Memorandum 30
Submission from Research Councils UK (RCUK)
INTRODUCTION
Summary
— Effective policy-making must be based
on research evidence from across the entire spectrum, including
in arts and humanities research; all policies should be evidence-based
and policy-makers should use advice and evidence from a wide range
of sources.— The attendance of the Science Minister
at Cabinet meetings is a welcome development. — Given
recent changes in departmental structure, RCUK does not consider
the creation of a Department for Science to be a priority at this
time. It could lead to the perception that science in Government
is being covered there, a consequence of which could be to remove
its due consideration in other departments.— Improved
coordination of departmental science funds is needed, with more
effective mechanisms in place for cross-departmental coordination
of policies, which draw on the research base as a whole.
— The Council for Science and Technology
(CST) is a potentially valuable source of advice. The Government
should ensure that it acts on this advice and consider further
how best to maximise the CST's value and impact.
— The Government's efforts to consult
more widely in policy formulation is welcome; however, the Government
should consult on a broader range of research issues and research
policy development should be longer term, recognising the fact
that research is carried out over a long timeframe.
— There should be greater transparency
in Government research policy formulation. Feedback should be
provided on how the evidence submitted in response to consultations
has been used, or where it has not been used. This would encourage
the research community to provide input to consultations and help
ensure that policies are based on the best possible evidence.
A further incentive would be to reward research that has been
used in policy development through the Research Excellence Framework.
— The appointment of Chief Scientific
Advisors (CSAs) in Government departments is highly beneficial
for ensuring that evidence from research is used in formulating
policies. Consideration should be given to extending these appointments
to include CSAs in all relevant government departments potentially
on a full-time basis.
— RCUK fully supports the Haldane principle,
in particular its fundamental role in underpinning the independence
of the Research Councils.
— Decisions regarding the location
of large facilities may involve the need to balance solely research-led
considerations with other factors.
— DIUS should be placing a greater
focus on strategic coordination of public dialogue and encouraging
mature debate with society.
— All relevant Parliamentary Select
Committees should have a role in scrutinising how the evidence
from research is used in Government policy formulation. Embedding
scrutiny more widely in Government would more effectively embed
the use of research in policy-making.
1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership
set up to champion the research supported by the seven UK Research
Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils
to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact
and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities,
contributing to the delivery of the Government's objectives for
science and innovation. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk
2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK on
behalf of all Research Councils and represents their independent
views. It does not include or necessarily reflect the views of
the Science and Innovation Group in the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills. The submission is made on behalf of the
following Councils:
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) (separate
response also submitted)
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
(separate response also submitted)
3. All Research Councils have contributed
to the main text of this response.
DEFINITIONS
4. Government has been defined to include
the devolved administrations.
5. Science and engineering has been interpreted
to include all aspects of research, including knowledge based
on scholarship and research undertaken in the physical, biological,
engineering, medical, natural and social disciplines, and the
arts and humanities.
6. RCUK considers that the whole research
spectrum, including the arts and humanities, is relevant to evidence-based
policy-making. In a complex world, traditional science disciplines
can only offer part of the picture; policy makers need to ensure
that they draw on expertise from all areas of research. Evidence
from research as a whole should be used to inform Government at
all levels and drive forward decision and policy-making.
7. RCUK recommends that this inquiry is
expanded to include the views of the arts and humanities research
community, given the number of responses made to consultations
and inquiries by the AHRC and their community of researchers.
Further details can be found in the AHRC's response to this inquiry,
which has been submitted separately.
8. It is important to distinguish between
i) using research to influence a broad range of policies, and
ii) influencing "science and engineering" policy, and
the role of various bodies in both. There is overlap, but the
two are not the same.
RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC POINTS
Q1. Whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science
and Innovation and the Council for Science and Technology put
science and engineering at the heart of policy-making and whether
there should be a Department for Science
9. We welcome the attendance of the Science
Minister at Cabinet meetings. This is a positive step towards
ensuring that science and engineering is embedded at the heart
of policy-making, and should now be built upon. As highlighted
in paragraph 6, we consider that there is value across the whole
research spectrum and research could usefully be incorporated
into the Minister's title.
