1.  SUMMARY

  1.1  This response is submitted by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the UK's national academy for engineering and technology. The Academy believes that it is essential for the UK to have a clear and effective strategy for global engagement in science and engineering. It is therefore pleased that the Research Councils and OSI are paying increasing attention to the international aspects of their work. Although broadly supportive of the approach being taken by the Research Councils and OSI, the Academy has identified various areas where improvements could be made. These are set out below and include the coordination of strategies at the national, European and international levels and the communication and marketing of opportunities for international collaborations and the benefits arising from them. In addition, the Academy calls for more creative approaches to international partnerships focussed on innovation and a more inclusive approach to the development of international science policy by the Government.

2.  INTRODUCTION

  2.1  The Royal Academy of Engineering welcomes the opportunity to contribute towards this inquiry examining the international policies of the Research Councils and Office of Science and Innovation (OSI). The Academy brings together over 1200 distinguished engineers, drawn from all the engineering disciplines. Its aim is to promote excellence in engineering for the benefit of the people of the UK. This response has been collated on the basis of input from Fellows and Research Chairs of the Academy with expertise in this area.

  2.2  Engineering research, practice and markets are all based on global networks and UK wealth creation is now inextricably linked with international flows of goods, services and capital. On current trends, countries will increasingly have to compete for access to skilled engineers and technologists. This is particularly relevant to the UK where the ageing population and declining interest in engineering amongst young people mean that, in addition to nurturing home-grown talent, the country needs to make sure that it is well-placed to attract the brightest and best engineers and technologists from around the world. Already, the proportion of foreign students among PhD students in the UK is second only to the US (in absolute terms)—and this is especially true for engineering: 51% of engineering doctoral degrees from UK universities are awarded to foreign students.[6] It is clear, therefore, that the international policies of the Research Councils and OSI are of increasing significance.

  2.3  In recognition of such imperatives, the Academy has also been placing a growing emphasis on the international dimension of its policies and programmes and is in the process of finalising its first International Strategy. The Academy, in developing this Strategy, undertook a survey of its Fellows to explore their international links and their views on which countries were of strategic importance to the Academy. The results indicated that Fellows participate in an extensive international network, encompassing both academic and industrial links and covering a wide range of countries and regions. Overall, the countries/regions which Fellows deemed to be most important for Academy relations were: the US; China; Europe; India; Japan; Australia; Canada; and Singapore. These correlate well with the countries identified by the UK Government as being of strategic interest in the context of R&D and innovation.[7]

  2.4  The remainder of this document provides the Academy's responses to the specific questions raised by the Committee. It is worth noting that comments made regarding the Research Councils apply mainly to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), with which the Academy's Fellows predominantly interact.

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

  3.1  Much work has been done on the benefits of international collaborations. To take just one example, internationally co-authored papers have been shown to be more highly cited than papers produced by UK authors alone.[8] The Research Councils and OSI appear to have taken on board the potential benefits of international linkages and the Academy broadly supports the measures they are putting in place to promote collaboration. The recent creation of the new Science and Technology Facilities Council is welcome too. The Council has an important role in enhancing the effectiveness of the UK in international negotiations regarding the promotion and use of large facilities based both in the UK and abroad. These facilities are enormously expensive but crucial to scientific and technological progress, and the Council must be supported in this objective. The Academy also praises the practice of holding international reviews of UK research as a means of benchmarking the engineering research being carried out by UK universities. The Academy and EPSRC jointly led the review of engineering research which reported in 2005.[9]

  3.2  In terms of specific Research Council programmes, while schemes such as travel grants and visiting fellowships are helpful for enabling academics to network and develop possible collaborations, there is a lack of more substantial funding to support any subsequent joint research projects. Fellows have also suggested that responsive mode applications for relatively small sums (eg to enable attendance at international workshops) can be overly cumbersome.

  3.3  A more fundamental weakness in the current approach is the lack of connection between the strategic areas identified for international collaboration and the national strategies of the partner countries. This can make it difficult for researchers to target their applications appropriately. In addition, where there are national networks of excellence in specific areas of science or technology, there would seem to be a certain logic in using these as focal points for international collaborations. However, this does not seem to happen, other than on ad hoc basis.

