Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Wellcome Trust

Key Points

Biomedical research in Scotland is internationally competitive. The Wellcome Trust has a long-track record of funding Scottish researchers, providing more than £600 million over the past decade.

The Trust’s eligibility criteria for funding institutions in Scotland would have to be reviewed if Scotland were to become independent. The model of funding we have adopted in the Republic of Ireland, where we fund in partnership with the Irish Health Research Board and Science Foundation Ireland, provides an approach that may be of interest to the Committee.

The implications of Scottish independence for the regulation of research will also need careful consideration. A number of UK-wide bodies, including both the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, currently have responsibility for regulating research in Scotland. Because science is a collaborative enterprise, any difference in the regulations and governance surrounding research can restrict international partnerships. We note that differences in legislation in Scotland and England already hamper some cross-border research.

Introduction

1. The Wellcome Trust is pleased to be able to respond to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry into the implications of Scottish Independence for business; higher education and research; and postal services. The Wellcome Trust has a long track-record of funding researchers in Scotland, and we value the excellence of the science and institutions north of the border.

2. Over the past ten years, the Wellcome Trust has provided more than £600 million of competitive funding to researchers in Scotland. Much of this funding is awarded through grants to researchers in Scottish universities. For example, in the last five years we have awarded approximately £100 million each to the University of Edinburgh and the University of Dundee. We also fund research in NHS hospitals, and we have supported the development of health informatics in Scotland, initially providing funding to the Scottish Health Informatics Programme and more recently to the e-health informatics research centre, HERC Scotland. We have also provided awards to support public engagement, for example through the Glasgow Science Centre, and we have provided translational funding to Scottish companies, including over £1 million to Cardiodigital Ltd. The scope of our funding in Scotland is therefore both significant and varied.

3. We are not yet in a position to say what the impact of Scottish independence would be on the Trust’s funding. Our future commitment, and the eligibility of Scottish Institutions for Trust support, would need to be reviewed; there is no guarantee that our funding would be maintained at current levels. The majority of the Trust’s awards are provided to researchers in UK institutions; the funding that we provide overseas is largely focused on low-and middle-income countries.

4. However, we do also provide some funding to the Republic of Ireland and the model we have adopted might be of interest to the Committee’s inquiry. Prior to 2010, the eligibility criteria for applicants from the Republic of Ireland were the same as for applicants from the UK, for historic reasons. This eligibility was reviewed in 2010 and the Trust developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Irish Health Research Board (HRB) and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI). In a partnership arrangement, the Trust now provides 50% of the cost of science-related Investigator Awards, Fellowships and Strategic Awards in the Republic of Ireland, with the remaining 50% being jointly funded by HRB and SFI.1 The Trust is responsible for the administration of grant applications and awards made under this Partnership.

5. Recognising the excellent, internationally competitive biomedical research in Scotland, it is possible the Trust would consider discussing a similar arrangement with the Scottish Government, were devolution to take place. We would only consider funding in Scotland if the Government were also prepared to support a sustainable research environment. We note that at the moment the Scottish Funding Council provides dedicated funding which allows charities to award grants to support the direct costs of research while the Government provides top-up funding to cover the associated infrastructure and general running costs. As a minimum, maintaining this element of support for charity research would be essential.

6. In addition to the financial impact, Scottish Independence may have other implications for research in Scotland. In particular, the implications for the regulation of research will need careful consideration. For example, although Scotland has its own human tissue regulation, it has delegated the regulatory responsibility to the UK Human Tissue Authority. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority also regulates human embryo research across the whole of the UK. An independent Scotland (assuming it was part of the European Union), would also need competent authorities under EU legislation, for example an equivalent of the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) in relation to regulation of clinical trials.

7. Science is a collaborative enterprise. Any difference in the regulations and governance surrounding research can restrict international partnerships. We note that differences in legislation in Scotland and England already hamper some cross-border research. For example the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 has different requirements from its English equivalent, the Mental Capacity Act for England and Wales (2005) which has led to some difficulties when developing multi-site clinical studies. Differences in the regulations and governance systems that introduce additional burdens, or that are perceived to be burdensome, can restrict international collaborations and make countries less competitive. Currently, although the ethics committee systems in England, Wales and Scotland are devolved, by agreement they have developed an impressive system that appears to be UK-wide to researchers and therefore facilitates UK-wide studies. Introducing new and different sets of approvals could jeopardise Scotland’s competitive position for research.

8. We recognise that Scotland has often led the UK in establishing supportive environments for research. The research exemption in the Scottish Freedom of Information Act has been a useful model for discussions in England. Within the health service, Scotland has very effectively streamlined its R&D approvals process through NHS Research Scotland, and is also widely acknowledged as leading the way in establishing an effective framework and infrastructure to capitalise on the potential of electronic health records.

June 2013