1.  THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING RESEARCH COUNCIL AND OSI MECHANISMS AND ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION;

  1.1  Rothamsted Research makes considerable use of the BBSRC schemes for international collaboration such as the International Scientific Interchange Scheme (ISIS). This scheme in particular represents great value for facilitating emerging collaborations and providing seed-corn funding for future research projects. The Partnering Schemes are also important and it is recognised that with limited funding available there is a need for specific country focus in order for there to be sufficient resource to deliver meaningful partnerships.

  1.2  Rothamsted Research welcomes the launch of the DFID-BBSRC programme, Sustainable Agriculture Research for International Development. This is a good example of a mechanism that will promote international collaboration, and bridge gaps across UK Government Departments. However, it is currently funded only at a moderate level and there is a critical need to build longer-term continuity into this programme.

  1.3  The work of the OSI's Global Policy Team plays an important role in placing UK S&T on the global map through its high level bilateral visits, Joint Commissions and Networking Schemes (eg UKIERI). Rothamsted agrees with OSI's Global Science and Innovation Forum that mechanisms are needed to support UK researchers becoming fully engaged with the very best research internationally, and allowing them to develop strategic partnerships, through new schemes to link world class UK universities and research institutes with counterparts in China and India, and indeed throughout the world.

  1.4  The Research Council and OSI mechanisms do not provide sufficient funding for the development of collaborative research projects and there is an overall shortage of funding that is substantial enough to support important initiatives. This is particularly critical when operating within an FEC funding structure.

  1.5  If the UK is to take full advantage of international opportunities, there is need to clarify Research Council's policies in this regard over the medium to long-term. Research Councils are keen to ensure the all the science that they fund is internationally competitive and yet, with the exception of small amounts of funding for exploratory discussions and workshops, there are no earmarked sources of funding for involvement in strategically important collaborative trans-national ventures involving the best research groups. Examples of where this could be of great benefit include involvement in large genome sequencing consortia and post-genomic gene function and genome annotation activities.

2.  INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME, INCLUDING RESOURCES ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE RESEARCH COUNCILS AND EUROPEAN AGENCIES IN THE NEW FRAMEWORK 7 INITIATIVE AND THE PROVISION OF RESOURCES TO STIMULATE UK PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES;

  2.1.  The EU Framework Programme is critical for the provision of funding targeted at building European partnerships in research. These partnerships are important for maintaining UK research at the forefront in key areas of international importance. The Framework Programme budget is the minimum to allow sufficient funding for productive research projects covering all areas of importance.

  2.2.  The new cost models introduced under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) are welcome and the 75% maximum EU contribution for Public Sector Research Establishments (PSREs) will enable Rothamsted Research to continue to participate in Framework Programme research projects even with the constraints of full economic costing.

  2.3.  The UK Research Office in Brussels is an important source of information, guidance and advice. It appears to be extremely well run and has successfully adapted its service to meet the changing demands of the users.

  2.4.  Mechanisms for participation of third countries within FP7 are unclear. Neither DFID nor DEFRA provide sufficient engagement with this area of the Framework Programmes.

3.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE RESEARCH COUNCILS AND THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE OSI, DEFRA, THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE'S SCIENCE AND INNOVATION NETWORK AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT;

  3.1  There appears to be a serious lack of joined-up thinking between the Research Councils and the various Government bodies involved in international research collaboration. Continuity in funding programmes and links between the various mechanisms available are poorly defined.

  3.2  There is insufficient coordination and active support for UK involvement in the international research centres (CGIAR).

  3.3  The World Summit On Sustainable Development Implementation Fund, provides an example of the above government departments working together. However, this funding is small. This sort of instrument could be expanded on.

  3.4  Lack of joined-up thinking results in S&T capacity no longer supported by one department (eg DEFRA) being lost, when other Departments (eg DFID) are eager to access this sort of capacity but lack the mechanisms/instruments to engage.

4.  THE IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH COUNCILS' POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS.

  4.1  There is little encouragement and active support for the mobility of research council employed scientists and engineers.

April 2007