Science and international development

Written evidence submitted by Research Councils UK (Int Dev 25)


1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership set up to champion 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

2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. It does not include, or necessarily reflect the views of the Knowledge and Innovation Group in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The submission is made on behalf of the following Councils:

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)

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)

3. RCUK notes that this inquiry is a follow up to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s 2004 report into ‘The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy’. Given that this report contained some recommendations for the UK Research Councils, RCUK believed that a submission on the inquiry would provide the committee with an update on progress made since the report. This notably includes the establishment of UK Collaboration for Development Science (UKCDS) in 2006 as a direct response to the conclusions contained in the 2004 report. RCUK notes that UKCDS have also submitted evidence to this inquiry.

How does the UK Government support scientific capacity building in developing countries and how should it improve?

4. RCUK supports capacity building in developing countries via cross-Council and Council-specific research programmes often in partnership with DFID, by investments in international research facilities and through support for collaborative schemes.

Cross-Council working

5. Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) is a multi-disciplinary, £40.5M research programme involving NERC, ESRC and DFID. ESPA aims to deliver high quality and cutting-edge research that will develop improved understanding of how ecosystems function, the services they provide, the full value of these services, and their potential role in achieving sustainable poverty reduction. ESPA research will provide the evidence and tools to enable decision makers and end users to manage ecosystems sustainably and in a way that contributes to poverty reduction.

6. Part of the impact of the ESPA programme will be capacity building of people and institutions in developing countries [1] . There are two main themes for capacity strengthening in ESPA: (1) providing developing country researchers with the skills to undertake interdisciplinary research and (2) supporting the application of research to inform development practice. Applications led by and involving researchers in developing countries and collaborations between UK and overseas are encouraged, alongside bids from UK academics; this is a good way of helping to build scientific capacity in developing countries. The programme has held two funding rounds that were specifically designed to foster building capacity: Strengthening Research Capacity (2008) and Partnership and Programme Development (PPD) grants (2009). The purpose of the latter scheme was to facilitate development of trans-national interdisciplinary teams capable of bidding successfully for major consortium-scale projects (£2-4M each). Workshops were also held in developing countries to help to stimulate proposals, and the ESPA directorate has been established, part of the role of which is to help to foster scientific capacity in developing countries.

7. The MRC and DFID work with the Wellcome Trust, Department of Health and ESRC in coordinating UK policy on health research in developing countries through a funders forum established five years ago.


8. The Arts and Humanities Research Council does not have a specific collaboration with DFID, although has funded development relevant research, for example recent projects on the legal issues around global land purchase; on craft based industries and sustainable development; and on rights and religion in relation to development. Research on these type of issues is arguably important to development, which suggests that is wise to take a broad based approach when considering the range of areas in which to build capacity (i.e. including, for example, research on legal, ethical, religious, historical issues).


9. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has a productive and mutually-beneficial partnership with DFID which they are keen to develop further.

10. BBSRC and DFID work together to support agricultural research relevant to the needs of poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. They have jointly funded three programmes of research, each managed by BBSRC:

I. Sustainable Agriculture Research for International Development (SARID) - £7.3M awarded for 12 projects in 2008 [2] .

II. Combating Infectious Diseases of Livestock for International Development (CIDLID) - £13.5M (including additional funding from the Scottish Government) awarded for 16 projects in 2010 [3] .

III. Sustainable Crop Production Research for International Development (SCPRID) - up to £20.0M available (including additional funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Government of India) for projects to be assessed in December 2011 [4] .

All of the projects funded through these programmes are based on scientific collaborations between researchers in the UK and developing countries.

11. Whereas BBSRC exists primarily to support science of the highest international quality in the UK, DFID funds research in order to generate knowledge that will help directly to alleviate poverty in developing countries. Those aims are not mutually exclusive, and BBSRC and the Department are committed to working together flexibly to promote and support research that is both of high scientific quality and has substantial development relevance. In particular, in order to address their twin aspirations, BBSRC has developed, in consultation with DFID, tailored peer review and assessment processes that align the parallel requirements for quality and relevance in a common process to the satisfaction of both partners.

