House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Research Council Institutes: Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2006-07 Fourth Special Report of Session 2006-07 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 July 2007 . HC 979 Published on 30 July 2007 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £8.00 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of Science and Innovation and its associated public bodies. Current membership 3 Mr Phil Willis MP (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chairman) Adam Afriyie MP (Conservative, Windsor) Mrs Nadine Dorries MP (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire) Mr Robert Flello MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South) Linda Gilroy MP (Labour, Plymouth Sutton) Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Chris Mole MP (Labour/Co-op, Ipswich) Dr Bob Spink MP (Conservative, Castle Point) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Manchester, Blackley) Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/s&tcom A list of Reports from the Committee in this Parliament is included at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Dr Lynn Gardner (Clerk); Dr Celia Blacklock (Second Clerk); Dr Chris Tyler (Committee Specialist); Ana Ferreira (Committee Assistant); Christine McGrane (Committee Secretary); and Jonathan Olivier Wright (Senior Office Clerk). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee's e- mail address is: [email protected] { ORES | \i o HiMKEL 2250 Fourth Special Report On 22 March 2007 the Science and Technology Committee published its Fourth Report of Session 2006-07, Research Council Institutes [HC 68-I]. On 6 June 2007 the Committee received a memorandum from the Government which contained a response to the Report. On 20 June 2007 the Committee wrote to the Government requesting clarification on a number of points. This was received on 18 July 2007. Both memoranda are published as appendices to this Report Appendix 1: Government Response of 6 June 2007 Introduction The Government welcomes the Committee’s report on Research Council Institutes. This response has been coordinated by the Office of Science and Innovation on behalf of the Departments of Trade and Industry and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and includes input from Research Councils UK. This document sets out the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations and certain specific points made in the report. Relevant reports 1. (Recommendation 1) We readily agree that there should be no blueprint for governance of RCIs simply because of their status and that appropriate arrangements should be tailor-made in each case. (Paragraph 10) Importance of RCls to Government 2. (Recommendation 2) We conclude that the UK RCI sector makes a highly valued and unique contribution to national scientific capacity. (Paragraph 24) Response from the Government The Government welcomes the Committee’s comments and is pleased that the Committee acknowledges and recognises the valuable contribution that the UK RCI sector has made, and will continue to make, to national scientific capacity. The recent reviews of governance have reinforced the view that each RCI should have governance arrangements that are appropriate to its specific circumstances, but follow best practice. The OSI role is to allocate funding to Research Councils so as to support the whole range of their activities as set out in the agreed Delivery Plan for each Council. Individual Councils then allocate funding to their Institutes, amongst other activities, in the light of their overall priorities. The Management Statement agreed between each Council and the Department of Trade and Industry makes the Chief Executive of each Council accountable and responsible for the oversight of any Institutes controlled by the Council. This includes a responsibility to ensure the proper maintenance of the infrastructure of such Institutes. The science that is undertaken at particular Institutes may sometimes necessitate different governance arrangements. Input from RCUK The Research Councils endorse recommendation 1 and point out that BBSRC is reflecting this approach in implementing the options identified by the Follett review. The Research Councils welcome the Committee’s recognition of the contribution made by the UK RCI sector, and of the appropriateness of supporting a variety of different institutes which have valuable and distinctive roles, and which emphasise excellence, strategic relevance and economic impact. Comparison with universities 3. (Recommendation 3) We have received no evidence to support the view expressed by Lord Sainsbury in January 2006 that basic research should increasingly be done in universities, rather than separate research institutes. We believe that links between RCIs and universities at all levels should be actively encouraged but that each case should be judged on its merits and the form of each institute should follow the needs of the science. (Paragraph 32) Response from the Government The Government’s policy is that science requirements should ultimately determine the organisational model in any particular area, and that links between RCIs and HEIs should be actively encouraged. It welcomes the Committee’s endorsement of such links. It