7. The MRC publishes performance targets in its Annual Report. Its targets for 2000-01 are shown in Table 3.

8. We were concerned by the poor level of feedback to grant applicants. According to Professor Radda, this was "following a year of a very, very large number of grants that we had been dealing with. I think we were just overwhelmed with proposals".[12] He said the MRC was looking at ways of improving the working of its research management group: "I think it is really just sharpening up the processes and making everybody aware, who is dealing with those grants, that they need to actually move on and give the feedback in a timely and accurate way". We are slightly puzzled by this. If 2000-01 was such an exceptional year it would seem an overreaction to overhaul an entire department's working practices. Nevertheless we are pleased to see the MRC improving the efficiency with which it administers its grants. We are disappointed by the limited number of performance targets that the MRC sets itself. The smooth running of an organisation or its ambition to improve its output cannot be expressed by the efficiency with which it sends out letters. Not all performance measures are quantifiable but where they are it seems reasonable that a public body should produce benchmark standards. Some examples are:

• Performance measures for its public engagement, as published by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC);[13]
• The MRC says that it is "seeking strong citation performance"[14] - how strong?
• It is our impression that some areas of the MRC website are not up to date - why not aim to review the content of all pages once a month?

We understand that Research Councils UK is undertaking a programme to streamline the administration of the Research Councils. We recommend that as part of this process a standard and extensive set of performance indicators is drawn up which will be applied to all Research Councils.

RESEARCH SUPPORT

9. The MRC's support for research is divided into:

• research grant schemes;
• international appointments;
• individual research training and career development awards;
• long­term funding for work in The MRC's own research centres; and
• investment in university infrastructure and national facilities.

10. A breakdown of the MRC's research support is shown in Tables 4 and 5.[15] They show that, against a backdrop of a steadily increasing expenditure, the MRC's spending on new grants has fluctuated substantially, with new awards in 1999­2000 more than twice that in 2001­02.

Table 4: Estimated expenditure in different categories of research support (£million).

	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04
MRC units	190.0	203.2	222.5	224.7
Grants, fellowships, studentships, Special contributions etc.	147.6	173.7	205.4	190.7
Other, ie running costs, restructuring, international subscriptions.	23.4	24.2	26.2	27.2
Total	361.0	401.1	454.1	442.5

Table 5: Value of new awards in different categories of research support (£million).

	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02
MRC Units and Institutes	28.4 (15%)	36.1 (12%)	42.1 (19%)	9.8 (6%)
Research grants and contributions	122.8 (63%)	216.5 (74%)	127.9 (56%)	100.8 (65%)
International subscriptions	0	0	5.0 (2%)	1.5 (1%)
Training Awards: Fellowships	27.3 (14%)	23.6 (8%)	32.3 (14%)	22.7 (15%)
Training Awards: Studentships	17.1 (9%)	17.1 (6%)	20.1 (9%)	19.9 (13%)
Total	195.6	293.3	227.4	154.7

Research grants

11. The MRC offers a range of different grant schemes. The key features of the principal funding schemes are shown in Table 6. Some grants (not Co­operative Group, Centre, and Development Grants) may be held by individual researchers, although the MRC says that many scientists prefer to collaborate to bring the necessary expertise to bear on a problem, for example in taking forward a clinical trial.[16]

Research support strategy

12. The current grant structure follows the results of a review by the MRC announced in 1997. It proposed a major reorganisation of university funding mechanisms aimed at:

• supporting the development of strategic scientific leadership and coordination of university centres;
• making it easier for the MRC to provide higher quality infrastructure;
• facilitating interdisciplinary grouping; and
• offering a wide range of career options for researchers.[17]

The principal change was the introduction of Collaborative Grants in place of Project Grants, for the financial year 1998-99. The total number of grants awarded has fallen dramatically from around 1500 in 1996-97 to 250 in 2000-01 (see Table 7).