12. For its part, BBSRC is keen to encourage excellent researchers amongst the BBSRC-funded community to devote some of their effort to addressing problems that are directly relevant to the needs of agriculture in developing countries; an additional priority for DFID is to contribute to the enhancement of those countries’ own scientific capabilities. These aims have been similarly combined by incorporating in the assessment of proposals a rigorous scrutiny of the proposed trans-national partnership, with a view to ensuring both that it is based on a meaningful and balanced intellectual collaboration which will provide added value by bringing together complementary expertise, and that it has the potential to enhance the scientific capacity of southern partners for the longer term.

13. In addition, each of the three existing joint programmes has included a (progressively more explicit) formal capacity-building element. For SARID, grant-holders were able to apply for supplementary funding for capacity-building activities - for example, to enable the southern partners to extend the reach, beyond their own institutions, of capabilities they had developed during the projects. For CIDLID, wider capacity-building considerations formed a more explicit element of the initial project assessment process.

14. For SCPRID, the call for proposals set out a more substantive expectation that up to 10% of the funding requested by applicants would be for scientific capacity-building in developing countries. That might include activities to develop and strengthen the knowledge and skills of individuals, or to improve institutional structures and processes - for example, through knowledge-sharing events, international exchanges, mentoring schemes or training courses, as well as visits (of varied duration) to laboratories in other institutions (including those in other countries) by individuals of any level of seniority or experience (from doctoral students to principal investigators). As for SARID and CIDLID, proposals could also include requests for funding of doctoral research studentships for individuals from developing countries of Africa or South Asia (but the capacity-building component of the proposed project must also include other appropriate activities, not just the provision of support for studentships).

15. Additionally, a distinct element of the SCPRID call was targeted at early-to-mid career scientists from developing countries, who were invited to submit proposals for Projects for Emerging Agricultural Research Leaders (PEARLs). Under this aspect of the call, funding would be provided specifically for a small number of projects each initiated and led by a 'PEARL Fellow' whose full-time salary costs would be covered for the duration of the project.

16. The purpose of a PEARL is to enable the Fellow, as lead investigator, to devote himself or herself to the proposed project, and to spend significant periods of time working in another relevant laboratory outside his or her own country, as well as in his or her home institution which would be expected to relieve him or her of all teaching and administration duties for the duration of the award. The award of a PEARL is intended to contribute to improving the scientific capacity of the Fellow’s home institution in Africa or Asia, as well as enhancing his or her individual development and career progression. The response to this aspect of the call was relatively disappointing, for reasons that are not entirely clear but appear to include the reluctance of institutions to release potential Fellows from all of their existing responsibilities should an application be successful.

17. The capacity-building requirement of SCPRID and earlier programmes is intended primarily to enhance the capabilities of the national research programmes of individual countries, as distinct from international organisations (such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) whose institutions might be located in those countries. While all of the projects funded by BBSRC and DFID are based on partnerships between researchers in the UK and developing countries, the programmes’ success in facilitating local engagement with national programmes has been relatively limited.

18. The existence of BBSRC and DFID for different purposes is reflected in the different 'due processes' to which their activities are subject, but the Council has always found the Department to be open to discussion, and good working relationships have allowed the amicable resolution of any operational differences. However, there is one issue that has posed particular challenges. On the one hand, BBSRC is able to provide funding only to universities, Research Council institutes and certain other institutions in the UK. On the other hand, under the provisions of the International Development Act 2002, DFID funding cannot be 'tied' to particular countries or institutions. The extension to DFID’s research funding of the requirement that the UK’s aid funding must not be tied has presented some difficulties for the Council and the Department in defining the terms of institutional eligibility to apply for support from their joint funding schemes.

19. BBSRC’s preference is to require that any project funded jointly with DFID must include, as a minimum, one eligible scientific partner from the UK and one from a developing country (but with no restriction on the number or location of additional partners, or on the location of the researcher responsible for the overall scientific leadership of the proposal). Such a condition does not sit entirely comfortably alongside the requirement for DFID’s research funding to be accessible globally, but is preferred by BBSRC because of the Council’s aim to encourage excellent UK scientists to align their expertise with that of overseas collaborators in order to address problems of direct relevance to the needs of developing countries.