is the case that spending on research in HEIs has increased over time in relation to that in RCIs in the UK as a whole, but the ratio of HEI to RCI spending by Research Councils with RCIs has not changed markedly in recent years. The Government would expect the Research Councils to keep under regular review how to achieve their objectives in a manner which maximises their overall impact and value for money, in terms of balance between HEI and RCI provision. It considers that there is, and for the foreseeable future will remain, a need for specialist and long term research capability in dedicated centres in some research areas. — Input from RCUK The Research Councils wish to encourage close working relations between their RCIs and universities wherever this will deliver added value to the UK research base. To an extent, the distinction between universities and institutes is becoming less marked, as some universities increasingly focus on particular areas of activity. BBSRC operates a number of different models for HEI/RCI interaction. For example, the facilities at the Institute for Animal Health are not readily replicated in the university sector, but the Institute has extensive collaborations with research groups in universities. In other research areas, BBSRC adopts a different approach: the Roslin Institute- Neuropathogenesis Unit will become embedded in the University of Edinburgh in 2008, but will maintain a distinct focus of research; similarly the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER) will become embedded in the University of Wales Aberystwyth and maintain a focus on land-based research. In both of these developments BBSRC is actively encouraging links which will continue to deliver world class science. The MRC Council has recently amalgamated its Radiation and Genome Stability Unit, Harwell, (together with the Gray Cancer Institute, London), with the University of Oxford to form a new centre for research in radiation biology and oncology. This centre will address research challenges including delivering radiation in more sophisticated and precise ways, using new imaging techniques to restrict radiotherapy to tumours, and finding new ways to make tumours more sensitive to radiation. In addition, the MRC’s Human Genetics Unit (Edinburgh) has recently become part of a wider MRC/University of Edinburgh Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine. Research Council Funding 4. (Recommendation 4) We believe that the best science should be supported by the Research Councils regardless of whether applications originate from universities or institutes, and that RCIs should not be barred from applying for responsive mode grants. (Paragraph 37) 5. (Recommendation 5) We recommend that RCUK review its policy on eligibility of scientists in RCIs to apply to any of the eight Research Councils. To encourage interdisciplinary research, we recommend that there should not be a limit or bar to RCIs being able to apply to any of the Councils for funding. (Paragraph 38) 6. (Recommendation 6) We are concerned by the experience of the Tyndall Centre in securing an extension to its funding and we expect the Research Councils to seek mechanisms to ensure that similar issues involving interdisciplinary research might be handled more effectively in the future. (Paragraph 39) Input from RCUK All Research Councils are committed to supporting the highest quality single discipline and interdisciplinary research. BBSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC, the four Councils with their own Institutes, all enable researchers at their institutes to apply to their managed programmes. BBSRC, NERC and STFC also allow researchers at their institutes to apply for responsive mode funding. This provides flexibility for RCIs, helps benchmark research standards and facilitates multidisciplinary working. BBSRC, NERC and MRC also provide reciprocal access to managed mode and responsive mode funding for researchers in the institutes of at least one of the other two Councils. BBSRC and NERC have agreed that there should be no cap on the amount of funding for which researchers in each other’s RCIs can apply. BBSRC and MRC have also agreed to remove all restrictions on applications from staff from each other’s institutes. The Research Councils are currently considering extending this approach. Councils’ decisions on whether to renew support for research centres such as the Tyndall Centre are based on the quality and match to priorities of the research being proposed. This is true for all Councils. The experience of the Tyndall Centre does not reflect a lack of commitment by the Research Councils to support interdisciplinary research. Councils recognise the challenges of supporting multidisciplinary research effectively and recognise that developing and nurturing truly multidisciplinary research, involving natural science, engineering and social science, is especially challenging because of the breadth of these communities. Research Councils continue to seek improved ways to do this. Over the years, Councils have stimulated a significant increase in interdisciplinary research and training through joint programmes and activities in areas such as stem cells, e-science, aging and energy, e.g. in 2005 BBSRC and MRC agreed to renew joint funding to the Stem Cell Bank. Most