Memorandum submitted by Cancer Research
UK (FC 57)
SUMMARY
A world class science base in the UK is vital
to maintaining and enhancing the health and wealth of the nation
now and in the future. We want the UK Governments to commit to
providing stable and long-term funding for biomedical research.
Whilst we recognise cuts may be necessary, there are some areas
that must be protected.
The UK is in a unique position in relation to
cancer research funding with Government and charities acting as
equal partners, each providing roughly 50% of total funding. In
the current economic climate we are particularly concerned that
the long-term sustainability of cancer research in higher education
institutions is protected through the continued provision of Government
funding to support charity research. This is important to provide
benefits to patients.
Medical research should have an impact—ultimately
in terms of benefit to patients and the public. However, we remain
cautious about our current ability to assess impact effectively
and consistently. Consequently, we would recommend against using
a measure of "impact" to help decide where funding cuts
should be made.
Cancer Research UK is entirely funded by the
public and in 2008/09 we spent £355 million on research,
supporting the work of more than 4,500 scientists, doctors and
nurses. We are the world's leading charity dedicated to cancer
research and the largest independent funder of cancer research
in Europe. We fund research into all aspects of cancer from exploratory
biology to clinical trials of novel and existing drugs as well
as population-based studies and prevention research.
Cancer Research UK welcomes the opportunity
to respond to this inquiry.
1. The process for deciding where to make
cuts in SET spending
In recent years, the UK has benefited from an
increase in Government investment in biomedical research though
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Medical
Research Council (MRC) and through supportive funding for charity-funded
research. In addition to Government funding, private investment
and a huge increase in charity funding via Cancer Research UK,
the Wellcome Trust and others, has led to more money for research.
This has reinvigorated the research effort, made the UK a world
leader in research, and led to benefits for the UK including the
return of researchers from overseas.
Biomedical research projects generally take
in the region of three to seven years to produce a result. The
recent cycle of huge spending increases followed by cuts is in
danger of destabilising the research effort. We recognise that
in the current financial climate cuts may be necessary, but we
believe great care must be taken to target cuts so as not to completely
unravel progress made in recent years.
It will be vital to protect areas where cuts
would be most damaging. This is particularly true for funding
provided through government/charity partnerships, where the charity
sector is highly unlikely to be able to make up any short fall
due to government cuts.
Protecting the unique relationship between government
and charity funding for research
The UK is unique in that charity funded research
is a major contributor to the strength and impact of the UK science
base, especially in medical sectors. Members of the Association
of Medical Research Charities provided funding of £935 million
for research in 2008-09 alone. This equates to a third of all
publicly funded research in the UK. In cancer research, charities
contribute as least as much as government to the direct costs
of doing research. It is important that there is sufficient support
for scientific research funded by charities and conducted in universities.
The results of the Research Assessment Exercise announced in December
2009 demonstrated the contribution that charities were making
to the quality of research conducted in UK universities. Cancer
studies received the top rating for all the scientific and medical-related
subjects, with around 80% of the studies being funded by charities,
the majority from Cancer Research UK. Medical research charities
have been able to fully integrate their work with universities,
and the collaborative environment that this has created has realised
significant benefits for science in the UK.
Cancer Research UK alone funded £165 million
of research in UK universities in 2008-09. Cancer Research UK
awards grants to support the direct costs of research in UK universities.
These direct costs make up a proportion of the full Economic Costs
(fEC) of research. These fEC must also take account of the universities'
infrastructure costs, which are funded by the Government. We believe
it is the responsibility of Government to cover the infrastructure
costs of research in universities so that more of the money generously
donated to us by the public can be spent directly on researching
cures for cancer. We estimate that a Cancer Research UK award
would provide on average 50% of the fEC. By contrast, Research
Council grants typically provide 80% of the fEC, with the expectation
that this will rise to 100% in future years. As a result, the
financial burden to universities of taking on charity awards is
greater, and consequently we believe universities are starting
to encourage their researchers to apply to other funders.