20. In addition, a fully open global call for research proposals has the potential to attract a very large number of applications disproportionate to the funding available, not only causing a heavy administrative workload but also, and more importantly, placing a very considerable burden on assessment panels and the peer review community, and increasing the likelihood of unfair outcomes from an over-loaded system as well as representing a great deal of wasted effort expended by the large proportion of unsuccessful applicants. Furthermore, in BBSRC’s experience of the SARID programme, for which the call was an open one, many of the applications that did not include a UK partner were of poor quality and uncompetitive in the assessment process. Understandably, aside from scientific considerations, there appear to be clear benefits to applicants from developing countries of being associated with a UK partner familiar with the practices and procedures of the Research Councils and their peer review systems.

21. Finally, effective capacity-building is a gradual process that needs to be viewed from a long-term perspective. Partnerships between researchers at the cutting-edge of their disciplines in the UK and colleagues in developing countries are well placed to enhance the scientific capabilities of the latter. However, continued interaction is necessary to enable such relationships to flourish and extend their influence more widely. In particular, there is a need for ongoing access to appropriate funding sources to sustain and develop international partnerships, not just occasional calls for proposals.

22. BBSRC and DFID continue to build on its good relationship by addressing several areas of interest (e.g. institutional eligibility, encouraging the best scientists to align their expertise and build capacity among developing countries’ collaborators to become familiar with the practices and procedures of the Research Councils and peer-review systems) and looking for solutions, and expanding their mutually-beneficial strategic partnership over the next few years.


23. In addition to ESPA, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) supports two further schemes in partnership with DFID, which have an element of scientific capacity building:

I. ESRC-DFID joint scheme for research on international development (poverty alleviation) was first established in 2005 with a total budget of £13M (£7.5M from ESRC and £6M from DFID). A second Phase started in 2009 with a total budget of £23M (£8M ESRC and £15M DFID). The scheme funds world-class scientific research on a broad range of topics to enhance the quality and impact of social science research and contribute to the achievement of the MDGs. As well as research excellence, all applicants have to demonstrate that research outputs have potential impact on poverty reduction and relevance to decision makers.

II. DFID-ESRC Growth Programme was established in 2010 with a budget of £10M. The Programme funds world-class scientific research on issues relating to inclusive economic growth in Low Income Countries (LICs), with high potential for impact on policy and practice.

24. These schemes use similar mechanisms to ESPA to support scientific capacity building (see paragraph 5). The scheme managers are clear that he focus is on capacity building through doing research and all applications must spell out how capacity building will be approached through the research programme. The ESRC-DFID Poverty Alleviation Strategic Advisory Team has a carried out a review of Southern led applications which will help to inform future approaches relevant to capacity building. Recommendations include using a two stage process (outline and full proposals) to focus the often limited effort available on the most promising proposals; further proposal writing workshops and workshops for shortlisted applicants; and reviewer comments more focused on how proposals could be improved. Another approach is for southern research students and research assistants to spend a substantial part of the research programme in a UK HEI.


25. The Medical Research Council (MRC) has had a concordat agreement with DFID and its predecessor the Overseas Development Administration in place since 1993. The concordat is the basis of a partnership to support UK or African - led biomedical and public health research which tackles the priority health problems and health inequalities of people in developing countries. The current concordat (2008-2013) allocates £45m to the MRC over five years, which is more than matched by MRC expenditure on global health research.

26. In addition to the concordat the MRC and DFID have worked together on a number of joint projects and schemes. We have jointly supported large international trials on microbicides and antiretroviral therapy for HIV and in 2010 launched a joint scheme between the MRC, DFID and the Wellcome Trust to support clinical trials for global health in developing countries. The MRC and DFID jointly finance the UK contribution to the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials partnership (EDCTP).

27. The MRC also work with DFID and other government departments on development research through the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS).

28. The MRC is often called upon to assist DFID in policy development and has been consulted on DFID’s current research strategy launched in 2008 and other initiatives.