Programme grants

13. The MRC describes Programme Grants as its "principal mechanism for supporting both focused and more broadly based long term research programmes".[19] These awards are for large amounts: in 2000-01, the MRC made 37 awards to the value of £62 million. Professor Radda told us that "What we said to researchers is that 'If you do not want to work with other people, then why do you not try and think in terms of five years rather than three years. So if you want to come in as an individual, put forward a proposal, small or large, for a five year period. You have to apply less frequently and you have more time to tackle some significant problems'".[20] This sounds a reasonable approach but the psychologists who wrote to us are under the impression that small project grants are not available and that "MRC money is tending to go to large groups that are already well funded".[21] Save British Science says that there has been a "deliberate shift away from allowing individual researchers to apply for grants" and that "there is no good reason to abolish individual project grants altogether".[22] If the research community is under the misapprehension that small project grants are not available when in fact they are the MRC is doing a poor job of communicating with its community. We recommend that the MRC gives a higher priority to keeping its research community better informed of its policies.

Career Establishment Grants

14. These grants aim to help establish young researchers. Few grants are awarded (11 in 2000-01) and competition is fierce (11% success rate in 2000-01). The low success rate for this grant scheme suggests that many young researchers are struggling to get funding. We notice that the amount of money allocated for these grants went up from £3.1 million to £4.7 million in 2001-02 but that fewer awards were made. The average grant size has doubled from £280,000 to £560,000. The MRC says it has increased expenditure on training new generations of researchers from £27 million in 1996-97 to £42 million in 2001-02.[23] This is laudable but this is of little consequence if newly trained researchers find it impossible to get funded. As the evidence from the psychological societies put it, "Young researchers are being frozen out of key funding that is necessary to enable them to begin their independent research careers".[24] The UK Life Sciences Committee (UKLSC) is concerned about the "lack of funding available from the MRC for young researchers". The Cooperative Group Component Grants are the MRC's principal source of project funding (see Paragraphs 15-19 below) and UKLSC argues that "to be eligible to apply for such grants the researcher has to be a member of an MRC­funded Co­operative Group. This makes it difficult for young, independent researchers to secure funding".[25] We welcome the fact that the budget for its Career Establishment Grants is ring-fenced but recommend that the MRC reconsiders the amount of money available and the size of each individual grant in order to support a greater number of young researchers.

Strategic Grants

15. In 2000-01, The MRC awarded 47 new Strategic Grants worth £34.5 million.[26] According to The MRC, for Strategic Grants "Principal Investigators may apply in response to a call to the scientific community for proposals on a specific topic".[27] It is common for Research Councils to run programmes in which funding is directed at a particular area of study. For example, much of the research funded by EPSRC on renewable energy is delivered through its Infrastructure and Environment Programme.[28] This form of research support is generally termed "managed mode" funding. In contrast, response mode funding is used to describe funding mechanisms in which researchers can submit proposals in what area they wish to work. The distinction may not always be rigid. As Professor John O'Reilly, Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), told us: "We provide a great deal of signposting of priorities and so on and through consultations we do push out that we would like to see proposals in this particular area, so it is not hard and fast ... it is more a continuum between those in terms of the way we work".[29] It is sensible in our view to strike a balance between response mode and managed mode. The EPSRC says that across all its research support mechanisms, 38% is managed mode.[30] The MRC asserts that "All of MRC's grant mechanisms are in response mode"; quite clearly they are not.[31] This is more than an issue of semantics. The MRC has been criticised for moving away from a response-mode open grants competition and for allocating too much money in ring-fenced initiatives.[32] In fact for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, Strategic Grants comprised around 28% of research support, which is not unreasonable. The balance of response mode and managed mode funding is a sensitive issue for researchers and the MRC should communicate its research support strategies openly and without ambiguity.

Cooperative Group Grants

16. The MRC's Cooperative Group Grants made up 13% of grant expenditure in 2000-01 but represented 35% of all applications and 25% of all awards. In 2000­01, 63 awards were made at a cost of £16.7 million. The Cooperative Group Grants "draw together researchers to improve the overall output of research and enhance individual research projects".[33] We have heard three major criticisms of the scheme:

• It creates artificial alliances;
• The groups are not sustainable; and
• It discriminates against certain disciplines.

17. According to the British Psychological Society, the Association of Heads of Psychological Departments and the Experimental Psychology Society "The pressure to form co­operative groups is distorting the way some researchers are working, encouraging them to form artificial alliances for the purpose of the funding mechanism rather than for the excellence of the science".[34] Professor Radda told us that "If it is artificial, then the review at the renewal, I hope, will pick it up that actually it has not been done in the spirit of what it is designed to do".[35] It is regrettable that any artificial alliances encouraged by Cooperative Group Grants are only likely to be identified after they are funded. We were under the impression that rigorous peer review would be able to pick out such marriages of convenience before the money is allocated.