10. The current departmental arrangement sensibly
brings together innovation, higher education and research. This
enables Research Councils to work closely with HEFCE, for example
on the Research Excellence Framework, as well as with other NDPBs
such as the TSB, NESTA, and the Design Council. As higher education
is a devolved matter, Research Councils also maintain similar
close working relationships with HEFCW, SFC and DEL NI, as well
as other relevant departments in the devolved administrations.
11. The inclusion of "Science" in the
title of DIUS, mirroring the Select Committee, would be welcomed.
Given recent changes in departmental structure, RCUK does not
consider the creation of a Department for Science to be a priority
at this time. While the creation of a Department for Science would
bring visibility and prominence it could also lead to the perception
that science in Government is being covered there, a consequence
of which could be to remove its due consideration in other departments.
It is important that debates such as this do not distract attention
from the need to make the relatively new departmental structure
and other existing structures as effective as possible in ensuring
that science and research feed into evidence-based policy making.
12. The coordination of departmental science
funds should be improved. There are deficiencies in the deployment
of these funds by some departments, and an ongoing failure to
apply Research Council Institute and Public Sector Research Establishment
Sustainability Study (RIPSS) principles.
13. RCUK acknowledges the Council for Science
and Technology's recommendation from its recent report "How
Academia and Government Can Work Together" that
government departments, Universities, Research Councils and Learned
Societies should work collectively to identify and create a set
of exchange mechanisms, including internship and secondment schemes,
and promulgate them widely. Research Councils are already active
in this area and examples of some of our people exchange mechanisms
are provided in paragraph 34.
14. The Council for Science and Technology
(CST) is a potentially valuable source of advice. The Government
should ensure that it acts on this advice and consider further
how best to maximise the CST's value and impact in policy development.
Q2. How Government formulates science and
engineering policy (strengths and weaknesses of the current system)
15. The Research Councils' independence
of Government is a vital strength of the current system. The
advice Research Councils are required by charter to provide is
thus also properly independent. Independence from Government is
essential to maintain public confidence in the advice provided.
16. Research Councils operate a number of fellowship
schemes, internships, placements and workshops which aim to promote
knowledge exchange between academic and government departments,
and ensure policies are developed on the basis of evidence from
research. Examples of these are provided in paragraph 34.
17. RCUK believes that all policies should
be evidence-based. As highlighted in paragraph 8, it is important
to distinguish the use of research in broad policy-making and
the formulation of research policy.
Use of Research in Policy-Making
18. Policy-makers should seek and use advice
and evidence from a wide range of sources, including relevant
stakeholders and the general public. Research Councils have access
to experts across all research areas, and can provide a useful
resource for Government in identifying whom to consult on policy
issues.
19. RCUK welcomes the Government's efforts to
consult more widely in policy formulation; however information
should be provided on what happens to the inputs from consultations,
identifying where and how responses have had an impact in shaping
the policy. Consultations should be conducted at the outset to
ensure they influence policy formulation at the very early stages.
20. The appointment of Chief Scientific
Advisors (CSAs) in government departments is highly beneficial
for helping to ensure that evidence from research is used in formulating
policies. Consideration should be given to extending these appointments
to include CSAs in all relevant government departments potentially
on a full-time basis.
21. CSAs could be better integrated into
departments by giving them an appropriate level of authority and
budget to translate discussions on evidence-based policy-making
into actions. Chief Economists, Chief Social Researchers and Chief
Statisticians should also have their roles strengthened in a similar
way.
22. The method for appointing CSAs in the
UK through open competition and on the basis of their expertise
is a real strength and must continue.
23. New mechanisms are needed for effective
cross-departmental coordination of policies, which draw on the
wider research base. There is also a need to ensure that long
term sustained environmental observations (necessary to track
and inform policy) can be supported.
Development of Research Policy
24. Research policy development should be
longer term and carefully considered, because research is usually
carried out over a long timeframe. This is particularly the case
for areas that involve significant investment over prolonged periods,
for example, scientific facilities or international collaborations.
