BACKGROUND

  The Biosciences Federation is a single authority representing the UK's biological expertise, providing independent opinion to inform public policy and promoting the advancement of the biosciences. The Federation was established in 2002, and is actively working to influence policy and strategy in biology-based research—including funding and the interface with other disciplines—and in school and university teaching. It is also concerned with the translation of research into benefits for society, and about the impact of legislation and regulations on the ability of those working in teaching and research to deliver effectively.

  The Federation brings together the strengths of 40 member organisations, including the Institute of Biology which represents 42 additional affiliated societies (see Annex). This represents a cumulative membership of over 65,000 individuals, covering the full spectrum of biosciences from physiology and neuroscience, biochemistry and microbiology, to ecology, taxonomy and environmental science.

  The Biosciences Federation is a registered charity (No 1103894).

INTRODUCTION

  1.  Institutes and similar organisations in the biosciences are sponsored and/or owned by Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The governance, funding and overall relationship between the individual Research Council and the Institute vary substantially but these differences will not be discussed here except in the context of the portfolio of financial support provided by the parent body. This difference has a major impact upon some BBSRC and NERC sponsored Institutes.

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

  2.  Broadly speaking, there are two categories of Research Council Institute (RCI). The first includes those Institutes that conduct highly competitive international science, within the mission of the Research Council, which has the potential to contribute to the health and wealth of the United Kingdom. The BBSRC-sponsored Babraham Institute and the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology fall into this category. Both publish research in leading international journals that is highly cited. Indeed, these and other similar Institutes are so successful that they lead the UK list of citations per paper (data from Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, USA). Institutes in this category are also extremely successful at obtaining response mode peer reviewed grants. For example, Research Fortnight recently published data to show that the NERC Plymouth Marine Biology Station, the BBSRC Babraham Institute and the BBSRC John Innes Centre are all amongst the top five most successful grant writing organisations in the UK. In other words, they outperform virtually every UK University.

  3.  The second group of Research Council Institutes comprises those that have been established in order to ensure that the UK has the facilities, skills and expertise to work in a particular area. The NERC British Antarctic Survey and the BBSRC Institute of Animal Health are good examples of this category of Institute. There is an unanswerable question about how long a "capacity" should be maintained where it has considerable cost implications. A capacity must be sufficiently versatile so that it is making useful scientific contributions even in times other than crises. In this context it is noteworthy that the Institute of Animal Health very nearly closed all work on scrapie. If this had happened the UK capacity to work on BSE would have been much diminished.

  4.  The Federation strongly supports the continued existences of Research Council Institutes—especially where their financial and management structures allow them to develop a consistent long term research strategy and build the expertise to deliver this. Of course, we consider it essential that there is regular (but not more often than every four years) assessment of their productivity, quality and cost. For those Institutes in the first group, this assessment should be very competitive with comparable figures (where they exist) for research in Universities. Notwithstanding caveats about national need and unique facilities, Institutes in the second group should also be assessed in a similar fashion.

  5.  Institutes have a significant role providing training for PhD students and for developing postdocs for Industry and academia. They conduct long term research, often in disciplines that are no longer supported in higher education because universities cannot attract sufficient students. It has proved increasingly difficult for Universities to attract UK students in subjects such as applied biology, agriculture and horticulture and overseas students are attracted elsewhere where fees are often lower. The RCIs will play an increasingly important role in retaining and developing the UK skills base in many aspects of applied biology.

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

  6.  Because of the nature of their work these Institutes are often asked "Couldn't the work be undertaken in a University"? The answer of course is "yes"; anything could be undertaken in a University. The real question is "would the work be undertaken in a University"? The answer to this question is much less clear and in some cases almost certainly "no". This is because the top Institutes make a strategic decision about the work to pursue; they structure their finances in order to purchase and sustain state of the art equipment and facilities that allow the work to flourish and prevent mission drift.

  7.  The uncertainty and serendipity of response mode (ie 3-5 year grants) funding make it very difficult for any Research Council to be confident that it can deliver all the strategic elements of its mission. A portfolio of Research Institutes ensures that the broad strands of these Council missions are addressed. The question Research Councils are faced with is what proportion of their budget should be spent in Institutes to guarantee delivery of the Council's mission.

  8.  In answering this question several key points must be kept in mind. First, some Research Councils (especially the BBSRC) expect Institutes to use the Councils money as leverage for additional funding. In this context BBSRC Institutes are given targets for commercial income. Other Councils (eg the MRC) effectively fully fund their Institutes. The BSF thinks that both of these very different models have positive and negative elements. Second, and especially in the context of 21st century bioscience, "scale and scope" are major considerations when considering the effectiveness of Institutes. In many cases small is not beautiful and Institutes below a minimum size are at serious risk of becoming either ineffective or too expensive or both. Therefore the answer to this question about Research Council investment in Institutes requires a view from Individual Research Councils about the elements of their mission that they will deliver (in part at least) through Institutes and then commitment of sufficient resource (in either the BBSRC or MRC model) for the Institutes to flourish. In the current landscape this is not the case. There are small Institutes that are struggling to survive. The BSF thinks that if an Institute is needed it should not be struggling on account of its size or its income. The number of Institutes sponsored/supported by a Research Council should be governed by research priorities and affordability and not by what is desirable in an ideal world.