18. The MRC currently recognises 142 Cooperative Groups, yet Professor Radda told us that initially the MRC had only expected to be able to sustain about 100.[36] A number of the memoranda of evidence received expressed concern about the operation of this scheme, particularly in the face of the inability of the MRC to fund almost half of the Alpha­A (top) rated projects, and the consequent difficulty for researchers in maintaining the required component grants required for continued eligibility for Co­operative Group Grants. Having embarked on a programme of collaborative research on the basis that this would provide sustained funding, many researchers are now having the rug pulled from beneath their feet.

19. Concern has also been expressed about the effect of the Co­operative Group Grant scheme on smaller groups and disciplines. The memorandum from the psychology societies said that "Psychology has been severely affected by changes in the MRC funding priorities", and in particular by the "MRC's decision to withdraw project grants in favour of (the) Co­operative Group Scheme". The memorandum claims that because of this scheme and other funding decisions "the MRC has found itself unable to fund first­rate science proposed by able individuals"[37]. Other memoranda also drew attention to the adverse effect of the MRCs introduction of the Co­operative Grants Scheme.

20. The MRC's Cooperative Group Development Grants are designed to help institutions to get themselves in a position which would allow them to be eligible to apply for support under the Co­operative Group Scheme. We have heard that this scheme has not worked out in practice and that with the Cooperative Group Grants the MRC "has acquired a reputation for preserving an 'inner­circle' of favoured projects and institutions. As such, this does not engender the healthy research environment that the MRC should be aiming for".[38] The Cooperative Group Grant scheme has provoked understandable resentment and frustration among the medical research community. The MRC should take an objective look at the system and be honest enough to admit the scheme's failings and make the necessary changes.

21. It is now five years since the MRC took its decision to reorganise its research support system. It is far from clear that it has been a success. The Research Councils are embarking upon a process of harmonising their administration, including their grant-awarding strategies.[39] This process should recognise that different areas of research have contrasting requirements but this is a valuable opportunity for the MRC to reconsider its research support strategy.

Grant application success rate

22. In the Committee's evidence session with the EPSRC for our inquiry into a non­carbon fuel economy, its Chief Executive, John O'Reilly, told the Committee, "if the success rate of highly regarded proposals is between one in two to one in three then the system itself is a workable and sustainable one. When success rates get to be very low then I think it is not".[40]

23. Table 8 shows that the success rate declined dramatically in 2001-02, particularly for the Cooperative Group grants, which was 11%. This is despite a drop in the number of applications.

24. There has also been a big drop in the funding available for new grants. In 1999­2000 the amount of money allocated for new grants was £206 million, and this dropped to £124 million and then £59 million in the subsequent years. In the original submission to the Committee, the MRC claimed that the large difference in the figures for 2001-02 is mainly due to the "commitment of funds for establishing the Mary Lyon Centre".[41] On 2 December, the MRC submitted revised evidence in which this sentence was changed to the "commitment of funds for the UK Biobank project and International Appointments". This is consistent an article in the journal Nature, in which an MRC spokesperson reportedly said the shortage of funds was due to the MRC's investment in large new projects such as Biobank.[42] We queried this with Professor Radda, who acknowledged that a mistake had been made with the original submission. The total sum pledged by the MRC for the first five years of the running of Biobank is £20 million. According to its annual report only £700,000 was spent on international appointments in 2001-02. Combined, these figures come no where near the huge drop in grant funding. Professor Radda also stressed in giving evidence that Biobank was funded from new money: "Biobank money has not come in competition with grants".[43]

25. We asked Professor Radda whether the funding situation was worse than in previous years. He replied that,"No. We have been through periods where, because of the fluctuations in the funding, the way we fund, there are years which are worse".[44] The MRC's grant in aid has risen in each of the past four years, however; but there are clearly fluctuations in the amount of money that the MRC has to spend on new grants. In 1999-2000, Professor Radda told us that "we had a big increase in allocation of funds from OST and we spent it on very good science" but that "if, in the next year, you do not get a similar increase in your funding then your headroom goes down".[45] This is true but the MRC knew from the Spending Review settlement what its income would be. Any organisation has to make the best judgement it can about its future income and budget accordingly. The MRC, however, is in the fortunate position of knowing not only what its income will be for the year ahead but also its income for the year following that. When it makes an award it knows what financial commitment it makes; it is a simple piece of financial modelling. Professor Radda said that the MRC had to spend a lot of money on new grants in 1999-2000 because it could not carry much of the money over.[46] But it did draw £1.7 million from its private fund and £7.5 million from its commercial fund in that year. Professor Radda told us that "with hindsight we could have had more foresight".[47] We believe that the current situation could and should have been foreseen. The MRC has mismanaged its funds in such a way as to create unwarranted fluctuations in its awards of new grants with consequent adverse impacts on their research community. It appears to have gambled on increases in income that were not, and were unlikely to be, forthcoming.