29. The MRC recently established an expert oversight group to advise on Global Health issues. DFID is represented on the group by their Chief Scientific Advisor, Chris Whitty.

30. MRC and DFID officers meet quarterly to discuss operational issues but communicate informally more frequently. There is an annual meeting between DFID Chief Scientific Advisor and MRC Chief Executive to maintain high-level policy alignment.

31. Following the publication of the 2008-2013 research strategy DFID provided guidance notes on Capacity Building for its Research Programme Consortia which defines Capacity Building as ‘enhancing the abilities of individuals, organisations and systems to undertake and disseminate high quality research efficiently and effectively’. Such a definition encompasses a broad range of activities with an ambitious goal. That goal cannot be achieved in a single step but individual activities, supported locally, can contribute towards establishing a sustainable network of capacity building activities.

32. The MRC is able to contribute to building research capacity though close working with DFID through the concordat. The MRC has research Units in The Gambia and Uganda. The MRC/UVRI Uganda research Unit on AIDS was established following a request in 1988 from the Ugandan Government to the British Government for collaboration on the research of HIV infection and AIDS. The Unit has the mission to conduct research on HIV disease and related infections to facilitate their control in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa.

33. MRC The Gambia Unit was established in The Gambia in 1947. The Unit is the UK's single largest investment in medical research in a developing country. The Unit's research focuses on infectious diseases of immediate concern to The Gambia and the continent of Africa, with the aim of reducing the burden of illness and death in the country and the developing world as a whole.

34. Capacity building through these units takes place at many levels. The most important is the training and career development of staff creating the next generation of local researchers. The Directors of both units are nationals of the two countries and have developed their careers in the context of the MRC units. They are both role models for younger scientists locally and raise the profile of research within the Governments and other agencies within their countries.

35. Delivery of clinical research by the two Units has necessitated investment in clinical infrastructure and the training of staff under Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) guidelines. In these cases capacity is developed through practical involvement with high quality research activities and through interaction with international research teams. Research capacity can best be built by active participation and leadership in research activities rather than through unlinked funding or theoretical training.

36. The MRC and DFID have jointly supported the large European initiative to advance the development of new drugs and vaccines against HIV, TB and malaria – the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnerships (EDCTP). A major component of the initiative is to build capacity for clinical trials in sub Saharan Africa. This has been realised through a number of approaches including:

· support to develop ethics review boards

· South-South networking of institutions

· North-South networking of institutions

· Senior career fellowships

· GCP/GCLP training

· Project management training (including finance and HR development)

· Harmonisation of regulatory frameworks

· Development of clinical trials registries

· Specific short term training schemes

· MSc and PhD support

37. The MRC and DFID have also invested in an African Research Leadership scheme. This scheme is a prestigious award for non-clinical and clinical researchers of exceptional ability. The aim of the scheme is to strengthen research leadership across sub-Saharan Africa by attracting and retaining talented individuals undertaking high quality programmes of research.


38. In addition to its investment in ESPA, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) supports capacity building in developing countries via the Changing Water Cycle programme [5] . The four year (2009–2014) £10.1m programme will foster interdisciplinary research that links applied water resources issues seamlessly to fundamental climate system science. A partnership with the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) in India has been established, which has funded five collaborative projects with an investment of over £2.5m from NERC and £1.6m from MoES. The project will be investigating how the water cycle will change in response to climate change and the impact that this will have in South Asia. Capacity will be built among local researchers through participation in the research process.


39. The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) supports the development of overseas facilities and certain collaborations. Examples are detailed below:

I. STFC supports the University of Bristol project ‘Applying the Grid: Landslide Modelling for Risk Reduction in Developing Countries’ through grant funding which was awarded in 2010 [6] . The project uses the STFC developed Grid software (as utilised at the Large Hadron Collider) alongside proven, cutting-edge software in the field of slope hydrology and geotechnics. The technology will allow engineers and planners involved in national infrastructure and risk management projects throughout the developing world, to effectively predict and mitigate landslide risk without substantial investment in large and complex local computing facilities. STFC’s funding for this project came through its Innovations Partnership Scheme (IPS). The IPS is not targeted at international development projects, but is designed to transfer technology and expertise developed through STFC research into the market place.