The Science and Innovation Framework in 2004
included commitments that Government would provide an additional
element of QR funding to support charity research in universities
in England, known as the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF).
The CRSF is allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE) based on research activity in universities.
It was originally indicated that the CRSF in
England would reach £270 million by 2010-11, however given
the current economic climate it is unlikely that this amount will
be reached. In December 2009 the Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills circulated the grant announcement letter
to HEFCE for the academic year 2010-11. Among £180 million
of efficiency savings, there was a commitment to protect research
funding, which we hope equates to a maintained level of CRSF in
line with that of 2009-10. However, we are awaiting a final announcement
from HEFCE, due in March 2010. There is no formal commitment to
the CRSF beyond 2010-11.
The continued existence of the CRSF and equivalents
affects the entire medical research landscape in the UK. Universities
and charities alike need to be able to plan their future funding
with the secure knowledge that the CRSF and equivalents will continue.
A "stop start" approach to CRSF funding would damage
to the research base, and could disproportionally affect progress
in cancer research. We believe that the Government has a responsibility
to maintain university infrastructure, to enable innovative charity
research to be funded on a competitive standing. This is essential
to the stability of the unique research landscape in the UK.
Continued support for jointly funded institutes
Cancer Research UK is partnering with the Medical
Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and University College London
to build the UKCMRI. The vision for the UKCMRI is to create a
world class research centre that will tackle some of the biggest
medical challenges we face. This will be the largest biomedical
research centre in Europe. The project aims to find new ways to
treat diseases such as cancer, and will bring together the best
scientists, doctors and researchers. Bringing together the leading
research organisations will allow scientists to collaborate widely
as well as share cutting-edge resources and knowledge. Continuing
to support the creation of this ground-breaking Institute will
be a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to investment
in science—and we were pleased to note the current Government's
commitment of £300 million restated by the Chancellor in
his pre-budget report. Any reduction in this support could delay
or even derail this exciting project. This would seriously limit
the scope of our national ambition in biomedical research for
decades.
Cancer Research UK and the MRC jointly fund
the Gray Institute for Radiation, Oncology and Biology in Oxford
(GI-ROB). GI-ROB is leading the way in re-establishing the UK
as a world leader in radiotherapy and radiobiology research. It
has only recently reached full operating capacity. Any reduction
of funding could seriously destabilise this institute.
How cuts might be made
(a) Concentration of funding in fewer institutions
Cancer Research UK has recently opted to concentrate
its research funding in up to 17 Cancer Research UK Centres, located
throughout the UK. Only locations judged to have a critical mass
of cancer research after a lengthy assessment were eligible to
apply to become Centres. We view a concentration of funding in
particular locations as a reasonable strategy to be explored when
considering how to minimise the overall impact of budget cuts.
However, there would need to be a robust procedure in place to
decide which locations should be targeted for different disciplines
within research.
(b) Cutting funding in areas viewed as having
lower strategic importance
In 2008 Cancer Research UK published its five
year Research Strategy. As part of this we undertook a review
of our research portfolio to decide what areas of research were
most important to us achieving our goals. As a result of this
exercise certain areas of research were viewed as a lower priority
for the Charity and a decision was taken to no longer fund in
these areas.
This decision was based on a clearly articulated
set of goals. By knowing exactly what we wanted our research portfolio
to deliver, we could assess what research would be most important
in helping us achieve these goals. We also recognised that the
areas of research excluded from our portfolio remained vitally
important in the fight against cancer. We continue to work to
ensure that these areas of research receive support from other
funding agencies, and will work in partnership with other funders
to sustain this research.
Cutting funding for areas of less strategic
importance depends on having clearly articulated goals and a comprehensive
strategy. As strategy and priorities can change over time, care
must also be taken not to irreparably damage any area of one research.