  3.4  There is also scope for greater cooperation between the UK Research Councils and their counterparts in other countries. The Academy applauds EPSRC's recent efforts to develop bilateral agreements with other national funding organisations (eg the US National Science Foundation) to reduce the so-called "double-jeopardy" problem, whereby collaborative grant applications have to be approved by the funding organisations in both of the collaborating countries. Further developments of this nature would be most welcome. Another example of good practice is the provision of Research Council support to enable universities in collaborating countries to jointly develop grant applications to their national research funding organisations.

  3.5  In considering policies on international collaboration, it is also important to ensure that partnerships in innovation (rather than just research) are developed, which include industrial as well as academic players. The Government has highlighted the need to improve the UK's ability to capitalise on the creativity and productivity of the science base—this cannot be achieved without business involvement. The trend towards "Open Innovation", involving innovation ecosystems in which industrial, start-up and academic partners combine their strengths to create competitive business advantage for each party, additionally needs to be taken into account by the Research Councils and OSI in their future models for collaboration.

  3.6  In this context, it is also of significance that the UK has a high proportion of business R&D funded from abroad relative to other G7 countries.[10] This brings both advantages and risks. The Government continues to seek to attract foreign direct investment in R&D but it needs to have mechanisms in place to buffer the UK against changes in funding patterns by multinational corporations outside their home markets. Whilst outside the remit of this inquiry, the Academy notes that Government's disappointing decision to claw back funds from the Research Councils to fund other aspects of DTI activity seems unlikely to increase the attractiveness of the UK to overseas investors.

  3.7  Interestingly, Fellows noted that some of the problems they observed were not due to flawed policies on collaboration, but were instead due to the fact that the opportunities and benefits were not well publicised. For example, the ability of international scientists to apply for Research Council funding was considered to be a constructive policy but one which was not widely known about. Furthermore, initiatives such as international "Years of Science", which focus on raising the profile of UK science and engineering in a particular country (eg Brazil in 2007-08), tend to have low visibility in the UK. This may be because the aim is to showcase British science and innovation overseas, but many UK researchers will have established partnerships with researchers in the relevant country which could be leveraged for the benefit of the Year of Science. Greater engagement within the UK could also help to ensure that the Year of Science activities appropriately reflect the full spectrum of UK science, engineering and innovation—something which has not always happened in the past.

  3.8  Although not directly relevant to collaboration, a further example where publicity could be used to greater effect is in celebrating British successes on the international stage. In March 2007, for instance, a UK company was one of the three Grand Prize winners of the prestigious European ICT Prize, awarded annually for innovation in ICT. If this success story had achieved a higher profile, it could have raised awareness of UK innovation both at home and abroad.[11]

4.  INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME.

  4.1  The Fellows who provided input to this response generally believed that there was scope for greater coordination between the Research Councils and the EU Framework Programmes. It was noted, for example, that the Research Councils' strategies took little, if any, account of European priorities. If the Research Councils were to review the EU strategic research agenda, opportunities could be identified to promote collaboration and avoid overlap. In addition, Research Council funding could play a useful part in sustaining particularly successful networks of excellence established under the Framework Programme. However, some Fellows had the perception that the Research Councils took little interest in the Framework Programmes and did not promote them as a potential funding route to UK researchers.

  4.2  The fact that the EU does not fund research at full economic costs remains a problem for UK academia, even under the new funding model, but Fellows have divergent views about whether Research Council support should be available to bridge the resulting funding gap. There is agreement that the distinction between Research Council and EU Framework Programmes should be maintained. While Framework Programmes tend to be influenced by a desire to create networks for collaborative research, Research Council calls are more usually driven by the scientific inquiry into a particular research problem and the collaboration, if appropriate, follows. The Academy would oppose any attempt to divert UK Research Council funding to the Framework Programmes.

  4.3  When considering European support for research and innovation, the recent establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) and the proposed creation of a European Institute of Technology (EIT) must be taken into account. The ERC has the potential to fulfil an important role in supporting basic research, selected on the basis of excellence. Its performance will need to be monitored closely to assess whether it is delivering its potential as it develops. The EIT is an ambitious new initiative which aims to bring together the "three sides of the innovation triangle": education, research and innovation. Although the objectives of the EIT are laudable, it is far from clear that the EIT as currently envisaged will be able to achieve them. The Academy has been active in drawing the Commission's attention to its concerns through the European Council of the Academies of Applied Sciences, Technologies and Engineering (Euro-CASE). These include the fact that the Institute should not be granted degree-awarding powers; must avoid a top-down approach; and should select on the basis of excellence. The Academy has also called for greater clarity regarding the funding of the EIT and supports the UK Government view that there should be a phased implementation, allowing assessment of pilot projects prior to establishment of the full EIT.

