1.   The role of RCIs in maintaining the UK research and skills base

  RCIs generally produce good quality research and provide multidisciplinary, well equipped environments and links with Universities and industry. They offer an environment that fosters basic and strategic research and contribute to the provision of PIs of the future which is evidenced in their annual reports and those of the Institute Assessment Exercise.

  RCIs also play a role in the training of PhD students and Postdoctoral scientists. However, specifically with regard to the training of PhDs, RCIs do not have the infrastructure of large, research-led faculties within universities to train at this level where there are large numbers of PhD students, MSc and Undergraduate modules on offer and where systems have been put in place to ensure the generic skills training of PhD students. RCIs tend to have small student cohorts thereby students miss out to some degree on important interactions. Of course RCI students do link up with local universities but it is not certain whether these arrangements are ideal. However, it must be noted that not all universities have such facilities and the overall quality of specific rather than generic research training within RCIs is good.

  RCIs do have a place in maintaining strategic skills that are essential to the UK nationally but may be out of fashion in peer-reviewed funding or university courses. For example, work on Foot and Mouth may not be easily funded, but this expertise is crucial in times of crisis; RCIs provide a pool of resources able to react quickly to national need. Equally, some research fields, by their nature or cost, or by their close involvement with a specific practical need, are not easily served by the university sector. One such good example is BAS, with its need for highly specialist and expensive equipment (aircraft, ships, bases). However, the recent requirement to bid competitively for at least some of its funding has undoubtedly increased the quality of its research output.

  In principle the idea to create centres of excellence in which scientists can do long-term research under a common theme without having to teach and to obtain short-term funding is a good one and should be continued. RCIs should provide an environment for long-term, high-quality research projects that allow the best people to concentrate on their research. To this end, it is important to maintain a stringent process of review of research posts in such institutes; after all, science is a high-profile and high-cost enterprise. The RCIs should, consequently, be subject to serious periodic reviews and should guard against becoming inward-looking and claustrophobic.

  The linking of RCIs with Universities is to be commended in terms of value for money, research collaboration and development of staff and training opportunities.

2.   The balance between Research Council expenditure on RCIs and on grant funding

  This balance varies greatly between Research Councils. It has been shown that, again with important exceptions such as MRCLMB and John Innes, better research is often done in universities at a lower cost to the Research Councils (despite the fact the researchers there have to undertake teaching and administration). On this basis some of the more enthusiastic critics of RCIs have suggested closing all of them and giving the cash to responsive mode grants. Things have, however, improved with the RCIs now having to bid for some of their support as grants in competition with the universities, and the better ones have faired well at this; perhaps this idea should be developed further? The success rates of RCIs with BBSRC, it must be noted, are much higher than that of universities which is not necessarily consistent with their relative research quality.

  Different Research Councils have probably got it about right based on the type of research that they support. However, we would wish to comment upon the disparity in amounts of MRC funding that go into project grant funding for cutting-edge science as compared to that invested in Units and fellowships for doctors who wish simply to go on fast track to consultancy by doing a PhD.

  We would like to specifically mention the EPSRC-funded Newtonian Institute as an example of a highly successful and internationally operating UK Institute. It still needs to develop a higher web-based service to the community, but the regular reviews set up by EPSRC and its international advisory structure have paid dividends in terms of quality. Similarly, the MRC Institute at Cambridge is very good. There is a case, however, for some rationalisation of RCIs.

  EPSRC looks after CCLRC of course which is very good at providing quality access to shared instrumentation, but does not, on its own, produce research to the standard of the best UK university groups.

3.   The rationale behind the different approaches adopted by the Research Councils to supporting RCIs and the case for greater harmonisation of practice

  The responsibilities of the several Research Councils for quite different fields and characters of research mean that any imposed "harmonisation of practice" would be at best ineffective and at worst harmful. This does not mean that knowledge of best practice should not be widely circulated throughout the whole RC system, especially in the difficult and sensitive issue of balance of funding and fairness of assessment between RCIs and university groups.

  BBSRC's policy strikes a healthy balance in funding as between institutes, fellows, and projects and has a very good way of reacting to new technology developments by quickly launching initiatives. NERC also maintains a healthy balance between its different funding modes. A major difference between BBSRC and NERC is that BBSRC reviews and renews all its RCIs together, whereas NERC does them separately at different times. This means that NERC does a more thorough job, but there may be more flexibility in doing them all together.

  For Research Councils which fund applied research, such as the EPSRC, it is probably appropriate that they have not chosen to invest in RCIs since in applied areas competitiveness for funding fuels innovation whereas investment in RCIs could lead to stagnation. EPSRC has long taken the view that the fields of basic science it supports are better based in universities, with their fully international research outlook and more attractive environment for most scientists. Similarly, on the engineering side, encouragement of direct university-industry relationships and collaborations have been regarded as the best way forward. However, it could be argued that EPSRC has no proper way of following up and assessing the impact of the research they fund.

4.   The role of Research Councils UK in monitoring and improving the effectiveness of Research Councils' support for RCIs

  RCUK should play a role in monitoring the regular review of activities, assessment of research quality and strategic direction to maintain international competitiveness. Additionally, it should play a monitoring role in ensuring sufficient funding for maintenance of infrastructure and training provision for PhD students and for overall best practice.

5.   The role of the Office of Science and Technology in providing support for RCIs

  The OSI role should be an overseeing one, aimed only at ensuring best practice. The question of whether in particular areas the national need to best met by RCIs or other funding routes is best left to the RCs.

6.   A review of progress on current reorganisations involving RCIs, including the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the National Institute for Medical Research and the Roslin Institute

  Returning to our response to question 1, RCI reviews should be undertaken seriously, regularly and across the board. For example, Roslin, although it has done valuable work, may have become too complacent. NIMR is a different and shambolic story. Here a review was also needed, but to dismantle the entire institute is a mistake. If the NIMR did not fit under the label of "translational research" it should have been retained under a different auspice (maybe not the MRC). NIMR is an excellent place for basic science, an institution both in the UK and world-wide. Strong medical research can only grow where there is excellent basic research and researchers; collaborations do not necessarily need to be next door and are defined by different criteria such a mutual interest. By organizing grantholder meetings with representatives doing both basic and applied research and forums on translational research, the LRF has done a much better job than the MRC to bring bench and bedside together. People need to listen to each others science and then there will be collaborations.

  With regard to the NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), there is a considerable amount of work which needs to be done for which a CEH-type infrastructure is essential, such as the long-term monitoring of ecological change. CEH has also offered important bioinformatics support to NERC genomics grants, has minimised duplication between projects and has provided a coherent data policy to a community of researchers who were relatively uninformed in these areas. CEH has undertaken an important role on behalf of NERC in forming, supporting and promoting interactions within and between the communities it funds. It could possibly, however, be embedded in different universities.

June 2006