26. Professor Radda told us that the MRC was "paying a price" for the increase in funding in 1999-2000.[48] This is an unfortunate phrase: it is the medical research community that is paying the price (see Box 1). In its meeting in July 2002, the MRC decided that it could only fund 45 of the 84 applications it had received that had been rated alpha-A (the highest rating) by their peer-reviewers. This is not a trivial matter: those that were unfunded were from some of the best research teams in the country and will have significant effect on their work. The Society of Fertility and Reproduction says that "the inability to fund outstanding grants is catastrophic: the researchers involved in preparing the applications will have invested significant effort and time for nothing. For many, funding is the only way of supporting their team of specialists and hence their long-term research programmes will be compromised without funding".[49] The UK Life Sciences Committee told us that "the long delay between preparing and submitting a grant application and hearing the result means that 6 months to a year is lost if an excellent grant proposal is not rewarded" and that "this could lead to scientists deciding to relocate abroad, and to a loss in international esteem for UK biomedical research".[50] Professor Nigel Leigh from the Institute of Psychiatry and a member of a Cooperative Group considers that "writing grants for the MRC has become something of a farce".[51] Research funders all risk unpopularity among those researchers whose applications are not successful, and it is in the nature of the business that not all applications are successful, but the recent success rate for the MRC's grant applications has fallen to levels that are unacceptable.

27. The MRC can point to the large number of awards funded in previous years, particularly 1999-2000. But not all of the grants awarded in this and previous years will have been alpha-A rated. What the MRC has done is to fund a number of lesser projects in recent years, only to find that it cannot afford to fund the best in 2002-03. The case history presented in Box 1 demonstrates that besides the failure to fund research projects of the highest quality the MRC has alienated researchers and wasted a huge amount of their time. The anger of the research community at the MRC's funding problems is not only understandable but entirely justified.

Box 1.[52] In January 2001, a research team submitted an outline proposal for a clinical trial grant to the MRC. In June 2001, following satisfactory assessment of the proposal by three referees, the team was invited to submit a full proposal taking into account the views of the referees. Before submitting the full proposal, the principal investigator spent a considerable amount of time researching issues of concern to the referees. These were addressed in appendices to the full proposal which was submitted in September 2001. The full proposal was sent by the MRC to 18 international referees of whom 13 replied, 12 being in favour of the project. In December 2001, the principal investigator received the feedback from the referees via the MRC, which totalled 26 pages of A4. The principal investigator was required to respond to their comments and queries. This required further research and extra work which included the preparation of a nine­page table (including two pages of references) containing results of all the prospective studies that had ever been carried out in the area. The proposal was considered by the relevant board of the MRC where it was classed as Alpha A, the highest possible rating. In January 2002, the principal investigator was asked by the MRC Board to reply to questions raised by a Government agency. The proposal was then further considered by the MRC in February 2002. A decision on the proposal was deferred pending further information. To that end, the principal investigator was asked to submit a revised proposal setting out the minimum resources required to conduct the trial. This was considered by an MRC Board in June 2002. At that meeting, the Board banded the proposal Alpha A but asked that costs should again be reduced by cutting some posts and reducing the research cost of the work to be done in the general practices. The principal investigator reworked the budget yet again on the basis that the additional funding required could be secured from other sources. This fundraising took up a considerable amount of time but it was considered worth it as the MRC had given the impression that the trial would be funded, albeit at a lower level than originally requested. The Council of the MRC met on 24 July but decided not to fund the trial, because of the shortage of funds. The total process between first application and notification of unsuccessful outcome took 18 months and in the region of 350 man hours of the principal investigator alone.