recently, in 2006, the Research Councils introduced a revised protocol for assessing and funding responsive mode grant applications that cut across the remits of more than one Council. The revised protocol provides clearer guidance to applicants and establishes new co-funding arrangements between Councils eliminating double jeopardy. In evaluating proposals, Research Councils do their utmost to ensure that suitable assessors are involved from each of the relevant disciplines and that proposals are subject to a single review process. Government funding for RCls 7. (Recommendation 7) We recommend that the OSI examine mechanisms for identifying and providing guaranteed funding for nationally important datasets and long-term monitoring activities in order that this vital information will continue to be available to inform future research and policy. This would be particularly important in the case of closure of institutes where responsibility for such work may have to be transferred to a new body but it may also help to maintain the sustainability of existing RCIs by giving security of funding for part of their operations. (Paragraph 45) 8. (Recommendation 8) We recommend that the Government examine the proposal that departmental research budgets, once set, should be ring-fenced for the spending period. (Paragraph 45) Response from the Government OSI operates a robust mechanism in the Performance Management System for the Research Councils, which supports the allocation of the Science budget to deliver priorities set out in each Council’s Delivery Plan. Each Research Council undertakes regular review of the science relating to national capacity and of the performance of their Institutes. Research Councils will, amongst other things, need to identify their plans for national datasets in their Delivery Plans. At a high strategic level these priorities will be discussed and agreed during the allocations process to ensure that all research of national importance is given the correct priority in future planning and strategy. Research Councils have to make a wide range of decisions about how best to invest their funds. Decisions about datasets and monitoring capabilities are no different in this respect and the Government does not regard these as needing a special scrutiny between Spending Reviews. Input from RCUK The Research Councils recognise the importance of long-term datasets, biological samples and monitoring activities, including those held and maintained in RCIs. Where responsibility for such material resides with more than one Government Department a more joined-up approach to their management would be helpful. Response from the Government Departments’ R&D budgets will be considered in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review Conclusions on funding 9. (Recommendation 9) We consider that the balance between core funding and responsive mode funding available to RCIs works well at present and that there is no evidence that inappropriate levels of support are given to RCIs in preference to universities. We are also strongly of the view that core funding is the best way to ensure that an institute remains viable and capable of delivering its mission. We are concerned that the financial difficulties which have been experienced for some time by certain BBSRC and NERC institutes indicate that not all stakeholders are prepared to acknowledge the part they have to play in ensuring the sustainability of this part of the research base. (Paragraph 48) Input from RCUK The Research Councils agree that the balance between core funding and responsive mode funding currently works well, and that the relative levels of support given to RCIs and universities are appropriate. BBSRC regards core funding as an effective way of ensuring the viability of an RCI and that Institutes need to have consistent, long-term funding to enable them to plan effectively to deliver their science in a sustainable way. This is one of the underlying principles underpinning RIPSS. BBSRC’s approach has been to agree four to five year funding streams of Core Strategic Grant following on from the four yearly Institute Assessment Exercise and agreement by BBSRC Council. For the future BBSRC is considering developing Strategic Programme Grants for Institute science, of four to five years duration and with a clear focus on specific areas of research. This will contribute to the sustainability of BBSRC’s Institute research base and enable Institutes to focus their research effort. NERC’s new approach to funding streams will distinguish much better than before between “National Capability’ and “Research Programme” funding to its RCs. Arrangements for the National Capability funding will help to provide longer-term stability for activities such as environmental monitoring, and in general. NERC agrees that all relevant stakeholders should fully acknowledge the contribution they should make to ensuring the sustainability of the RCIs on which they call for evidence or advice. RCI management 10. (Recommendation 10) It is a major advantage of individual institutes that they take responsibility for strategy in unfashionable high risk areas of science but they cannot be expected continually to reallocate ever diminishing resources to maintain capacity without recognition of the vital role they are playing