EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.  The BBSRC sponsors eight Research Institutes which represent a major element of the Science Base underpinning the agriculture, food and environmental industries. The funding for these institutes is drawn from a range of sources; overall the BBSRC's strategic grant accounts for 36 per cent of total funding, and MAFF and other government departments account for 28 per cent. Over the past 15 years, the decline in MAFF and other departmental funding has put major pressure on the BBSRC's Science Vote to meet redundancy and other costs.

  2.  While OST's role is to advise departments on the implications of the use of their R&D budgets, the long-term health of the Science Base underpinning these industries is not considered to be the responsibility of MAFF or other departments. Thus, the strategic requirements of these sectors for scientific research are not generally the subject of a common position despite the very significant proportion of total funding provided by MAFF and other departments.

  3.  The 1999 Forward Look is a very useful and accessible document but provides little synoptic view of government's R&D priorities and how they are being met through the various streams of science funding.

1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  The BBSRC was established by Royal Charter in 1994 and is funded principally through the Science Budget of the Office of Science and Technology within the Department of Trade and Industry. The mission of the BBSRC is:

—  to promote and support high-quality basic, strategic and applied research and related postgraduate training relating to the understanding and exploitation of biological systems;

—  to advance knowledge and technology, and provide trained scientists and engineers, which meet the needs of users and beneficiaries (including the agriculture, bioprocessing, chemical, food, healthcare, pharmaceutical and other biotechnological related industries), thereby contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life;

—  to provide advice, disseminate knowledge, and promote public understanding in the fields of biotechnology and the biological sciences.

  1.2  BBSRC's total planned income in 1999-2000 is £200 million. Of this sum, the Council plans to spend £62.2 million in its eight sponsored Research Institutes. These institutes represent a significant element of the Science Base supported by the Council. The key features of the institutes are set out in the Council's Operating Plan (para 2.18); they are:

—  distinctive and focused research missions;

—  strategic and multidisciplinary research orientation with a longer-term perspective;

—  user community input through membership of governing bodies and advisory groups;

—  an emphasis on knowledge/technology transfer: IP, know-how, public good information;

—  special research facilities eg disease containment, animal houses, glasshouses.

  BBSRC's main institute funding is through the Competitive Strategic Grant (CSG) and associated capital infrastructure grants. Institutes also have access to other general funding mechanisms, such as research initiatives, responsive research programmes (RRPs), ROPAs, LINK, an institute JREI scheme and studentships. Funding from these mechanisms amounted to approximately £10 million in 1998-99.

  1.3  The Table below shows that 24 per cent of Institute income in 1999-2000 will come from MAFF and 3 per cent from other government departments. For five institutes, MAFF alone accounts for more than a quarter of total research income. The other principal interfaces are with DFID, DETR and DH.

  (1)  Includes Capital Equipment Allocations and Minor Works

  *  1998-99 CSG figures have been reduced by £3.8M to show equivalent funding for employer pension contributions.

2.  TRENDS IN THE SCIENCE BUDGET AND DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE

  2.1  The Committee will have seen the trend data in Chapter 2 (Table 2) of the 1999 Forward Look. These show a steady and very welcome increase in the real value of the Science Budget over the period 1997-98 to 2001-02. There is a parallel real terms increase in the total Science Base expenditure line.

  2.2  The departmental real terms data show a long-term trend of decline in the MAFF budget from £253 million in 1986-87 to £127 million in 2001-02. Of the other departments which interface with BBSRC, DETR research expenditure is broadly stable while DFID and DH show a small decline. BBSRC also interfaces directly with the Scottish Executive which funds five research institutes in Scotland that are in the food and agricultural area. Real funding for these institutes is expected to decline slightly.

  2.3  The decline in MAFF research expenditure has placed serious pressures on the BBSRC's science budget income over the past decade and a half. Following the 1972 White Paper "A Framework for Government Research and Development" (Cmnd 5046), £19 million was transferred from the then Agricultural Research Council to MAFF as the "customer department". This sum would be worth around £90 million in 1999 prices, while MAFF research spending within the BBSRC institutes currently runs at just over £30 million.

  The gap between these figures represents a loss of funding broadly equivalent to the total Science budget expenditure on institute-based research in 1999-2000. The decline has caused the Council to reduce employment in the institutes from 5,750 in 1982 to 3,400 in 1999.

  2.4  Over that period, there have been some 1,800 compulsory redundancies and 700 voluntary redundancies, funding for which has predominantly had to be found from within the AFRC/BBSRC Science Vote. This represents a very significant loss to science.

3.  THE ROLE OF THE OST IN ADVISING ON R & D EXPENDITURE AND CO-ORDINATING R & D ACTIVITIES

  3.1  The Chief Scientific Adviser sets out the OST role in providing advice to government in Chapter 1 of the Forward Look:

—  OST advises Ministers in the way in which science is used in and by government to maximise the benefit of the government's expenditure to the UK as a whole.

