by-year basis there are significant
shifts in funding inconsistent with the recommendation of RIPSS.
BBSRC who are accountable for all those jobs—BBSRC employers
have to pick up the tab—I will leave it to you to decide
whether—
Dr Harris: For right or wrong, departments
have to understand—
Q454 Chairman: We would very much
like to sum up the Committee's view, that, particularly in your
role, you have a closer relationship with the departments in terms
of their medium to long-term funding in order that Institutes
are not places, as BBSRC was, in the position where suddenly they
are having to make in-year cuts. I do not think that is that acceptable.
That is the point we are making.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I
am saying that is a situation that is extremely difficult for
us to deal with and it is contrary to the spirit of RIPSS.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Professor Keith O'Nions. In the last question we moved you from
having a cattle prod, to being a midwife, to being a vicar at
the altar—an extension to your current role quite significantly.
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: We
may have to find a new title for me.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed
and thank you John Neilson.
| 