28. Many of the MRC's grant schemes run for five years. Indeed, in its submission to the inquiry, it made much of its support for long-term research.[53] This is a laudable attempt to give researchers long-term funding and provide stability but by awarding grants in this fashion, the MRC gambles on its future income. The MRC is not alone among Research Councils in having to make long-term estimates of income, yet we are not aware of similar problems with other Research Councils. Indeed, much of the research funded by PPARC has even longer horizons, particularly when it is associated with large facilities. The MRC has failed to make realistic predictions about future income nor has it achieved a sensible balance of long-term and shorter-term research funding. It should remedy this situation in the future.

29. The MRC has not been entirely frank with the Committee or the media about the shortage of funds available for grants in 2002. It is vital that public bodies are open.

Implications for other funders

30. The financial constraints at The MRC, along with its funding policies, are placing a "great strain" on other research funders, principally BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust.[54] The August 2002 issue of The Biochemist reported BBSRC's Director of Science and Technology's view that BBSRC was now receiving grant applications that would previously have been funded by the MRC.[55] Professor Nigel Leigh says that the lack of access to MRC funding "places a huge burden on the Wellcome Trust, which has responded magnificently. Without the Trust, British clinical science would be in a sorry state".[56] It is extremely regrettable that the policy decisions of the MRC should impact on other funders. We hope the establishment of Research Councils UK will prevent this situation in the future. We also recommend that other medical research funders are consulted before any further change to the MRC's funding strategy.

Training and careers

31. The MRC's support for training and careers can be divided into their support through studentships and research fellowships.

Studentships

32. The MRC's support for studentships has remained stable since 1998­99, with new awards amounting to 20.1 million in 2000-01 and £19.9 million in 2001­02. Since other forms have suffered substantial reductions in the funds available for new wards following a peak in 1999-2000, studentships have represented a growing proportion of new awards. In 2001­02 it represented 13% of the value of new awards (see Table 5). This reflects an increase in the annual PhD stipend following the 2000 Spending Review, which announced a rise a from £6,800 in the 2000-01 academic year to £7,500 in 2001-02 and £9,000 in 2003-04.[57] The MRC says "In the light of the recommendations of the Roberts review on the supply of scientists and engineers ¼, [it] will review MRC post graduate research training in 2002­03 in order to improve its attractiveness and flexibility".[58] We were interested to see the MRC, in its latest Operating Plan, state that it "intends to award up to 30 studentships in strategic areas that have been identified as needing increased research workforce capacity". The MRC is justifiably keen to support the next generation of medical scientists. But it must not do this at the expense of current research. We believe that the MRC's current financial problems should have been borne more equally across all its budgets.

33. We were hampered in our analysis of our figures by the submission of corrected figures for the value of new studentships almost four months after the original data were supplied to us. The MRC has on three occasions corrected information submitted to us relating to its expenditure on new awards. This does not give us confidence in the rigour with which it publishes financial data nor the seriousness with which it views our scrutiny of its work.

Fellowships and postdoctoral researchers

34. Support for postdoctoral researchers comes in two forms: through its fellowship grants to individuals; and through research grants, a large part of which goes on researchers' salaries. In 2001-02, The MRC allocated £32.3 million on new fellowships. Unlike the MRC's funding of studentships, its spending here is more closely allied to the total funds available. This is sensible. While ring-fencing of the MRC's budget for some projects is useful (see paragraph 14), in general we believe that it should have a set notional proportion of its budget for different schemes but allow itself sufficient flexibility to respond to unexpected demands.

35. The MRC reports that around 70% of research grants goes to support researchers' salaries. Most of this will be for postdoctoral researchers as in most cases the salaries of permanent university academic staff are met through the university block grant from DfES. Two factors are likely to affect this in the future: increased salaries to improve recruitment and retention and the impact of the EU Fixed­Term Work Directive.[59] The MRC says that some universities have already requested more experienced (and hence more expensive) staff in order to recruit researchers successfully and that it expects increased demand from other universities. It says these increases cannot be quantified. We appreciate the difficulties in anticipating the effect of the new employment regulations and the increased salaries for postdoctoral researchers but it is important that the MRC makes the best estimate it can. A business would expect to calculate, as best it can, the impact of new regulations or changes in legislation on its income and expenditure. The MRC should be run in a business-like fashion.