(c) Cutting funding in areas viewed as having
less impact
Cancer Research UK is committed to ensuring
that the research we fund ultimately has an impact on the health
and well-being of patients and the public. As yet there is no
robust way of measuring the potential impact of research. As such
Cancer Research UK would not recommend that an assessment of potential
future impact is taken into consideration when deciding which
areas of research to cut.
(d) Cutting funding across the board
Cancer Research UK believes that this option
is the least favourable, and that all other options should be
explored before implementing an across the board cut in funding.
2. Evidence on the feasibility or effectiveness
of estimating the economic impact of research, both from a historical
perspective (for QR funding) and looking to the future (for Research
Council grants)
Cancer Research UK is committed to ensuring
that the research we fund ultimately has an impact on patients
and the public. We are now starting to develop methods to assess
the impact of the research we have funded on health.
However the science of impact assessment of
research is in its infancy and it will be some time before we
will be confident in our methodology. Demonstrating the economic
benefits of research is an even tougher endeavour. Whilst it might
be said with relative confidence that biomedical research generates
economic returns it is not possible to discern the relative economic
impact that different types of research might have. This is particularly
complex when comparing basic versus applied research.
Whilst progress has been made on assessing the
economic impact of completed research, in our experience, accurately
assessing the potential impact of research yet to be completed
may be an unattainable goal. Impact is not something that can
be easily predicted. Trying to articulate potential impact of
a research project at the time of grant application will likely
therefore be an exercise in guess work. This is further complicated
if the course of a research project changes over time in response
to results being generated. We would urge caution in the use of
impact measures and their influence on decisions about what research
does or does not get funded.
Impact assessment and the Research Excellence
Framework
Whilst we strongly support the need for a greater
understanding of the impact that research can have on the health
and wealth of the nation, we believe there are a number of unanswered
questions about how the Research Excellence Framework (REF) will
attempt to include an assessment of impact. We are concerned about
the lack of clarity on the methodology that will be used to assess
the differential impact of different types of research (eg basic
versus applied). We believe developing this methodology will be
a challenging task and will take some time.
We are concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding
how impact will be credited. To illustrate this challenge we ask
what credit Watson, Crick and Franklin would have been afforded
for the invention of DNA fingerprinting made decades after their
discovery of the DNA code.
There is a real risk that this development will
have unintended and unwelcome consequences. We are concerned that
the inclusion of impact could artificially skew the composition
of university departments as they recruit researchers from fields
viewed to be of higher impact.
Given the huge difficulties in accurately assessing
impact, and as this methodology has not been previously tested,
we believe that the proposal that a quarter of the weight of the
REF assessment be based on impact is too high and should be reviewed.
3. The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
By their nature research institutes require
stable and predictable funding. In a financial squeeze, there
is only so much that can be cut from institute core budgets before
the institute becomes unviable. Funding for research infrastructure
is also a long-term commitment that cannot easily be cut without
compromising large numbers of research projects. In a time of
budget cuts it is almost inevitable that response mode funding
streams experience the greatest pressure in funding. Should investigators
find it too difficult to win response mode awards, they may consider
moving to other countries with more readily available funding.
We anticipate that any cut in available government
funds for research will result in a rise in applications to Cancer
Research UK. Whilst we have been able to maintain our research
spend through the current economic crisis, we would not be able
to meet this increase in demand and the success rates for our
applications would fall. We are also concerned that response-mode
funding for new awards will suffer disproportionately as funding
is tied up in existing long-term commitments.
4. The operation and definition of the science
budget ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be
a similar ring-fence for the Higher Education Funding Council
for England research budget and departmental research budgets
We believe that it is crucial that the Higher
Education Funding Council for England research budget is protected
and remains a strong Government commitment. In particular we want
a commitment to the Charity Research Support Fund which is a component
of the QR research budget that HEFCE allocates.
We hope you find our comments useful. We would
be happy to provide any further information or a representative
to give oral evidence as required.
January 2010
| 
