EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.  The FCO has contact with the Research Councils (RCs) on international priorities and activities through the overseas Science and Innovation Network (SIN), the Science and Innovation Group (SIG) and the Polar Regions Unit (PRU).

  2.  The RCs are key stakeholder for the SIN and understanding the priorities of the RCs is crucial to having an effective collaborative relationship. Collaboration is good but there is scope for greater understanding. Mechanisms are in place to ensure there is a strong two-way communication of priorities and expectations. SIN is keen to work more closely with RCs.

  3.  On UK polar policies, the FCO suggests the UK science community should focus resources on science issues of current concern at international meetings. This science should deliver rapidly in order that science advice to be fed into policy decisions.

INTRODUCTION

  4.  The evidence is provided in respect of:

—  The strengths and weaknesses of existing Research Council and OSI mechanisms and activities to maintain and promote international collaboration, and;

—  The effectiveness of collaboration between the Research Councils and the Government Departments involved in international scientific activities, including… the FCO Science and Innovation Network…'

—  The impact of the Research Councils' policies on the international mobility of scientists and engineers

  5.  This submission describes two important examples of the relationship between the FCO and RCs. Firstly, it sets out the interactions between SIN/SIG and the RCs. Secondly, it describes the more specialised relationship between the PRU and the British Antarctic Survey (part of the Natural Environment Research Council).

RESEARCH COUNCIL INTERACTIONS WITH THE SCIENCE AND INNOVATION GROUP AND THE SCIENCE AND INNOVATION NETWORK

  6.  The FCO's main contact with the Research Councils (RCs) on international policies and activities is through the SIN and the SIG. The FCO established the SIN in 2000 as part of HMG's overall science strategy. There are now over 100 officers in 42 missions in 28 countries across the world. The SIG in London coordinates the Network and ensures that science is factored into FCO policy-making where appropriate.

  7.  The SIN and the RCs work together in many ways:

—  On visits to host countries

—  Providing access (through the SIN's contacts) to a country's science base

—  Providing access (through the RCs' contacts) to the UK science base

—  Exchanging intelligence on UK science priorities from the RCs and on other countries' priorities from the SIN

—  Responding to fact finding requests

—  On specific projects or initiatives eg UK/China Partners in Science

RC COLLABORATIONS WITH SIN

  8.  The SIN's experiences of working with RCs are broadly positive. For example, in China the UK/China Partners in Science initiative resulted in strong links between the RCs and the SIN China team. Outcomes of the first phase of activity, of benefit to both the RCs and the FCO, include:

—  The signing of several new Memoranda of Understanding between the RCs and Chinese research organisations, formalising arrangements for exchanges and cooperation

—  The launch of an ongoing series of meetings to establish collaborations in space technology (STFC)

—  Workshops on foodborne pathogens (BBSRC), climate change (NERC), cancer research (MRC), spintronics (EPSRC), astronomy (STFC), synchrotron radiation (STFC), e-Science (EPSRC), and polar research (NERC)

—  An agreement between the MRC and the National Centre for Drug Screening in Shanghai to collaborate on drug discovery in malaria research

—  Participation of RC-funding scientists in press briefings and networking events involving senior Chinese scientists, policymakers and funding agencies.

  9.  Examples of positive collaborations from other countries include:

—  In India the RCs provided names of peer reviewers for the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI). Discussions are underway about more active RC involvement in future UKIERI programmes.

—  In Japan the SIN team worked closely with NERC to enable three British researchers to be based in Japan for three years at the Earth Simulator supercomputer to collaborate on climate modelling.

—  In France the SIN team have been working closely with EPSRC on a maths (representation theory) initiative. EPSRC are developing a UK which they will support in collaboration's with their French equivalents. An MoU is expected to be signed in September 2007.

—  The USA SIN team has supported visits from senior representatives from several RCs, including EPSRC to look at models for interdisciplinary research, BBSRC to benchmark its work against various groups in the US and the MRC to benchmark scientific expertise and look at policy priorities.

—  The German SIN team is in regular contact with STFC regarding two German-led international science projects (XFEL and FAIR) for which the Germans are seeking to attract international funding.

CURRENT UK INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY

  10.  In October 2006 the Global Science and Innovation Forum (GSIF) published its international strategy for the UK Government as a whole. Both SIG and the RCs are represented on this forum and were involved in the development of the strategy. It is now for the SIN, RCs and the other members of GSIF to take forward the recommendations in the strategy.

  11.  To complement the GSIF strategy we welcome the development of an international strategy for the RCs that is currently underway. This will provide the SIN with a clear framework for its interactions with the RCs and again increase our understanding of where we can most effectively work with the RCs.