The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) is making
a separate submission to this inquiry describing these considerations
in greater detail. The work of all departments should be within
the context of the Government's 10 Year Science and Innovation
Investment Framework.
25. As argued in relation to the use of research
in all policy making, there should be greater transparency in
government research policy formulation and RCUK should be consulted
as a matter of routine on these important issues.
26. Likewise, when Government consults with
stakeholders, as much contextual information as possible should
be provided at the earliest opportunity to ensure there is time
for considered input, and Government should make clear how the
responses to their consultations have been used to inform research
policy development.
27. Government consultation with Research
Councils worked effectively in the development of the policy on
full economic costing. Research Councils were fully involved at
an early stage and helped to ensure that the policy reflected
the views and interests of all relevant parties. We welcome that
the Research Councils were also consulted on the GO Science "Code
of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees" which
we believe to be well-considered and appropriate.
28. However, the recently published Annual
Innovation Report is an example of where it would have been beneficial
for Government to involve the Research Councils more closely in
discussions.
Research Council Links with Government Departments
29. Most Research Councils have direct links
with government departments and provide input into policy development
through a variety of mechanisms, including concordats, representation
on advisory bodies, and collaborative funding, as well as secondments
to government departments as highlighted in paragraph 34. Specific
examples include:
— The Core Issues Group, which includes
the CSAs of government departments and the Chief Executives of
the Research Councils and had its first meeting in July 2008.
— AHRC has links with numerous government
departments via projects funded as part of responsive mode funding,
strategic programmes and research centres. For example, the Director
of the AHRC's Diasporas, Migration and Identities Programme was
commissioned by the Home Office to produce a review of arts and
humanities research literature relating to "The Roots,
Practices and Consequences of Terrorism". The Design
Against Crime Research Centre, with some its projects funded by
the AHRC, has provided advice on crime reduction to the Prime
Minister's Strategy Unit. The AHRC also has a Concordat with the
Home Office, and several more are being developed with other departments.
— BBSRC has working links with all
relevant government departments, particularly Defra and, increasingly,
DfID. Representatives from the BBSRC senior executive and research
community sit on policy advisory bodies, for example the Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), NPL Advisory
Committee and the TSEs funding forum. In addition, Defra commissions
a significant amount of policy-focused research from the BBSRC
sponsored institutes.
— EPSRC has links with several government
departments, including working extensively with DfT on joint calls
and having a co-funding scheme with MoD (along with other Research
Councils). As a specific example, EPSRC has the tools to work
with DfT to tailor knowledge to specific policy challenges in
sustainable transport. The CSA for DfT and BERR, Brian Collins,
is on the EPSRC User Panel and the MoD CSA, Mark Welland, is on
EPSRC Council. Both MoD and DfT are listed as EPSRC strategic
partners.
— ESRC has concordats with a number
of government departments, in which research priorities and strategies
are regularly discussed, as well as policy requirements for evidence
and other items of mutual interest. Advice is also provided to
government departments outside of the usual concordat arrangements.
ESRC co-funds a number of research initiatives with government
departments; for example, the ESRC and DfID have a joint research
funding scheme focused on poverty reduction in developing countries.
ESRC also co-funded research on Scottish demography with The Scottish
Government. An example of ESRC research investments influencing
policy is through the work of the Centre for Economic Performance
(established by the ESRC in 1990), which has influenced policies
including the Working Families Tax Credit Scheme and the National
Minimum Wage. ESRC has also held public policy seminars.
— MRC has links with a number of government
departments, the most formal ones being with DH/OSCHR and DfID,
but also with the devolved administrations. On OSCHR, the strategies
of MRC and NIHR are being aligned and there is agreement on which
body takes the lead in a number of areas.[131]
With DfID there are continuing discussions concerning identification
of priorities; DfID provides funding to MRC of about £9 million
per annum.