  4.4  More generally, it is obvious that Europe now exerts an important influence over UK policy on science and technology-related matters and it is thus essential that the UK plays its full part in the development of European policy. The UK Research Office (UKRO) provides a helpful role in disseminating information about European funding opportunities. However, the Academy sometimes finds it difficult to identify the right contact point within the UK Government and Research Councils for information and advice regarding European policy developments. In some cases, the Academy can support the efforts of Government in drawing attention to European issues and providing expert advice in critical policy areas, both through national activities and through its involvement in Euro-CASE. Adopting a more joined-up approach across UK science and engineering public sector organisations could help to strengthen efforts to influence European science and technology policy making.

5.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE RESEARCH COUNCILS AND THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES.

  5.1  Although the Academy is aware of the existence of mechanisms to promote coordination and collaboration between the Research Councils and the Government Departments involved in international scientific activities, current performance would suggest that these are not yet working effectively. There is a perception that there are too many players—DTI, UKTI, RDAs, FCO etc—operating in this area with the consequence that funding is fragmented and could be better spent if pooled to support larger, strategic initiatives. Fellows of the Academy also report that the lack of coordination between the Research Councils and Government Departments has resulted in mixed messages being sent to collaborators in partner countries.

  5.2  The Academy notes that the Global Science and Innovation Forum (GSIF) provides the main vehicle for coordination of the international science and technology activities of different Government Departments and the Research Councils. The membership of GSIF also includes the British Council and Royal Society. In October 2006, GSIF published A Strategy for International Engagement in Research and Development.[12] While the development of a clear strategy setting out the UK's objectives in its international science and technology policy was welcome, the Academy regrets the fact that it was not given the opportunity to provide input to the strategy. With a Fellowship encompassing some of the UK's most experienced and distinguished engineers and innovators, from both academia and industry, the Academy believes that it has the potential to provide valuable advice and access to expertise to Government on such matters.

  5.3  The Academy also notes that OSI networking funds to promote international collaboration are usually administered by the Royal Society. Without in any way wishing to detract from the excellent work of our sister academy, the Academy would suggest that the Government could gain better value for money by enabling a wider range of organisations to access this funding. For example, in many instances, countries of strategic importance to the UK (including China and India) have a particular interest in developing partnerships based on technology, engineering and innovation—areas in which the Academy possesses unique expertise.

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

  6.1  The Academy is generally supportive of the current Research Council policies to promote international mobility of scientists and engineers. These are complemented by the work of other funding organisations, including the Royal Society, Wellcome Trust and Leverhulme Trust and the Academy itself. Mobility could be further promoted if the Research Councils were to relax their policies on awarding studentships to non-EU nationals. The introduction of more flexible inward and outward mobility schemes, allowing researchers to spend anything from a few weeks to a year in another country, coupled with a fast-track application process, would also be helpful.

  6.2  Although not necessarily within the scope of this inquiry, the Bologna declaration merits a mention in the context of mobility. The Academy has set out its concerns in detail elsewhere but, in summary, there is an urgent need for comprehensive advice to be issued on how university engineering departments should respond to the Bologna process.[13] Unless action is taken, the current international standing of the UK integrated Masters degree in Engineering (MEng) could be compromised, with a potentially damaging effect on the prospects of UK engineers wishing to work abroad and the ability of UK engineering departments to attract overseas students.

April 2007

7   A Strategy for International Engagement in Research and Development, Global Science and Innovation Forum, October 2006. Back

8   E.g. International Partnerships of Research Excellence: UK-USA Academic Collaboration, Professor Sir Gareth Roberts FREng FRS, Wolfson College, University of Oxford. Back

9   The Wealth of a Nation: An Evaluation of Engineering Research in the United Kingdom, EPSRC and The Royal Academy of Engineering, February 2005. Back

10   Internationalisation of R&D in the UK: A review of the evidence, Arthur D. Little with Prof Reinhilde Veugelers, November 2005. Back

11   http://www.ict-prize.org/ Back

12   A Strategy for International Engagement in Research and Development, Global Science and Innovation Forum, October 2006. Back

13   http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/responses/pdf/hofc%20bologna%20process.pdf Back