  12.  We also welcome the proposed establishment of an international team within the RCUK secretariat. This will undoubtedly benefit the RCs. We hope it will also provide a clear communication channel between the RCs and their key stakeholders (including SIN and SIG). We look forward to working with this team.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RCS AND THE SIN

  13.  The RCs are a key stakeholder for the SIN, since they hold the UK science funding budget and are charged by the UK government to invest this in areas of UK priority. Therefore, the SIN needs to work closely with the RCs to form effective collaborations for the UK with partner countries, and to pursue opportunities which are in line with the RCs' priorities and strategies. Each RC organises its international engagement in a different way, and the SIN therefore needs to understand each Council to be able to help effectively with RC international engagement. They also need to be able to explain these differences to contacts in their host country.

  14.  The above points can be addressed through clear communication between RCs and SIN/SIG. Communication between the SIN and RCs about ongoing in-country activities eg new MoUs or events, is particularly important to be able present a joined-up UK to the host country. Two way communication about the UK priorities and host-country priorities is important to ensure that the SIN is not spending time initiating collaborative activities which the RCs will not want to take forward.

  15.  Communication has generally been good and is getting better. It is being addressed in several ways:

—  SIG attends the Research Council International Network meetings, which bring together the international teams from all RCs with some key stakeholders. This is useful and minutes of this meeting are distributed to the SIN

—  SIN conferences and familiarisation courses for S&I officers always include a session with RCs, providing an opportunity for RCs to explain their priorities and to discuss working together

—  Key RC announcements/documents are distributed to SIN through an extranet system and weekly updates

—  The FCO has recognised the RCs as being one of its 10 key stakeholders and a representative from SIG is the FCO stakeholder manager for the RCs. This provides a clear point of contact for the RCs to access the wider FCO and in particular the SIN.

—  As part of Recommendation 6 of the GSIF Strategy, GSIF members (including the RCs) were invited to provide feedback to each SIN post's business plan for 2007-08.

  16.  There have been a few occasions where SIN officers have received different information from the RC international team and the relevant RC programme manager. SIN attaches have worked successfully both through international RC teams and directly with relevant RC programme managers, and will continue to do so. The international teams in most RCs are very small and are not resourced to have in depth knowledge of all the projects the RC is running, so communication with the relevant programme manager is essential.

  17.  In countries with the largest SIN teams, SIN officers are often responsible for managing client relationships in specific areas, which correspond to RC priorities. This should enable greater co-ordination with the RCs.

  18.  It is important that both the SIN and the RCs recognise that each has several other stakeholders in the international arena, and that expectations need to be carefully managed. The SIN needs to recognise that the RCs will have particular target countries and areas of research, and these may not match up with the opportunities that the SIN has identified for potential collaboration within countries. Equally, the SIN has to make its limited time and resources available to all its stakeholders.

  19.  The SIN would like to work more closely with the RCs. In particular the SIN recognises more could be done on engaging with ESRC. The research that ESRC funds will often touch on the issues generated from the priorities the SIN focuses on eg stem cell regulation and ethics, science in public policy, S&I for security/behavioural research.

  20.  The SIN would like more information from RCs on their country by country priorities so that it can focus on these in the specific countries. This would enable more effective collaboration between the SIN and RCs but also between RCs and the host country.

  21.  The SIN has a role to add value to the RC interactions overseas. However there are many cases where RCs already have good relations with their in country interlocutors and the SIN's involvement would not add any value. In these situations the SIN does still need to be made aware of any outcomes in order to present a joined-up UK government to that country. This is crucial to avoid situations where by not knowing about development SIN could damage relations with important contacts.

RCUK INTERNATIONAL OFFICES

  22.  RCUK is in the process of establishing its first overseas office based in Beijing. The China SIN team has worked very closely with RCUK and the RCs on this project. The SIN has provided key interactions with the Chinese government, identified the office building location and arranged for its rental, been part of the project team from the start and involved in scoping the role, budget and programme. It is hoped the RCUK office will work in close co-operation with the China SIN team to build on recent activities (especially the UK/China Partners in Science initiative) to extend the UK's reach into the Chinese scientific community and institutional research base.

  23.  There are important differences between the role of the SIN and the RCUK overseas offices. In China it is important for the SIN team to have credibility with the Chinese government as well as with the research funding community. The RCUK office will be able to interact directly with the research funding bodies. It is separate from HMG and in that way raises the profile of research in the UK in a similar way to the German or French research funders who already have offices in China.

  24.  RCUK is planning to open another overseas office later in the year in Washington. Again the Washington SIN team has been critical in putting mechanisms into place for the delivery of this project. The Washington RCUK office will have a different focus from the China office and the number of opportunities that are available to collaborate with US funding agencies, eg NIH, NSF and DoE, warrant the establishment of this RCUK office.

  25.  RCUK is also considering setting up an office in India. Discussions are at a preliminary stage but again the India SIN team is closely involved.

  26.  The SIN recognises and agrees with the importance of raising RCUK presence abroad. However, it is essential that the UK is, and is seen by other countries to be, joined up.