in doing so (Paragraph 54) Input from RCUK The Research Councils agree that the RCIs provide a way of delivering high risk areas of science that researchers may otherwise find unfashionable. Research Council Institutes make significant contributions to strategic national capacity in a number of areas of research, such as animal health and welfare and sustainable agriculture and land use. Often this involves maintaining expensive facilities; BBSRC’s approach is to ensure as far as possible that sufficient, predictable funding is in place so that this capacity is maintained for facilities which remain strategic priorities. However, the need to maintain capacity in these areas of science must be considered against the need to support new scientific opportunities. An effective RCI should have the capacity both to maintain and to shift resources as required irrespective of their on-going research programmes; a recent example was the ability of IAH Pirbright to move large numbers of staff to work on Foot and Mouth Disease. Staff at NERC’s British Geological Survey were similarly called upon to provide advice during the FMD crisis. However, there are clear resource implications in this, and it must be the responsibility of all major funders to ensure that the skills they need to draw upon are maintained, even if the expertise is not used in current science. The MRC Toxicology Unit is in Leicester, not Nottingham (paragraph 56). Research Councils and strategy 11. (Recommendation 11) Given the range of different institutes encompassed under the umbrella title of “RCI”, we agree that general moves towards harmonisation of practice would be impractical and non-beneficial. (Paragraph 61) 12. (Recommendation 12) We recommend that the Research Councils review their mechanisms for developing and encouraging best practice in relation to RCIs, both on the part of the Councils and also between the institutes themselves. (Paragraph 63) 13. (Recommendation 13) We recognise that reviews are a necessary part of ensuring that public funds on research are spent in a cost-effective and transparent way. In organising reviews, however, the Research Councils should have regard to adopting processes which maximise efficiency and minimise the cost to RCIs, both in terms of financial cost and staff time. (Paragraph 67) Role of RCUK 14. (Recommendation 14) We believe that RCUK could play a greater role in the harmonisation of best practice of the work of the Research Councils in relation to their RCIs through establishing similar mechanisms to those used for knowledge transfer in the wider Research Council context, and we recommend that these possibilities be explored. (Paragraph 70) Input from RCUK The Research Councils welcome the recognition by the Committee of the need for different RCI delivery models, and agree that entirely harmonised approaches to managing and funding RCIs would be inappropriate. Establishing time-limited collaborative centres, for example, is one means by which Councils can direct a rapid increase in activity in under-developed areas of science according to national and strategic need. The Councils are committed to exploring further the opportunities for encouraging the sharing of best practice between Councils. For example, the directors of NERC’s marine research centres have demonstrated in developing the Oceans 2025 programme proposals that there is considerable scope for RCIs to coordinate their activities. RCUK promotes the sharing of best practice between Councils and will continue to pursue opportunities in this area by building upon the existing exchange of information and expertise via a number of RCUK groups including the RCUK Operational Management Group, the Human Resources Management Group, the Equality and Diversity Advisory Group, and Performance Evaluation Group. Research Councils consider that the differences between their governance models and the research communities of which Institutes are a part means that individual Councils are best placed to review the performance and effectiveness of individual RCIs. BBSRC’s policy is to maximise efficiency and to minimise the burden on institutes, when reviewing them. All reviews are instigated for clearly articulated reasons and the procedures used are discussed with the institutes and regularly refined in the light of experience. MRC is revising its procedures for undertaking Institute/Unit reviews, in particular to ensure that the Unit’s work is fully aligned with the MRC’s overall strategy, both broadly and within the field in question; and also to ensure that all aspects of the Unit’s work (including knowledge transfer and public engagement) are assessed effectively and efficiently. NERC is in the process of changing its RCI review procedures. One aim is to reduce the amount of staff time involved, partly by focusing most effort on areas most in need of review (outcomes of the “Research Programme” funding element) and considering National Capability separately in a more appropriate way. Government influence 15. (Recommendation 15) Government departments must undertake to give as full and as early notice as possible to RCIs of their likely research requirements over a three to five year period in order that the institutes may be able to fulfil the nationally-strategic role expected of them. (Paragraph 73)