  9.  Science is competitive and global. Our view above does not indicate that the BSF thinks that Institutes should be competent in every area that is needed for their work to progress. We expect Institutes to continue to enter into partnerships and strategic alliances with other organisations whenever and wherever appropriate. Indeed, there is a strong case for increasing these partnerships in areas that biology needs but where collaborations are weak. For example, many bioscientists should now want to work with mathematicians, chemists, physicists and those developing new algorithms to explain biological function. Many of these individuals may be University-based and one could argue that the strength of links with Universities and other external organisations is a measure of the competitiveness of an Institute. However, this is not to say that universities are well suited to taking on the role of institutes.

  10.  Finally, the BSF endorses strongly the decision of the BBSRC to allow its Institutes to apply for research grants in response mode. This allows the Council to increase investment in a specified part of the Institute's research programme in the knowledge that the proposal is of very high quality. In fact, the BSF considers that the most important criterion for investment of Research Council money is where best the research may be undertaken.

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

  11.  BBSRC Institute scientists are familiar with working with a range of funding agencies supporting various aspects of their work. The situation in the MRC Institutes is very different as the Research Council provides almost all the funding; the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in the Institutes developing products but requires them to conduct highly innovative, curiosity-driven research and train scientists that are needed by the industry. Most Principle Investigators in BBSRC Institutes have a balance of research that is both internationally competitive and that which meets the needs of industrial sponsors.

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

  12.  RCUK should provide coherence to the rationales and standards by which RCIs are established and monitored as well as ensuring that adequate support is provided to each RCI.

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

  13.  The OST could have a role in informing the RCIs on likely future research requirements (horizon scanning)

Current reorganisations involving RCIs

  14.  There is a serious—and unresolved—problem about who should pay for capacity in those Institutes' that receive significant funding from DEFRA. This Department commissions research from Institutes in order to underpin policy decisions. That is entirely reasonable but creates a problem for Research Council Institutes for two reasons. The first is that DEFRA income can exceed that provided by the parent Research Council and as policy changes the work commissioned changes. As a consequence these Institutes risk losing their strategic direction in order to sustain an uncertain funding stream. A further consequence is that because lead scientists cannot regularly change research direction, the Institutes become less attractive for the very best research workers. The second problem is that periodically these Institutes cannot keep juggling successfully and their finances implode with all the obvious sequelae. This problem has existed for many years and has cost much in terms of redundancy payments, loss of direction and loss of capacity. Indeed, some BBSRC sponsored Institutes that are in receipt of DEFRA funding have been forced to make redundancies or lose posts on a near annual basis for two decades. The Biosciences Federation urges that a solution be found to this long-standing problem urgently.

  15.  The reorganisation of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) is being driven by finances not by science. There is a danger that biodiversity, and field-based ecology in general, will suffer along with climate change impact studies as short term studies do not give a true picture of environmental pressures. Six months after announcing plans to reorganise it is still unclear what science will continue and what will end. The skills and experience needed to undertake a successful reorganisation on this scale are not present within NERC. Consequently morale is low, key staff are starting to leave the organisation and a vote of no confidence in the Director of CEH was passed by Prospect union members. Finances for 2006-07 are still not agreed and even the organisation of the Countryside Survey 2007 is uncertain.

  16.  Even after three years it is still not clear if the Horticultural Research Institute (HRI)-Warwick merger has been a success; certainly integration has gone well for many of the staff remaining but it is less easy for industry stakeholders to identify and interact with the scientists and the key technology transfer strengths that characterise institutes have been considerably weakened. HRI is an important case and its focus on horticulture may disappear once the DEFRA financial guarantee expires.

  17.  Cross Institute research programmes are being developed to maximise the efficient use of staff and capital resources. This has not been extended yet to create a single Institute for managed land resources that could bring together relevant BBSRC Institutes and CEH.

  18.  Finally, when "things go wrong" there is a temptation to look at Governance issues and decide that structural change/reorganisation will prevent similar problems in the future. This is understandable and may be a correct view in some cases. However if underlying intractable problems remain, reorganisation is unlikely to be helpful. If an Institute is underfunded, subject to repeated post losses and unable to maintain a strategic direction because it is too dependent upon the policy of a single external funder, the leadership will become debilitated and the Institute will not flourish. In such a case, robust action will be necessary either to remedy the problem or close the Institute. However, this will not be a frequent occurrence as there are very good examples, listed above, of Institutes that are a national asset: these must continue to be strongly supported.

OPENNESS

  19.  The Biosciences Federation is pleased for this response to be publicly available and will be shortly placing a version on www.bsf.ac.uk.