36. In our recent report on short-term contracts in science and engineering, we recommended that all the Research Councils follow the MRC's lead in allowing contract research staff (CRS) to apply for its grants. The MRC told us that they support 3,500 scientists in UK universities, of whom around 1500 are CRS.[60] The MRC told us that "about 2% of the grants (19 in all) awarded over the last 4 years" were awarded to CRS but that "many young researchers have insufficient experience in writing grant proposals and that they are more likely to be successful as co­applicants".[61] We appreciate that not all contract researchers will have either the inclination or the experience to apply for MRC grants. What is important is that this option is available to them and that those with a good idea for a research proposal are free to pursue it. We commend the MRC for this policy.

Senior appointments

  37. Research Professorships provide long­term personal support for scientists of exceptional ability working in areas of strategic value to the MRC. In its operating plan the MRC says "The MRC will review its Research Professorship scheme in 2002, and relaunch the scheme in 2003. The review will look at ways of ensuring that new recruits to the cadre can represent the MRC's interests across a broad spectrum of research issues as well as benefit from protected research time. Attention will be paid to creating enhanced security of tenure for these appointments where required". Professor Radda expanded upon this during his appearance before the Committee: "The relaunch scheme is likely to be identifying areas where there is a need to bring in or to strengthen, at the senior level, some area of research, rather than just having it open for any field".[62] We recognise the importance of the Research Professorship scheme for attracting and retaining top flight researchers in the UK and the value of creating secure research­only academic posts so that individuals can play to their strengths rather than being distracted by teaching obligations. The MRC's decision to focus on shortage areas seems a sensible one.

38. The MRC has an International Appointments Initiative which aims to attract "outstanding overseas scientists to work in the UK". It says the scheme will be extended to encourage overseas scientists to take up positions in MRC units. The scheme is quoted as one of the reasons for the fall in funding available for grants. The amounts are small (£700,000 in 2001-02[63]); nevertheless we wonder whether it is prudent to import scientific brains when our home-grown talent is suffering from a shortage of MRC funds.

Institutes, Centres and Units

39. The MRC has 40 facilities of its own. Three of these are large institutes: the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill and the Clinical Science Centre in London; and the Laboratory for Molecular Biology at Cambridge to 8 smaller centres and 29 units, which are generally based in universities.[64] The centres and units compete for funding equally with universities and are not necessarily set up on a long­term basis. Of the 50 that were in existence 10 years ago, 27 have closed down, 23 remain and 7 new ones have been set up. Professor Radda describes this as "recycling" though we would prefer "turning over": his term implies that some investment in these centres and units can be recouped, which is misleading.[65] We do support the process, however: it is important that the MRC takes a dynamic approach to the funding support for its own research institutions, which it enables it to exploit new areas of research and avoids ossification.

40. We are aware that the MRC's own facilities have been hit particularly hard by its budgetary problems.[66] Professor Radda explained to us that when a grant is awarded to a university, it is a binding contract. When the finances are tight, therefore, it is the in-house facilities that are asked to make the budget cuts.[67] In 2000-01 the MRC spent £190 million on its institutions and they received 16% of new awards for research support (£42 million). The following year, the MRC spent £195 million on its own facilities but they received only 5% of new awards (£10 million). This contrasts with university support, which rose from £157 million to £184 million. Professor Radda said that the drop in the new awards for its institutions did not have any impact on their research as "this is new money for units as opposed to the existing funds that go on a five yearly review basis".[68] If reducing the number of new awards to its research institutions has no effect the question arises as to why the MRC awards them. We suspect the truth is different, and indeed we are aware of deep dismay from a distinguished centre director. Unfortunately his employment contract prevents him from expressing his views in public. There is no point in spending money on infrastructure by setting up MRC Centres but then denying them the funds to conduct any research.

