Prospects for science in SR 2004

15. In the Times Higher Educational Supplement, Catherine Coates, who chairs the cross-Council group on the Spending Review, was reported as saying in November 2003 that the Research Councils were gloomy about their prospects for SR 2004. We hope that this has not resulted in a defeatist attitude and that the Research Councils and the OST continue to press the case for science with vigour. Lord Sainsbury is equally pessimistic. In giving evidence, he told us, "I do not think we should be under any illusions. It will be a very tough spending review".[19]

16. It is unclear to us why the Research Councils and the Minister should be gloomy. The OST insists that "no formal guidance has been issued to RCUK on consultation for SR 2004".[20] The Chancellor has been busy extolling the virtues of British science and its value to the economy. In the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Statement on 10 December 2003 he said, "I want Britain to be the best location for science and for research and development".[21] In his speech he made much of the UK's success in riding the global economic downturn. More recently, on 26 January 2004, he said "it is British inventors that have given us the internet, magnetic resonance imaging, the human genome project—all starting from Britain—affirming both our potential as a scientific nation for the future and the need to continue to invest in British science … we will only succeed if we can build on these inherent strengths and if politicians take the hard decisions making the tough long-term choices that are needed".[22] Given that there have been "discussions between HM Treasury and Research Council staff in Swindon and visits by HM Treasury staff to RC sites", the Research Councils might be expected to be buoyed up by the attention being given to them by the Chancellor and his civil servants at the Treasury.[23]

17. The Chancellor seems to be convinced that the UK's future prosperity is dependent on the strength of Britain's scientific and technological capability and it is reassuring to hear Sir David King's assessment that the Treasury has a "very sophisticated view of investment in the Science Base".[24] This sophistication must be coupled with an awareness that the UK Science Base still needs greater investment, as the Evidence Report reveals. We hope that the OST makes the Chancellor aware of the data on the Science Base compiled by Evidence Ltd and stresses that the UK cannot be the best place to do science, as he says he wishes, while investment lags behind that of its competitors.

18. While the Chancellor publicly stresses the need to "take the hard decisions making the tough long-term choices", Lord Sainsbury has clearly been watching the Treasury's smoke signals and concluded that SR 2004 will not be generous. Why else would he claim that the Spending Review will be tough? He denied any steer in his answer to our enquiry as to whether the Science Budget for 2005-06, as the first year of SR 2004, might be revised downwards. He said "I do not think we have any indication one way or the other".[25] This issue of future funding is too important to risk misinterpretation: Research Councils must plan on significantly longer timescales than HM Treasury. They need firm, clear guidance to be able to take decisions on financial commitments. It seems that the advice that Research Councils receive from the OST on the generosity, or otherwise, of HM Treasury in Spending Reviews is not always wholly reliable. In giving evidence to us during his introductory session, the new Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC), Professor Colin Blakemore, revealed that in 2000:

"The MRC heard from government that there was likely to be a large increase just before - literally a day before - the Council meeting at which funding decisions had to be taken, and awards were made quite generously."[26]

These decisions led to the overcommitment of funds and severe financial constraints at the MRC, as chronicled in our Report on The Work of the Medical Research Council, published in March 2003.[27]

19. The Government has two choices, therefore: either it provides no information on the likely settlement for the Spending Review and leaves the Research Councils to make a case for what they feel the Science Base needs; or it provides clear and unambiguous advice.

Priorities for SR 2004

20. Research Councils UK has launched a consultation "to build the best case for the continuing funding of UK research in the next Spending Review Period, SR 2004".[28]

21. RCUK has identified a number of cross cutting themes that it intends to employ to demonstrate the opportunities within the UK Research Base. Councils will be considering the extent to which these themes can be supported and expanded in the period to 2005-06 to create a robust platform in order to maximise the added benefit of any new funds. The eight multi-Council themes are:

• Changing Ourselves
• Conditions for Life
• Creativity and Innovation
• Infectious Disease
• Personal and National Security
• Scales of Complexity
• Sustainable Water Management
• Systems Biology: Understanding Life Processes

22. We commend the Research Councils on seeking input on its Spending Review bid. However, it is unfortunate that some of these headings are so imprecise as to be without meaning. None of the themes come with any further explanation of what such research programmes might embrace. This would have been helpful. The OST insists that all eight proposals have met with a favourable response. However, it is impossible, without more information, to find fault with them. It is not clear to us how Research Councils UK can use the results of its consultation exercise to develop priorities for its Spending Review bid. The scope of the Research Councils' themes for the 2004 Spending Review would have needed to have been fleshed out before meaningful views could be expressed.

23. We were interested in Lord Sainsbury's views on how the Science Budget should be split between large multi-Council programmes and responsive mode funding, should the Science Vote settlement be more modest in 2004 than it was in 2000 and 2002. His response concerns us. He said:

"I would personally be very loath to reduce the cross-Research Council themes because that is the way of the future. Getting this multidisciplinary research is one of the excellent things that has been done in recent years. I do not think that would be where I would make any cuts if I had to, which I do not want to do".[29]

24. In effect, he told us that he is prepared to cut responsive mode funding if the money is tight. We understand the temptation of Ministers to hang on to their big initiatives but if he asked the scientific community we suspect he would be told that these programmes are the icing on the cake, and that responsive mode, blue skies research is where the big advances will be made. We wholeheartedly support attempts to improve collaboration between Councils and disciplines but we believe that this can best be achieved by promoting links between research groups and need not involve siphoning off funds from responsive mode funding. If the Government wishes to fund research to support policy objectives then this should be funded from the budget of the relevant Government Department. Lord Sainsbury said that it is important to get the balance between responsive mode and managed programmes right.[30] We agree, but if he considers the balance to be right now, then there is no basis for changing that balance when the budget is tight. Yet this is precisely what the Minister is suggesting. We urge the Government to give priority to sustaining responsive mode funding in its settlement for Spending Review 2004. Scientists working at the cutting edge are best placed to identify the most fertile areas of research, not Government officials.

20   Ev 16 Back

21   HC Deb, 10 December 2003, Col 1064 Back

22   Speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, at the Advancing Enterprise Conference, QE2 Conference Centre, London, 26 January 2004 Back

23   Ev 16 Back

24   Q 53 Back

25   Q 44 Back

26   Second Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2003-04,Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council: Introductory Hearing, HC 55, Q 6 Back

27   Third Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2002-03, The Work of the Medical Research Council, HC 132 Back

28   www.rcuk.ac.uk Back

29   Q 47 Back

30   Q 52 Back