Memorandum submitted by the Wellcome Trust
(FC 23)
1. The Wellcome Trust is the largest charity
in the UK. It funds innovative biomedical research, in the UK
and internationally, spending over £600 million each
year to support the brightest scientists with the best ideas.
The Wellcome Trust supports public debate about biomedical research
and its impact on health and wellbeing.
2. The Trust welcomes the opportunity to
respond to this consultation. Given the short timeframe, and the
breadth of issues the Committee has identified, our response is
necessarily brief. We would be happy to participate in subsequent
evidence sessions if the Committee requires further information
on any of these issues.
3. The Wellcome Trust is opposed to cuts
to public spending on science, engineering and technology (SET).
Such cuts are not consistent with the evidence that exists for
the substantial economic benefits that result from investment
in research. The report "Medical Research: what is it
worth",[3]
estimated that every pound invested in
UK cardiovascular disease research between 1975-92 produced
an ongoing stream of benefits equivalent to earning £0.39 per
year in perpetuity. The report also illustrated the substantial
time lag between research expenditure and the realisation of benefits,
suggesting that investment in research requires a stable, long-term
commitment.
4. We also note that, while the UK is discussing
cuts to spending, other nations have responded to the economic
crisis by substantially increasing their investment in SET. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 made a $10 billion
commitment to scientific research, facilities and instrumentation,
including $2 billion for biomedical research within the National
Institutes of Health, $3 billion for the National Science
Foundation and $1.9 billion for basic research in the physical
sciences. Germany, France, Australia, South Korea and Canada are
other nations that have committed to substantial increases in
science budgets as part of their recession response packages.
If the UK wants to safeguard its leading position in global science
we should be seeking to increase, not reduce, our investment.
5. Cuts to SET spending are also not consistent
with the UK public's strong support for scientific research. A
2009 Wellcome Trust survey that investigated adults' and
young people's awareness, knowledge and attitudes regarding biomedical
science found that 95% of adults and 93% of young people thought
that "medical research should be supported and encouraged,
even if a lot of public money would need to be invested."
6. If spending cuts are seen to be necessary
in spite of the strong arguments for maintaining and increasing
investment, the Trust suggests that the following set of principles
should be used to guide decision-making:
— Take a long-term view: The process for
deciding where to make cuts in SET spending must be based on a
long-term strategy that recognises the inter-dependencies between
research, innovation and education. The Trust considers that the
long-term approach taken in the Science and Innovation Investment
Framework 2004-2014 has played a major role in the success
of British science over the last decade, and we would urge Government
not to abandon this long-term approach in the face of short-term
economic constraints.
— Retain a diversity of funding mechanisms:
The Wellcome Trust strongly supports the continuation of the dual
support system for university research, which recognises that
HEFCE and Research Council funding are provided for different
purposes and require different allocation mechanisms. If cuts
to SET spending are necessary, it is important that these do not
disproportionately impact on one part of the dual support system.
— Support partnerships with other funders:
Partnerships between Government and third parties, including charities,
will be very important in maintaining levels of SET funding through
the recession. Charities have contributed over £4 billion
to the UK research base over the past five years. The Charity
Research Support Fund is an important component of the dual support
system that ensures that charities can continue to play a major
role as funders of medical research in UK universities. Government
must commit to provide adequate funding to the CRSF over the longer-term.
— Support a mix of applied research and
research that has yet to be applied: The Trust has significant
reservations about the feasibility of HEFCE's recent proposals
for measuring the economic impact of research within the Research
Excellence Framework. We support attempts to improve understanding
of the broader of impacts of research, but there are substantial
risks associated with using impact as a tool to prioritise research
funding. Such an approach is likely to skew the existing balance
of funding towards research with clear short-term application,
at the expense of fundamental research which may lead to important
applications in the future.
— Focus on core priorities: At funding
agency level, the Trust's view is that deep, narrow cuts are likely
to be less damaging than broad shallow cuts. Budget cuts should
be managed by focusing funding on core priorities (and potentially
funding a smaller number of grants overall), rather than reducing
the size and scope of individual grants.
— Develop and sustain national research
infrastructure: Over the past decade the Government has made significant
commitments to major research infrastructure. Some of these have
been made in partnership with other funders — such as the
Diamond Light Source, where the Wellcome Trust provided 14% of
the project costs. To ensure long-term sustainability of such
facilities it is essential that operational funding requirements
are considered alongside capital funding commitments. We welcome
the development of the Large Facilities Road Map, which has enabled
the Government to become more strategic with investment in capital
funding, considering competing priorities across all disciplines.
7. In relation to STFC, the Trust welcomes
the recent reprioritisation exercise, and the review of structural
issues that is currently underway. This should assist in managing
some of the tensions associated with combining research grant-making
and support for large scientific facilities within a single funding
agency. Funding models for large scientific facilities must enable
funders to separate issues of longer-term planning for facilities
and their use from shorter-term budgetary cycles.
8. The Trust would also like to highlight
the important opportunity presented by the UK Centre for Medical
Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)—a partnership of four of
the world's most influential and respected scientific research
organisations: Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council,
UCL (University College London) and the Wellcome Trust. As a flagship
programme for four funders and one that will greatly enhance national
capability, UKCMRI should be considered a national priority.
9. Finally, we would like to emphasise the
importance of transparency and openness in relation to potential
cuts in spending. The recently announced spending cuts have created
significant anxiety in the scientific community, exacerbated by
a lack of clarity about the full extent of cuts and where these
are likely to fall. Adopting a transparent and consultative decision-making
process, and providing clear information about the decisions that
have been made, will be an important factor in maintaining the
confidence of the UK science community through this difficult
period.
3 Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health
Economics, RAND Europe (2008) http://www.brunel.ac.uk/385/other/TAP825EconomicBenefitsReportFULLWeb.pdf Back
|
