Relevant reports

1.  We readily agree that there should be no blueprint for governance of RCIs simply because of their status and that appropriate arrangements should be tailor-made in each case. (Paragraph 10)

Importance of RCIs to Government

2.  We conclude that the UK RCI sector makes a highly valued and unique contribution to national scientific capacity. (Paragraph 24)

Comparison with universities

3.  We have received no evidence to support the view expressed by Lord Sainsbury in January 2006 that basic research should increasingly be done in universities, rather than separate research institutes. We believe that links between RCIs and universities at all levels should be actively encouraged but that each case should be judged on its merits and the form of each institute should follow the needs of the science. (Paragraph 32)

Research Council Funding

4.  We believe that the best science should be supported by the Research Councils regardless of whether applications originate from universities or institutes, and that RCIs should not be barred from applying for responsive mode grants. (Paragraph 37)

5.  We recommend that RCUK review its policy on eligibility of scientists in RCIs to apply to any of the eight Research Councils. To encourage interdisciplinary research, we recommend that there should not be a limit or bar to RCIs being able to apply to any of the Councils for funding. (Paragraph 38)

6.  We are concerned by the experience of the Tyndall Centre in securing an extension to its funding and we expect the Research Councils to seek mechanisms to ensure that similar issues involving interdisciplinary research might be handled more effectively in the future. (Paragraph 39)

Government funding for RCIs

7.  We recommend that the OSI examine mechanisms for identifying and providing guaranteed funding for nationally important datasets and long-term monitoring activities in order that this vital information will continue to be available to inform future research and policy. This would be particularly important in the case of closure of institutes where responsibility for such work may have to be transferred to a new body but it may also help to maintain the sustainability of existing RCIs by giving security of funding for part of their operations. (Paragraph 45)

8.  We recommend that the Government examine the proposal that departmental research budgets, once set, should be ring-fenced for the spending period. (Paragraph 45)

Conclusions on funding

9.  We consider that the balance between core funding and responsive mode funding available to RCIs works well at present and that there is no evidence that inappropriate levels of support are given to RCIs in preference to universities. We are also strongly of the view that core funding is the best way to ensure that an institute remains viable and capable of delivering its mission. We are concerned that the financial difficulties which have been experienced for some time by certain BBSRC and NERC institutes indicate that not all stakeholders are prepared to acknowledge the part they have to play in ensuring the sustainability of this part of the research base. (Paragraph 48)

RCI management

10.  It is a major advantage of individual institutes that they take responsibility for strategy in unfashionable high risk areas of science but they cannot be expected continually to reallocate ever diminishing resources to maintain capacity without recognition of the vital role they are playing in doing so (Paragraph 54)

Research Councils and strategy

11.  Given the range of different institutes encompassed under the umbrella title of "RCI", we agree that general moves towards harmonisation of practice would be impractical and non-beneficial. (Paragraph 61)

12.  We recommend that the Research Councils review their mechanisms for developing and encouraging best practice in relation to RCIs, both on the part of the Councils and also between the institutes themselves. (Paragraph 63)

13.  We recognise that reviews are a necessary part of ensuring that public funds on research are spent in a cost-effective and transparent way. In organising reviews, however, the Research Councils should have regard to adopting processes which maximise efficiency and minimise the cost to RCIs, both in terms of financial cost and staff time. (Paragraph 67)

Role of RCUK

14.  We believe that RCUK could play a greater role in the harmonisation of best practice of the work of the Research Councils in relation to their RCIs through establishing similar mechanisms to those used for knowledge transfer in the wider Research Council context, and we recommend that these possibilities be explored. (Paragraph 70)

Government influence

15.  Government departments must undertake to give as full and as early notice as possible to RCIs of their likely research requirements over a three to five year period in order that the institutes may be able to fulfil the nationally-strategic role expected of them. (Paragraph 73)

Co-ordination

16.  We recommend that the OSI take the lead in examining the benefits of establishing similar bodies to the Environmental Research Funders Forum in other areas to ensure that Research Councils and Government departments and others work together in devising strategies for the work to be undertaken by RCIs and the public sector research base. (Paragraph 76)

17.  We recommend that the OSI be given formal responsibility for developing a mechanism for better two-way dialogue between the Government departments and the RCI sector and their parent Councils in order to improve co-ordination of the strategic direction of RCIs and to protect national scientific capabilities in strategically important areas. (Paragraph 77)

Defra's view

18.  We believe that Defra's attitude in relating RCI funding to short-term contracts in universities shows a fundamental lack of comprehension of the role of RCIs as represented by the OSI and the rest of the science community. As we have repeatedly observed, it is the stable long-term funding which allows RCIs to achieve their potential and keep focussed on their missions. It is deeply disturbing that such a key player as Defra fails to perceive this and believes that the RCIs should be identical to universities in terms of their long-term planning. (Paragraph 92)

