Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Medical Research Charities (FC 78)
The Association of Medical Research Charities
(AMRC) is a membership organisation of the leading medical and
health research charities in the UK. In 2008-09 AMRC's 120 member
charities spent approximately £935 million on medical and
health research in the UK.[113]
Working with its membership and external partners, AMRC aims to:
— Provide services and support that enable
member charities to be effective research funders.
— Demonstrate leadership in developing
solutions to key issues and challenges facing the sector.
— Influence the external environment so
that it is enabling of the work of medical research charities.
We are pleased to respond to the Committee's
inquiry. Our comments are based on evidence-gathering from, and
interactions with, member charities during the course of the economic
downturn thus far. We have necessarily concentrated our submission
on those issues most pertinent to our members and are aware that
a number of our 120 members intend to submit their own evidence
to the Committee.
MEDICAL RESEARCH
CHARITIES IN
THE RECESSION
AMRC has been tracking the impact of the recession
on medical research charities through a regular six-monthly online
survey. Our latest survey conducted in the autumn of last year
highlighted the following:
— 68% of member charities who responded
to the survey described the impact of the recession as "very
significant" or "significant"; 28% described the
impact of the recession as "not very significant at all".
— In terms of income, investments and corporate
giving were quoted as being most affected by the recession followed
by public donations and legacies.
— Member charities have employed a number
of tactics to mitigate the impact of the recession including:
co-funding/collaborative partnerships (29%); decreasing the number
of awards (19%); decreasing the amount for new awards (19%) or;
delayed new initiatives (14%). A number have adopted more than
one of these tactics.
— 54% of member charities said that they
had not changed or revised their funding profile or streams as
a result of the recession. However, of those charities that had,
most (35%) cited project grants as the focus for any change in
approach.
— Looking ahead to the new financial year
(2010-11), 63% of charities expect to keep their research expenditure
at the same levels as this year, 21% plan to increase research
funding and 8% plan to reduce their funding.[114]
The last finding suggests a slightly more optimistic
outlook within the sector than suggested by our previous survey
in March 2009 when under a tenth of member charities who responded
(9.3%) said they expected to increase their funding in 2009-10,
approximately half (51.9%) planned to keep research funding at
the same level as the previous year, and a quarter (25.9%) planned
to reduce their funding.[115]
However this optimism is tempered by continuing
concerns about the impact on members of a lengthy and/or double-dip
recession scenario which could exhaust current strategies they
are adopting to maintain funding and/or the impact of public funding
cuts not only in higher education but public services provision.
Many of our members are provide care services for patients as
well as fund research and may face significant dilemmas as to
how best to apportion funding to meet patient needs. In sum, the
current economic climate is very difficult for charities as it
is for other sectors, and the expectation is that it will remain
so for the foreseeable future.
GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES
IN THE
RECESSION
AMRC continues to support the overall thrust
of the "Science and innovation investment framework 2004-14"
and believe that the Government has made progress towards achieving
its stated objectives in this document. However, our members have
three broad concerns at this time:
— The lack of discernible policy discussion
or engagement about what comes next after the 2004-14 framework
which is compounding funder uncertainty in the current economic
climate. It will be important that Government lay down a framework
which is consistent with the current approach and which articulates
clear objectives and expectations for the future.
— The lack of transparency about the key
determinants of spending cuts on science and research and where
they will fall. For instance, in the field of medical and health
research, the Government has yet to publish the outcome of its
National Ambitions and UK Health Priorities exercise co-ordinated
by the Office for the Strategic Co-ordination for Health Research
(OSCHR). If these are to be influential in driving future funding
decisions then they should be published and open to scrutiny.
Not least because it will enable medical research charities to
make considered choices about their own funding, whether to align
with these priorities or invest in and support those areas which
fall outside of them.
— The ongoing reluctance of the Government
to commit to mechanisms that support charity funded research—such
as the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF)—is a concern
for many of our members. This message was echoed in the Research
Councils UK/Universities UK review of fEC[116]
in 2009 as well as by the representative associations in the higher
education sector. Charities are integral funders of research in
the UK and we believe that the CRSF is fundamental to the ongoing
partnership between the charity sector and Government.
THE ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL
IMPACT OF
RESEARCH
While the current concern over estimating economic
impact is understandable, AMRC would urge that the science community
as a whole look to articulate and demonstrate impact in much broader
socio-economic terms as explored in the Wellcome Trust and Academy
of Medical Sciences 2008 report "Medical Research: What's
it worth?"
The Committee may be aware that AMRC submitted
evidence to the ongoing House of Lords inquiry into funding priorities
and, as part of this, conducted a survey with member charities.
Almost half the member charities who responded to this survey
(48%) said they did not feel that public funding is sufficiently
aligned with societal needs and only 16% did. However, the primary
concern expressed in member charity comments focused on the need
to ensure that funding was focused on long-term objectives rather
than short-term aims. As one member charity, Cancer Research UK,
said:
The primary objective for publicly funded biomedical
research should be to improve the health and well-being of the
nation now and in the future. Whilst improving health and well-being
should always be the priority for biomedical research we recognise
that biomedical research in the UK also provides skilled employment,
attracts inward investment and generates revenue.
When public spending cuts are likely, there is
a risk that Research Councils will over-prioritise research more
likely to make an impact in the short to medium term in an effort
to maximise budget allocation from central Government. Ultimately
any sudden response could starve the biomedical research pipeline
of innovation, and could damage the UK's reputation as a destination
for investment. Government must recognise the importance of basic
and public health research when allocating budgets.
The Committee may also wish to note that many
medical research charities are now conducting increasingly robust
impact assessments and evaluations of their funding stream.[117]
Examples can be provided to the Committee if helpful.
Simon Denegri
Chief Executive
Association of Medical Research Charities
January 2010
113 Based on AMRC Member Subscription Data collected
in 2008-09. Back
114
AMRC online survey of member charities conducted in October/November
2009. Back
115
AMRC online survey of member charities conducted in March 2009. Back
116
Research Councils UK and Universities UK. RCUK/UUK Review of the
Impact of Full Economic Costing on the UK Higher Education Sector
2009. Back
117
See AMRC blog on `Research Impact' on January 15th 2010: http://ceoamrc.wordpress.com/ Back
| 
