Minutes of the Meeting on 12 February 2009, at the BERR Conference Centre, Victoria Street, London SW1
Attending:
Adrian Smith, Chair
Mark Batho, SFC
Richard Brook, Leverhulme Trust
Phil Gummett, HEFCW
Tarek Hayfa, HMT
Ed Metcalfe, SEEDA
Simon Denegri, AMRC
Ian Diamond, RCUK
David Eastwood, HEFCE
David Gani, SFC
Rachel Garside-Jones, Wales
Malcolm Grant, Russell Group
John Neilson, DIUS
Ric Parker, Rolls Royce
Claire Woodward-Nutt, SELLD
Rick Trainor, UUK
Mark Walport, Wellcome Trust
In attendance:
Mike Davies, DIUS
Roger Louth, DIUS
Ashley Malster, DIUS
Graeme Reid, DIUS
Apologies:
Fergus Devitt, DELNI
Alan Thorpe, RCUK
Iain Gray, TSB
1. Introduction
1.1 Adrian Smith welcomed members to the first meeting of 2009.
1.2 Action points from November.
Occupational Health
Ian Diamond updated members RCUK’s progress in taking forward Occupational Health, There had been discussions between ESRC other relevant Research Councils and a town hall meeting was planned later in the spring. Ian agreed to report on progress at the Funders Forum meeting in June.
Public Benefit
Malcolm Grant informed members that there had now been discussions between the Russell Group and the Charity Commissioners on public benefit. It was agreed that the Russell Group would provide an aide memoire for the Funders Forum.
Research Careers
Phil Gummett confirmed that HEFCW would take forward the next Research Careers report for Funders Forum.
2. News Announcements
2.1 Mark Batho – A New voucher scheme had been launched for knowledge transfer partnerships between Scottish HEIs and SMEs worth up to £5,000.
2.2 Ric Parker – Reported that the Energy Technologies Institute was up and running having funded its first projects in areas such as offshore wind power.
2.3 Adrian Smith – Drew members’ attention to Lord Drayson’s speech opening up the debate on the role of research. John Denham and others in Government intended to follow this up with further contributions to the debate.
3. Economic downturn responses
3.1 Rick Trainor summarised the major responses to the downturn which the university sector was putting in train. These included:
• the well received UUK/CBI publication in October ‘Standing Together’ which outlined actions being taken in partnership with business;
• Regional initiatives with businesses often in partnership with RDAs
* the Newcastle ten point plan to boost the economy
* the Dundee internship scheme
* the Leicester career service supporting graduates to find jobs.
• loan guarantee scheme could make it easier for HEI’s to bring forward capital projects;
• easing planning bottlenecks;
• increased use of knowledge transfer partnerships.
The challenging issue about research was the long lead time to pay off economically (though even in the interim there were important stimulus effects). There was an increasing consensus that in the present difficult economic climate, the knowledge economy will be even more important to the recovery.
3.2 Members agreed that it was important to ensure that innovation permeated all major activities in the universities including areas such as career development and promotion. Universities had transformed their approach to these and more generally were now very open to recruitment of new staff from business and other key sectors.
3.3 The Forum agreed that it was important to have a balanced recovery plan which included sustainable medium and long term outcomes as well as short term solutions.
3.4 There were major opportunities to recruit highly talented individuals into research who were, for example, coming out of the City. This would need to be done in a sustainable way. Members noted that there had been a major increase in demand for Research Council studentships and that there was a strong case for an immediate major expansion in studentship provision as this would strengthen both the skills and research base.
3.5 David Eastwood drew the Forum’s attention to the £15 million HEFCE Economic Challenge Fund which demonstrated agility in response to the downturn and was premised on HEIs’ understanding of local business and the third sector.
3.6 Members noted that many SMEs were currently unable to afford to make major investments in KTPs; flexibility was required, for example, by reducing the thresholds.
3.7 Members noted that there were misconceptions in some quarters that HEIs were isolated from the downturn and were therefore not responding effectively. The Forum agreed that the HEIs had made strong responses and that these needed communicating more effectively to key audiences. Furthermore, there was a strong argument that the research base could help to lift the UK out of the recession and that this message needed to be got across.
4. Drayson Challenge
4.1 Adrian Smith noted that one of the issues that Lord Drayson flagged up was ‘can we make smart choices?’ Furthermore, the US was introducing a multi billion dollar research stimulus as part of its rescue package which would be a challenge to UK research.
4.2 Mark Walport pointed out that there needed to be a clear distinction between discovery and application. In discovery science all disciplines were needed for success and the portfolio should be strong and broad. In applied research there was more scope for choice and focus. It was essential to capitalise on our strengths such as the advantage provided by the NHS. There were still some important barriers to innovation to be tackled in areas like pharmaceutical R&D.
4.3 Members noted that promising R&D areas emerged in a non-directed way. Once these had emerged, HEIs reprioritised and rebalanced their portfolios. Prioritisation should therefore be carried out by the major research intensive HEIs rather than at the national level.
4.4 Richard Brook flagged up concerns that Research Council response mode funding was falling, and there was a discussion about whether this concern was borne out by the data.
Action 1
Research Council CEOs to meet Lord Drayson to discuss the Challenges he had outlined in his speech.
Action 2
RCUK to forward data on Research Council response mode success rates.
Action 3
Secretariat to circulate more information on the Office for Life Science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Charities
5.1 Mark Walport gave a presentation which highlighted the importance of the QR Charity Support Element to the charities. The following points were noted in the subsequent discussion:
• the UK Research Base was immensely strengthened by charity funding especially in the biomedical field. This gave the UK a competitive advantage;
• many charities had strategic partnerships with key HEIs (50% of AMRC members had such agreements);
• there was sometimes a lack of awareness of the QR Charity Support Element amongst key stakeholders;
• any problems charities were encountering needed to be backed up by firmer data. HEIs generally welcomed support from this sector, but may make decisions on funding sources in terms of their overall research portfolio balance;
• HEIs cannot be run in a sustainable way without FEC.
5.2 David Eastwood responded on behalf of HEFCE and said he understood Wellcome's position, but that decisions on future funding cannot yet be made. Mark Batho and Phil Gummett also outlined the support for charity funding in Scotland and Wales. Members expressed the view that there could be better publicity about the existence of the QR component particularly for non-medical faculties.
Action 4
Secretariat to oversee clarification on whether some of the figures were for England only or covered the whole of the UK. These were subsequently confirmed as England only figures.
6 RAE Outcome
David Eastwood summarised the outcome of the 2008 RAE. Key points included:
• the fact there was no ‘cliff edge’;
• the Panels had more information than in the past and weighed the evidence appropriately;
• there had been an increased emphasis on user value;
• excellence was found wherever it occurred;
• STEM subjects are being protected in terms of share of funding;
• members were pleased to note that the business element would be preserved;
• a topic for future debate might be 'how many centres of excellence can the UK sustain?