Mary Lyon Centre

41. The Mary Lyon is a new facility at Harwell in Oxfordshire, owned and run by the MRC. Its aim is to house a range of genetic variants for use as animal models of disease for biomedical research. On its website, the MRC says that its £15 million cost has come from the Government as part of its Cross Research Council Genomics Programme.[69] However, in its submission to the Committee the MRC says that half of its expenditure on its units and centres in 2000-02 (£42 million) went on the Mary Lyon Centre, i.e. £21 million. Furthermore, in its Operating Plan for 2002-03 to 2003-04, it says expenditure on the Centre for 2001-02 to 2003-04 is expected to be £11.3 million. This discrepancy is all the more curious since Professor Radda maintained that "there was something like a five or six per cent difference between the initial estimate and what it is actually costing".[70] This difference may reflect the fact that the second phase has been shelved or scaled down.[71] This would not be consistent, however, with a "Summary of the main issues discussed at the Council meeting 27 March 2002" presented on the MRC's website: "Council agreed to increase the budget sufficiently to deliver the facility [our italics] as proposed at the March 2001 Council meeting. Seeking additional external funding was considered as an option, although it should not be allowed to slow down the project".[72] The MRC has failed to provide a coherent and consistent assessment of the funding of the Mary Lyon Centre. It should be more open about its finances if it is to avoid arousing suspicion that its financial management is not all it should be.

42. According to its website and its Annual Review, the Mary Lyon Centre was due to open at the end of 2002.[73] Professor Radda, in giving evidence to us, maintained that the Centre would open on time. But by this he meant summer 2003; indeed this is the date quoted in the MRC's Operating Plan.[74] This slippage is not particularly serious. Of greater concern is the inconsistency of information provided by the MRC and Professor Radda's denial that the Centre would open late. The website has still not been updated, despite this having been drawn to the MRC's attention during the evidence session. Out of date information on the MRC's website undermines confidence in the accuracy of information it places there. It does not reflect well on the priority given by the MRC to communicating with its community. It is disappointing that the Mary Lyon Centre will be opened later than originally planned and regrettable that the MRC seems to wish to obscure this fact.

12   Qq 2-5 Back

13   Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Annual Report and Accounts 2001­2002, page 18 Back

14   Ev 31 Back

15   Ev 36 Back

16   Ev 66 Back

17   MRC Annual Report 1996-1997, p.15 Back

18   Strategic grants include clinical trials. Back

19   MRC Annual Report and Accounts 01-02, page 6 Back

20   Q 20 Back

21   Ev 30 Back

22   Ev 57 Back

23   Ev 32 Back

24   Ev 30 Back

25   Ev 17 Back

26   Ev 37 Back

27   Ev 67 Back

28   Written evidence to Committee's inquiry "Towards a non-carbon fuel economy: research, development and demonstration" from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (unpublished) Back

29   Minutes of evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee, 23 October 2002, Q32 Back

30   Written evidence to Committee's inquiry "Towards a non-carbon fuel economy: research, development and demonstration" from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (unpublished) Back

31   Ev 32 Back

32   Ev 30, 17 Back

33   MRC Annual Report and Accounts 01-02, page 6 Back

34   Ev 30 Back

35   Q 19 Back

36   Qq 15-16 Back

37   Ev 30 Back

38   Ev 31 Back

39   Research Councils UK Strategy Group terms of reference, www.research-councils.ac.uk Back

40   Minutes of evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee, 23 October 2002, Q 30 Back

41   Ev 37 Back

42   Top projects suffer as medical funding falters, Nature, 15 August 2002, vol 418, p.714 Back

43   Q 148 Back

44   Q 23 Back

45   Q 23 Back

46   Q 23 Back

47   Q 27 Back

48   Q 24 Back

49   Ev 60 Back

50   Ev 17 Back

51   Ev 51 Back

52   The details of this grant application have been withheld to ensure the anonymity of the applicant. Back

53   Ev 36 Back

54   Ev 30 Back

55   The Biochemist Vol 4 No 4, August 2002, page 34 Back

56   Ev 51 Back

57   Department of Trade and Industry, Science Budget 2001-02 to 2003-04, November 2000, page 5 Back

58   MRC Operating plan 2002/03 and 2003/04, para 6.2 Back

59   Ev 63 Back

60   Q 77 Back

61   Ev 67 Back

62   Q 78 Back

63   MRC Annual Report and Accounts 01-02, p.31 Back

64   www.mrc.ac.uk Back

65   Q 56 Back

66   Ev 63 Back

67   MRC Staff Bulletin 317, July 2002 Back

68   Q 56 Back

69   www.mgu.har.mrc.ac.uk/lyon.html Back

70   Q 50; Operating Plan 2002-03 and 2003-04, para 4.7 Back

71   Ev 67 Back

72   www.mrc.ac.uk Back

73   www.mgu.har.mrc.ac.uk/lyon.html; MRC Annual Review and Accounts 01/02, p.10 Back

74   Q 52 Back