— NERC and Defra have a close relationship
through regular meetings of the Chief Executive of NERC and the
Defra CSA, as well as working level collaborations between Defra
and the NERC community; for example many NERC staff have commented
on Defra and EA science strategies, have direct working relations
with Defra and EA project officers and sit on Defra/EA Theme Advisory
Groups. NERC initiated the science-policy partnership programme,
Living With Environmental Change, which has 18 partners
including six research councils, 11 departments of state,
government and agencies and one trading fund (the Met Office).
NERC also collaborates with other relevant government departments
both on a bilateral basis and through forums, for example the
Environmental Research Funders Forum (ERFF), the cross-Departmental
Marine Science Coordinating Committee (MSCC), and the UK Collaborative
on Development Sciences (UKCDS). NERC also co-funds a number of
research programmes with government department partners, for example,
the Ecosystems Services and Poverty Alleviation programme with
DfID (and ESRC) and the Sustainable Marine Bioresources programme
with Defra and the Scottish and Northern Ireland governments.
— STFC and NERC have links with government
departments through the British National Space Centre partnership.
— STFC has numerous links with UK Government
departments as well as working with the Scottish Government and
the Welsh Assembly Government. Within the UK it has close relationships
with both the Northwest Regional Development Agency and the South
East England Development Agency, within whose regions the STFC
Science and Innovation Campuses are based. STFC also works extensively
with the international scientific community with regard to investments
both in the UK and abroad, and this includes working with European
Union bodies and institutions as well as with Governments around
the world; this is achieved in collaboration with the appropriate
UK Government representation and support.
Q3. Whether the views of the science and engineering
community are, or should be, central to the formulation of government
policy, and how the success of any consultation is assessed
30. The professional views of the research
community are essential to effective policy formulation. Government
consultations should be better coordinated, with greater clarity
on who is being consulted (individuals, organisations or sectors)
and on the information the Government needs. The systems should
ensure that it is straight forward for organisations, as well
as individuals, to respond.
31. Feedback should be provided on how the evidence
submitted in response to consultations has been used, or where
it has not been used. This would help encourage the research community
in particular to provide input to consultations and ensure that
policies are based on the most relevant and up-to-date evidence.
A further incentive would be to reward research used in policy
development through the Funding Councils' Research Excellence
Framework (REF). RCUK is working closely with HEFCE on revised
proposals for the REF to ensure that measures of impact relating
to economic benefit, contribution to public policy, development
of practice in the public and private sectors, and public engagement
are included in the new assessment system.[132]
32. Formal evaluations provide a useful
method for assessing the success of consultations. The planned
evaluation of the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
(HFE) Bill through pre-legislative stages and Parliament could
provide a good model; this will include an analysis of the effect
of evidence submitted by the MRC, the Academy of Medical Sciences,
the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Association of Medical
Research Charities.
33. An international perspective may be
useful in considering alternative mechanisms and strategies for
helping ensure research community input into policy formulation:
— The US Government obtains advice
from a wide range of sources with its think tanks playing a much
greater role than in the UK. Approximately 100 12-month fellowships
are awarded each year, which place researchers into public policy
roles within the federal government; these are very successful
and highly regarded.
— The Swedish Government consults widely
on research bills to Parliament, and the science and engineering
community are fully engaged. In Autumn 2008 the Swedish Government
presented a Research Bill for the period 2009-2012. The Research
Councils, Vinnova (the Swedish Innovation Agency), HEIs and several
authorities were tasked by the Government with submitting research,
knowledge and innovation strategies. A total of around one hundred
authorities and organisations submitted their strategies, which
formed the basis of the Government's assessments of the initiatives
presented in the Bill.
— The German Science Council is Germany's
independent science policy advisory body, and is directly comparable
to the CST. It is generally considered that the German Science
Council has a greater influence in policy development than the
CST.
— France makes greater use of secondments
from the research community to Government, for example to the
Ministries of Higher Education, Research, Industry and Health,
or into the President's Cabinet (as highly influential special
advisers).
— The Spanish Government ensures full
participation of all stakeholders in the development of their
National Plan for R&D. They also intend to develop a New Law
of Science, and have consulted with the research community through
a number of "Discussion Sessions in S&T".