BARRIERS TO INCREASING THE UK'S INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

  27.  Not all countries fund their research in a similar way to the UK. Some countries would prefer (because of how they organise their science funding) to have a clear fund for bilateral collaborative R&D. This differs from the UK system which works on the basis of getting the best value for money through a bottom-up system of research funding. RCs need to be fully aware of these differences and their effects on achieving international collaboration. The SIN can provide in-country expertise on these issues and work with the RCs to overcome any difficulties.

  28.  Related to this issue of bottom-up funding is that it can be difficult to obtain comprehensive data on the amount of collaborative funding the UK has with a specific country. This has implications for "selling"" the UK as a collaborative partner for science and there will generally be more collaboration underway between the UK and a specific country than that country is aware of.

  29.  Additionally, there is the issue of "double jeopardy"" where international research collaborations often have to gain approval for project funds from two (or more) agencies in two (or more) countries. The probability of failure multiplies with the number of approvals required, and the fact that often agencies'/countries' timings for calls are different, means that it can take a long time to find out the result of project bids. We suggest that RCs look more closely at the possibility of running joint calls or synchronising the timing of calls to reduce the impact of "double jeopardy"" and encourage further international collaboration.

SIN/SIG CONCLUSIONS

  30.  Overall collaboration between the SIN and RCs is good; the successes far outnumber any difficulties. There are still opportunities for increased understanding both ways of priorities and aims but this is being addressed.

  31.  The RCs are key stakeholders for the SIN and understanding the priorities of the RCs is very important to having an effective collaborative relationship. To achieve this clear communication is essential, and many mechanisms are in place to ensure there is a strong two-way communication of priorities and expectations.

  32.  The SIN welcomes RCUK establishing international offices and looks forward to working closely with RCUK during both the set up and operational phase.

  33.   The SIN would like to work even more closely with the RCs, in particular the ESRC, whose priorities will touch on many of the key priorities for the SIN. In particular the SIN would like more information from RCs on their country by country priorities so that it can focus on these in each specific country.

RESEARCH COUNCIL INTERACTIONS WITH THE FCO POLAR REGIONS UNIT

  34.  The British Antarctic Survey (BAS; part of the Natural Environment Research Council) has a two-fold mission:

—  to undertake a world-class programme of scientific research; and

—  to sustain for the UK an active and influential regional presence and a leadership role in Antarctic affairs.

  The latter part of this mission statement contributes directly to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's obligations under the Antarctic Treaty System and its wider policy for the South Atlantic. BAS provides a permanent presence for the UK in the British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia. Experts from the British Antarctic Survey are actively involved in the UK's Delegations to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and the meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and are given full rein in the scientific mechanisms aligned to these Treaty institutions.

  35.  The ability to call upon the expertise of those within a dedicated research institute, such as BAS, underpins the FCO's objective to uphold the UK's prominent profile and ensure that the UK is central to all decision-making within the Antarctic Treaty System. There is often a great deal of scientific uncertainty raised in the Antarctic context, partly because there is still so much unknown about the continent and its complex processes. In this respect, the ability of the UK to call on experts within an integrated inter-disciplinary scientific institute has enabled the UK to maintain a leading role in policy discussions. BAS's active engagement in international collaborative work adds to the UK's standing and influence within the Antarctic Treaty System.

  36.  However, all elements of the Treaty System have been expanding considerably over recent years, and consequently so has the demand for scientific input and advice. There is a clear distinction between science undertaken as a result of larger core peer-reviewed programmes and the more applied science required to provide for the scientific input to international treaty mechanisms. For the UK to maintain its influence and status within the Antarctic Treaty System, it will therefore be important to ensure that this type of specialised scientific and technical advice continues to be readily available and that it can keep pace with the political agenda.

  37.  The UK's polar interests are clearly heavily weighted towards the Antarctic, in light of our sovereign interests. However, the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-08 is focusing the world's attention on the importance of scientific research in both polar regions and the UK is playing an active role in IPY scientific activities, which will complement existing international collaboration. In respect of the Arctic, UK scientists are actively involved in research and the UK maintains a small research station in Svalbard, Norway (funded by the Natural Environment Research Council). The UK is an observer to the Arctic Council, which was established in the mid-1990s as a mechanism for the eight Arctic States to engage on regional issues, particularly climate change impacts, environmental protection and maritime transport. The Arctic Council has established working groups to provide technical and scientific advice to inform policy development. The UK is invited to send experts to these working groups, but as the UK does not have a public funded Arctic research institute, it is less straight-forward to identify and fund attendance of scientists or technical experts.

POLAR RESEARCH UNIT CONCLUSIONS

  38.  In respect of the UK's polar policies, the FCO would suggest that the UK science community needs to devote resources to more focussed and specific science that responds to the issues raised of current concern at international meetings. Crucially, this must deliver rapidly, so that scientific advice can be factored into emerging policy decisions. Without the provision of science to adequately address current topics in a timely manner, there is the potential danger of policy-making overtaking science, rather than being influenced by it.

April 2007