The way forward

19.  We recommend that Defra catalogue all the science programmes and infrastructure made available to it by RCIs, both on a regular basis and in emergencies, and clarify how this capacity need could be met from elsewhere in each case. (Paragraph 95)

20.  We recommend that Defra review its processes for giving adequate notice to RCIs of changes in policy requirements and thus in research contracts. We recommend that this be done as part of a three to five year strategy to allow institutes and the BBSRC to plan their response and to ensure that the RCIs are able to supply the science that Defra needs. (Paragraph 95)

21.  We recommend that Defra make it an absolute priority to reach agreement with BBSRC on the implementation of RIPSS and to report back to the Committee by the time of the Government's response to this Report on the steps they have taken to secure agreement. (Paragraph 96)

22.  There clearly is value in having direct interaction between a government department and the RCI sector and we look to Defra to put its relationship with the RCIs on a proper footing in order that the full benefit of this linkage may be realised. (Paragraph 97)

BBSRC and the Roslin Institute

23.  We recommend that the Research Councils develop methodologies to track the immediate career paths of scientific staff employed at RCIs which are restructured and then use this data to inform future decision-making processes on restructuring. (Paragraph 102)

NERC and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

24.  We recommend that all Research Councils adopt a best practice approach to consultation on restructuring which is as open as possible with those affected within the institutes. (Paragraph 109)

25.  We are strongly of the view that when restructuring of an institute is mooted by a Research Council, steps should be taken to identify key science programmes which must be preserved. It should be a priority aim in developing business plans that all such science highlighted in this way is helped to find a placement within the UK science base in order that national capacity is not lost as a casualty of the restructuring of an RCI. We recommend that the Research Councils organise their future strategic plans on this basis and also invite views on such nationally important capabilities when undertaking consultations on the restructuring of particular institutes. In the case of CEH, we recommend that NERC prepare and publish an analysis of key skills and capabilities at CEH prior to the reorganisation, together with an indication of how these will be affected by the changes and, where applicable, how they will be replaced elsewhere within the UK. (Paragraph 112)

26.  We urge NERC to provide us with regular updates on progress with CEH restructuring in order to inform our future deliberations on this subject. (Paragraph 115)

MRC and the National Institute for Medical Research

27.  Having built up expertise and the scientific base at NIMR, it is important that this is used to the nation's benefit and simple closure of Mill Hill would be unacceptable. (Paragraph 133)

28.  We should like to see the MRC use the information amassed during the process so far to develop a new plan for fostering a revitalised NIMR and increasing its translational research with stronger links with UCL, using the sites at both Mill Hill and the former NTH or another site which could command the approval of all interested parties. We are concerned that the NTH site on its own is inadequate because of its size, and we believe that the MRC should seek a site of sufficient capacity to meet the existing needs of the NIMR and allow for future expansion, in order to enable the development of a world class medical research institute and include MRC technology transfer activities on one site with enhanced access to the university. (Paragraph 136)

29.  We recommend that the MRC conduct an urgent review of its project management needs and employ expertise to fill the gaps as soon as possible. (Paragraph 137)

30.  We recommend that MRC adopt a new more open strategy to regular consultation and communication with staff at Mill Hill. We also recommend that the MRC reconvene the task force, which included staff representatives, to advise them on the way to proceed and to provide a forum for scientific and other interests to be expressed. This approach is essential if alternative arrangements involving either joint use of the NTH site and Mill Hill or the identification of a new site in London become the preferred option. (Paragraph 137)

General lessons

31.  We recommend that the OSI satisfy itself that individual Research Councils have the capacity to manage significant restructuring projects where these occur and that the OSI ensure that assistance is available to the Councils for project management where deemed necessary. (Paragraph 139)

Research Councils and RCI

32.  We support the OSI's role in intervening where the sustainability of an RCI is in doubt and believe that this could usefully be deployed in cases of serious concern over the restructuring of an institute, without compromising the autonomy of the Research Councils. We also recommend that the impact upon UK science be expressly examined by the OSI when considering any bids for funding to assist restructuring of RCIs. (Paragraph 147)

The RIPSS agenda

33.  We recommend that the RIPSS agenda should be binding on Government departments and that the OSI be given responsibility and the means to intervene where it judges that a department is not fulfilling its responsibilities under RIPSS. (Paragraph 149)

34.  We recommend that Defra provide an explanation in the Government's response to this Report of how the conflict of evidence over its payment of FEC arises. (Paragraph 150)

Co-ordination of policy on RCIs and protecting the UK science base

35.  We recommend that the OSI be given the responsibility, and the resources, to monitor the state of national research facilities and the skills base within the RCI sector and that a formal mechanism be devised whereby the OSI issues an impact assessment when a department sets a science budget or alters its priorities or spending decisions or a Research Council plans changes to one of its RCIs. (Paragraph 154)