II. STFC has supported the development of the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME) in Jordan through the gift donation of high-tech components formerly used by the now decommissioned Synchrotron Radiation Source (SRS) at Daresbury Laboratory.

SESAME [7] will serve as a driver for scientific, technical, and economic development of the region and strengthen collaboration in science across the globe. Bringing together Governments and scientists from the nations of Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, the Palestinian Territories, and Turkey, the centre will be open to all scientists from the Middle East and elsewhere. SESAME will be the region’s first major international research centre and be will built in Jordon under the umbrella of UNESCO.

a) STFC funds the UK’s membership subscription of CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) on behalf of the United Kingdom. CERN is Europe’s particle physics laboratory and one of the world’s largest and most respected centres for scientific research. Around 10,000 scientists use the facilities representing 608 universities and 113 nationalities, which includes many scientists from developing countries. A number of non-European states, including India, have Observer status and many others have co-operation agreements.

b) Amongst CERN’s core values are its commitments to bringing nations together through science and training the scientists of tomorrow. CERN operate educational programmes for summer students and high school students, which attract attendees from all over the world, including over 900 teachers in 2011. Outreach and development initiatives with developing nations, most notably across the African continent are significantly operated in this respect. For instance, alongside several international collaborators, CERN supports the African School of Fundamental Physics and its Applications (ASP [8] ). The first of these biennial events was first held in Stellenbosch, South Africa in October 2010. The project supplied 50 fully financially supported places for Physics students from across 17 African countries to attend an intensive, three week school aimed at raising future development across the continent. The next of these events will be held in Kumasi, Ghana in 2012.

c) Other areas of activity include those with UNESCO under the umbrella of the International Basic Sciences Programme (IBSP). Examples of this work include, the organisation of two schools on digital librarianship in Rwanda and Morocco and in-depth training for 30 participants in 2010, with the aim of passing on the knowledge and experience that CERN has gained from handling documents for the high-energy physics community.

d) CERN supports AFRICA@home, which encourages the use of volunteer computing to help solve health and environmental problems. African students and universities are involved in the development and running of these volunteer computing projects, the first of which related to the epidemiology of malaria. CERN also has projects funded by the EU, for example HELEN (High Energy physics Latinamerican-European Network), which has helped collaboration in that area.


40. EPSRC’s interest is in taking a broad global overview of addressing research challenges in both developed and developing countries. For example, EPSRC has supported research into renewable energy technologies ( including plans to develop collaborative research between EPSRC, DECC and Bangladesh), a collaborative programme of research supported through the Digital Economy programme and the Indian DST on use of Digital technologies to bridge the urban rural divide and participation in understanding the role of engineering in managing earthquakes and flooding. EPSRC has also been actively engaged as a member of the UK Water Research and Innovation Framework which looks at the research and development and skills needs around future water security and supply and is also a member of UKCDS.

What are the most effective models and mechanisms for supporting research capacity in developing countries?

41. The funders of development research in the UK, including DFID, BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC, MRC, and NERC, work under the umbrella of the UK Collaborative for Development Science (UKCDS) [9] . UKCDS manages a subgroup which specifically looks at research capacity building initiatives and sharing of best practice.

42. The factors affecting research capacity are complex and vary between sector and countries. It is therefore essential that specific schemes designed to build research capacity follow consultation and discussion with researchers already working in country as well as with donor countries and organisations. Access to information can be a fundamental issue in supporting the research base and online access to journals, networking of specialist support such as ethics or clinical trials management, can be as important as investing in people or training.

43. Capacity building schemes should be designed to ensure that the impact of a scheme to build capacity for research in one area does not distort the investment profiles of local institutions or universities. Pump priming of areas with funding from the UK can lead to neglect of other areas, distort local salaries, and redirect training and manpower. If short term funding stops the institute may be ill equipped to benefit from the pump priming. Once again, partnership is key to a successful initiative and there should be appropriate institutional engagement from the start in order to support rather than undermine the research environment where investment is taking place.