Research Council People Exchange Schemes
34. Research Councils operate a number of
fellowship schemes, internships, placements and workshops which
aim to promote knowledge exchange between academic and government
departments, and help ensure policies are developed on the basis
of evidence from research. Examples include:
— Secondments from the Research Councils
to DIUS: most recently Dr Mike Davies has been seconded from the
MRC, Dr Neil Viner has been seconded from EPSRC, and Dr Caroline
Fenwick has been seconded from NERC.
— BBSRC and NERC operate 3-month policy
secondments for PhD students to prepare briefing material and
reports at the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology
(POST).[133],[134]
The NERC scheme also includes secondments to the Scottish Parliament
Information Centre, the Members' Research Service, Wales, and
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
— The ESRC placement fellowship scheme[135]
and the NERC policy placement Scheme,[136]
allow researchers to spend time in a partner organisation (eg
Government department, devolved administration) to undertake policy-relevant
research and upgrade the research skills of partner organisation
employees. Placements have been offered with a large number of
government departments, including the DCMS and the FCO. One ESRC
placement fellow helped Defra develop its approach to evidence-based
policy-making, focusing on the process of formal written consultation.
Both ESRC and NERC have also started offering "reverse"
placement fellowships where government researchers spend time
undertaking a project in an HEI, or within the NERC scheme, at
NERC head office or a NERC funded centre.
— The ESRC Knowledge Transfer Learning
and Development workshops[137]
aim to increase understanding of how research can be applied to
inform policy and practice. A jointly funded ESRC/NERC workshop,
entitled "Engaging with the Public Sector", for PhD
students with a research interest in Climate Change, was held
on the 1st-2nd December 2008 at Herriot Watt Conference Centre,
Edinburgh. NERC is planning further workshops based on this model
with other partners, for example the British Ecological Society.
Q4. The case for a regional science policy
(versus national science policy) and whether the Haldane principle
needs updating
35. RCUK fully supports the Haldane principle,
in particular its fundamental role in underpinning the independence
of the Research Councils. In a policy development context, it
enables Research Councils to provide and to be seen to provide
independent advice to Government to support policy-making, which
builds and maintains public confidence in this process. There
is an appropriate level of tension in the present arrangements
and this must be protected.
36. RCUK endorses the Government's responsibility
for setting the over-arching strategy and framework for the research
base. Within this framework, however, Research Councils develop
their own strategies and priorities and make individual funding
decisions based on thorough and detailed peer review. The central
criterion for funding research is excellence, defined in its widest
sense.
37. Research funding is not a devolved matter.
Research Councils have a UK-wide remit and fund institutions that
demonstrate excellence through peer review regardless of their
location. Nevertheless we work closely with the devolved administrations
to ensure a mutual understanding of strategies.
38. We expect that where there is a clear
research advantage to be derived from siting a large facility
at a particular location that this would have a strong weight
in any site decision. Where the research advantages are less clear,
all relevant factors should be considered, including the presence
of complementary facilities; previous investment in a particular
location; local or on-site expertise; the local scientific community;
local businesses; access to transport and communications; strategic
regional development opportunities; and appropriate fit within
wider political considerations.
Q5. Engaging the public and increasing public
confidence in science and engineering policy
39. RCUK commends the establishment by DIUS
of the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, which helps policy-makers
commission and use public dialogue to inform policy decisions.
Early stage dialogue with the public is essential in ensuring
that the impact of research is maximised and that public confidence
in policy-making is sustained.
40. Research Councils have played an active role
in ensuring that public views have influenced and shaped our own
research policies. Three recent examples involve using public
dialogue to identify concerns and aspirations around emerging
research opportunities:
Nanotechnology for Healthcare
The findings from the public dialogue in nanotechnology
were used alongside advice from the research and user community
in the development of the scope of the nanotechnology for healthcare
grand challenge call. Critical to its success was the use of independent
facilitators to conduct the dialogue, and the involvement of academic
researchers and EPSRC staff throughout the process.
Ageing
Results from the BBSRC/MRC public consultation on
ageing research has helped shape the cross-Council initiative
on Lifelong Health and Wellbeing, for example by ensuring that
the initiative encompassed prevention research throughout life,
an area identified as a priority by the public.