—  It is for each department to determine how they should use the resources allocated to them in support of their objectives; OST advises on the wider implications of these decisions.

—  OST supports the Council for Science and Technology in reviewing departmental SET activity.

—  OST is working with the Treasury and other Government Departments to develop information on the outcomes of expenditure on SET.

—  OST facilitates the sharing of good practice, especially in the way science is used to support policy decisions (the "May guidelines").

—  OST co-ordinates advice on handling issues which fall within the remit of more than one department (eg, antibiotic resistance, biotechnology, GM foods).

  3.2  BBSRC is not aware of the ways in which OST advises MAFF, DETR and DH on the wider implications of its decisions on R & D expenditure, nor of the extent to which that advice is followed. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasising that MAFF, which is a major funder of research in the BBSRC institutes, has made it clear that it does not consider itself to have a responsibility for maintaining the health of the Science Base. It aims to use its R & D funding to ensure that policy making is informed by high quality research and development, and not to maintain a strategic programme. This is a different stance from that established in the 1972 White Paper which gave MAFF a joint responsibility with ARC for the long-term health of the science base underpinning the food and agriculture industries.

  3.3  At the day-to-day level, relationships between BBSRC and the MAFF Chief Scientists Group and Research Policy Co-ordination Division are cordial. The MAFF Chief Scientist sits on the BBSRC Council and BBSCRC Office staff and Institute scientists interact very frequently with MAFF in the review and commissioning process for reseach. The Council and MAFF have a Concordat which provides a framework for regular meetings to exchange information and views. There is however no formal system for co-ordinating patterns of research funding, and it cannot be said that, with the very significant exception of TSE research, there is a common approach to strategic requirements to maintain key scientific capacity/expertise. Last year, for example, MAFF conducted a comprehensive internal review of key facilities and expertise needed for the long-term health af their science advisory structure. BBSRC institute facilities were not included in that review despite the fact that IAH, IGER, Roslin and IACR all provide sources of knowledge and facilities which are either unique or nearly so. In the spirit of "joined-up" government it would be sensible if MAFF and BBSRC could identify key facilities and unique science expertise within the BBSRC institutes and agree a stable approach to funding. The UK's strategic capacity in key areas of science supporting the agriculture and food industries ought not to be endangered through short-term fluctuations in funding.

  3.4  BBSRC appreciates the problems which face MAFF with a declining research budget and changing priorities from policy makers. However, frequent changes in priorities place BBSRC and its institutes in a difficult financial situation. The research that the institutes provide relies on highly skilled individuals and teams who build up their expertise over a period of years. If MAFF funding for an area of work ends, BBSRC does not have the financial flexibility to support it from other sources. Changes in Departmental funding have had a major impact on the character of the research institutes involving a substantial growth of short-term contract employment of scientists: 80 per cent of institute postdoctoral scientists are on temporary contracts. Examples of changes in the balance of research include the secular decline in endemic disease research at IAH, and in research on cattle and avian welfare at Roslin. The general reduction in funding, linked with changes in the areas of priority, has placed a continuous redundancy burden on the science budget.

4.  CONTENT, FORMAT AND TIMING OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FOWARD LOOK

  4.1  As a whole, the 1999 Forward Look is an improvement on previous years in that entries for each organisation are more concise and it is easier to identify apparently key activities. However, preparation of the input is very constrained and, certainly in BBSRC's case, the final version gives a somewhat distorted picture of the Council's role and programme. While there is clear guidance on the number of words to be used in each section, there is little editorial guidance or control of content. Some entries for Chairman's/Ministerial statements mainly repeat mission statements, some identify scientific objectives, and some concentrate on managerial and administrative priorities.

  4.2  More consistent guidance on content, together with an overall limit on the number of words would be preferable. The emphasis should be on scientific priorities, setting out how departments/RC's intend to spend their allocations, with administrative aspects included only when significant changes are planned. Overall, it is not easy to gain a synoptic view of how the government's R&D money is used by research area or of how priorities are determined.

  4.3  Publication of the Forward Look on the web is a significant improvement in providing statistical information to the public. The web version makes good use of links to the SET statistics for those wishing to delve more deeply into the details. It would be desirable for the publication of the Forward Look to coincide with the SET statistics.

  4.4  The overall timing should be linked with major spending announcements and allocations. The 1999 Forward Look rightly concentrates on arrangements following the CSR and its precise timing allowed Departments/RCs some time to make strategic decision. This is sufficient for such a document, particularly with web publication linked to home pages, where more detailed planning can be reported and updated by contributing organisations. It would be sensible to publish the next Forward Look in 2001, following the outcome of SR 2000.

23 November 1999