44. If they are to be sustainable, capacity building activities should 'plug in' to and complement individual countries' own ambitions and strategies to develop research capacity. As individual countries frequently want to 'grow' their higher education sector, encompassing a very broad range of research sectors, capacity building activity may need to reflect this breadth (or be mindful of the implications of targeting activity to specific sectors).

45. It is important to recognise the UK is only one part of a much wider universe of actors with responsibility for capacity building. The most important stakeholder should be national developing country governments, higher education agencies, and users of research (e.g. the private sector, policy-makers), with DFID – via it’s country offices - and UK agencies focussing on adding value to the activities of these key players. For example, the ESPA directorate is looking for ways to work in partnership with such stakeholders. If too much capacity strengthening is provided externally there is limited incentive for national governments to make this a national priority.

46. The challenge is to use external support to help get the capacity building process started, to fill immediate gaps and stimulate demand, whilst working towards a transition to a situation where national developing country governments recognise the importance of investing in science. DFID increasingly promotes the importance of evidence-based business cases for development and at the same time promotes the need for nationally owned development priorities. The logical extension of this would be to look forward to having a more joined up approach in DFID to capacity building for research and evidence linking both the central RED activities with country-level activities (and hence national development priorities).

How does the Government monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the scientific capacity building activities it supports? Is further assessment or oversight required?

47. ESRC has an annual review of progress for the three Programmes described above using the DFID logframe methodology [10] . In addition more overarching evaluations of the programmes are carried out periodically. For example, the ESRC-DFID Poverty Alleviation programme is currently being reviewed by an independent organisation.

48. MRC has agreed to participate in the ESSENCE initiative to monitor and evaluate capacity building activities. ESSENCE (Enhancing Support for Strengthening the Effectiveness of National Capacity Efforts) was established by funding agencies to assist in the coordination and harmonisation of the research capacity investments within a common framework [11]

49. RCUK is working internally to consider the current approach to RCUK-DFID partnership to maximise the benefits of this very positive relationship which has been welcomed both by the funders and by the academic community that it serves. Part of the internal discussion is likely to include evaluation of mechanisms, including guidance to applicants, and to look at opportunities to improve access of the various schemes to developing country collaborators. This will involve developing the capacity of institutions to take a leading role in successful proposals.

What role does DFID’s Chief Scientific Adviser play in determining priorities and in the development and assessment of capacity building policies?

50. DFID’s Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA), Professor Chris Whitty maintains oversight of research work undertaken at the MRC, NERC and UKCDS in respect to International Development. He is a member of MRC’s Global Health Group, which advises on global health policy and funding, and holds an annual meeting with MRC’s CEO. In addition, MRC and DFID have quarterly meetings to ensure alignment of priorities, which are fed back to the CSA. NERC and DFID also hold similar meetings. The CSA also sits on the board of the UKCDS and is therefore responsible for oversight of the work of the organisation.

51. The CSA is also informed by discussions at officer lever of the UKCDS and the UK Funders Forum for Health Research in Developing Countries.

How are government activities co-ordinated with the private and voluntary sectors?

52. Government activities are co-ordinated with the private and voluntary sectors particular through the UKCDS which has membership from across the sectors. In addition there are a range of contacts at the level of individual programmes, including with overseas organisations such as the Hewlett Foundation and NWO.

53. The UK Funders Forum for Health Research in Developing Countries involves representatives from the Wellcome Trust, Department of Health, DFID, MRC and ESRC. MRC works informally with Product Development Partnerships (PDPs) though participation in EDCTP, and through ad hoc bilateral discussions. DFID works much more closely with the PDPs and this has had many positive effects such as the increase in clinical trial capacity for research on neglected tropical diseases in developing countries.


54. RCUK welcomes this inquiry as an opportunity to demonstrate the progress that has been made, both by individual Research Councils and by the UKCDS since 2004.

Research Councils UK

December 2011

[1] See “ ESPA’s Impact Strategy” at:












Prepared 13th January 2012