Stem Cells
The stem cell consultation initiated by the Research
Councils and funded by Sciencewise, was the largest ever public
and stakeholder (including science, medicine, industry, ethics
and religion) dialogue on stem cells in the UK, and the findings
were published in December 2008. They showed conditional support
for all avenues of stem cell research, and identified issues around,
for example, investment and coordination between public and private
sectors, clinical trials, and communication of uncertainties.
41. Public dialogue is a useful generic tool
in developing the strategy and direction for specific research
areas, under the right circumstances. It is one of the many advice
streams that need to be considered when developing research strategy
and priorities.
42. DIUS should be placing a greater focus
on strategic coordination of public dialogue and on encouraging
mature debate with society. At present, the priority appears to
be exciting the public with science. Whilst in itself this can
be worthwhile, according to the RCUK/DIUS public attitudes to
science survey 2008, there is already a very positive attitude
towards science, with 82% "amazed by science"—up
from 75% in 2000. It may therefore be more useful to focus on
raising public awareness of the contribution of scientific research
across the board, and engendering a sense of public ownership
of research endeavours.
43. DIUS recently consulted on "A
Vision for Science and Society: a consultation on developing a
new strategy for the UK". RCUK welcomed the strategy
which set out a commitment to leadership and a national approach
coordinated by DIUS, which placed dialogue with the public at
its centre, as well as recognising and addressing the complex
relationships between science and industry.
44. We also sought clarity on DIUS's views
of its own role, capabilities and expectations in relation to
Science and Society, and on how DIUS planned to lead the community
and other government departments, and provide incentives for partners
to work together more effectively.
45. RCUK considers that the Government should
make every effort to ensure that the channels of communication
over which it has control deliver accurate information. All stakeholders
have a part to play in influencing other channels of communication
to do the same.
Q6. The role of GO-Science, DIUS and other
Government departments, charities, learned societies, Regional
Development Agencies, industry and other stakeholders in determining
UK science and engineering policy
46. Research Councils play a key role in
leading and influencing the debate on UK research policy. UK research
policy is not "owned" by any one stakeholder; all stakeholders
contribute to its development and this is a real strength.
47. All policies should be evidence-based and
a broad range of stakeholders should be consulted in their formulation,
for example the Learned Societies. There have been several reports
from Learned Societies which have been useful in informing research
policy development; Learned Societies should continue to produce
these and Government should continue to use them. The Royal Society
and Royal Academy of Engineering report "Nanoscience and
nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties", which
was published in 2004, is a good example of the contribution that
Learned Societies can make.
48. Public sector procurement has an important
role to play in shaping research priorities as it stimulates innovation
and research, and can be an efficient driver to ensure the future
provision of essential products and services.
Q7. How government science and engineering
policy should be scrutinised
49. The IUSS Select Committee already has
an important role in scrutinising the use of research in the development
of research and other policies, and RCUK believes that a similar
approach should be adopted by all relevant Parliamentary Select
Committees in scrutinising how the evidence from research is used
in Government policy formulation. Embedding such scrutiny more
widely in Government would more effectively embed the use of research
in policy-making.
50. RCUK welcomes the refreshing of the Science
Reviews conducted by GO Science and believe that these should
continue.
51. We also welcome independent reviews
in all policy areas, noting that these tend to be in response
to developments. A longer term view of research policy development
would allow for these to be built into strategies from the outset.
January 2009
131 www.nihr.ac.uk/files/pdfs/OSCHR_Progress_Report_18.11.08.pdf
Back
132
The RCUK response to the HEFCE consultation on the REF can be
found on our website:
www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/consultations/ref.pdf
Back
133
www.bbsrc.ac.uk/business/people_information/parliamentary_fellowships.html Back
134
www.nerc.ac.uk/using/schemes/secondments.asp
Back
135
www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/KnowledgeExch/Government.aspx
Back
136
www.nerc.ac.uk/using/publicsector/placements.asp
Back
137
www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/KnowledgeExch/KTlandDWorkshops.aspx
Back
| 
