RESEARCH COUNCIL INSITUTES

  Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic partnership that champions the research supported by the eight UK Research Councils. Through RCUK the Research Councils are creating a common framework for research, training and knowledge transfer. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk.

  RCUK welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

  This memorandum provides evidence from seven Research Councils in Annexes 1 to 7. Councils' answers to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 6 are referred to in the covering text, which provides additional cross-Council information relevant to those questions. The covering text also includes an answer from the RCUK perspective to Question 4.

Arts & Humanities Research Council	Annex 1
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council	Annex 2
Economic and Social Research Council	Annex 3
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council	Annex 4
Medical Research Council	Annex 5
Natural Environment Research Council	Annex 6
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council	Annex 7

  As requested by the Committee evidence has not been included from the Central Council for the Laboratory of the Research Councils on this occasion.

INTRODUCTION

  1.  Research Council Institutes (RCIs) take many different forms and are funded, structured and managed in a variety of different ways. This includes institutes which are wholly-owned by their parent Research Council, stand-alone institutes which are companies limited by guarantee, as well as centres and units embedded in universities. The term RCI is generally used in this document to cover all such forms. However, it should be noted that the MRC specifically categorises its Research Centres as "centres" rather than RCIs (Annex 5).

  2.  BBSRC, MRC, NERC and PPARC all have major investment in RCIs. EPSRC supports the Culham Laboratory. AHRC and ESRC support a number of university-based RCIs (centres) which are different from the major institutes of the BBSRC, MRC or NERC in terms of their contractual relationships and legal status. The Committee is therefore asked to note that generalisation is difficult and not all of the covering text refers to every type of RCI.

Q1.   The role of RCIs in maintaining the UK research and skills base

  3.  RCIs provide vital and unique long-term, strategic research and training capabilities for the UK, which complement the capabilities and research infrastructure of the HEI sector. The OST's Quinquennial Review of the Research Councils[14] (QQR, 2001) recognised that there are important policy reasons for investing in RCIs and identified, a helpful set of criteria describing the variety of purposes that RCIs fulfil. It should be noted that these criteria apply to the main institutes of BBSRC, MRC and NERC, but not all would necessarily apply to other types of RCI, in particular RCIs such as those of AHRC and ESRC embedded in (not just co-located with) universities and having university-employed staff. The Research Councils believe that these criteria are still valid and represent a useful framework for describing the role of RCIs and how they contribute to the UK research and skills base

  4.  These criteria state that RCIs exist to:

(i)  provide a national capability and source of advice to Government;

(ii)  create a critical mass of research capability, effort and expertise; to provide enhanced research   productivity, visibility, exploitability; or rapidly to strengthen an underdeveloped area;

(iii)  foster co-ordinated and co-operative multidisciplinary approaches to a research area;

(iv)  encourage a long-term research vision and strategy;

(v)  enable long-term survey, monitoring and data management activities underpinned by research;

(vi)  provide a full-time research-centred environment;

(vii)  open up scientific career paths and opportunities which may not be available within university or   faculty structures;

(viii)  develop and provide facilities and services; and

(ix)  allow greater investment in capital equipment and the skills of support staff, because of the more   stable environment.

  5.  The information presented by each of the Research Councils (Annexes 1-7) highlights the unique strengths of their RCIs and provides examples of their achievements and organisational advantages. Strengths are demonstrated in the delivery of world-class research in areas of national strategic importance, the provision of cutting-edge national and international facilities, an ability to respond rapidly to national emergencies providing expertise advice to aid policy making, training (including for Masters and PhD students) and staff development, and knowledge transfer and public engagement activities.

  6.  Although each of the RCIs funded by the Research Councils has different strengths and capabilities, one feature that all share is their potential to foster multi- and interdisciplinary research. The provision of stable, longer-term funding signals a strategic commitment to a particular set of research challenges, and gives research teams the time and access to skills and resources to build collaborations, and the flexibility and freedom to pursue novel ideas.

  7.  As highlighted in the Research Councils' submission to the Committee in response to its inquiry into the Research Councils' support for knowledge transfer, each of the Councils delegates responsibility for the management and commercialisation of the IP arising from research funding to the relevant research organisation. Research Councils with RCIs have well-established means for commercialising and exploiting the research they fund. In addition to the information presented in the Annexes to this submission, the Committee may also wish to refer to paragraphs 13, 23, 25, 30 & 31 of the Councils' submission on knowledge transfer which highlight the range of contract research undertaken by RCIs, their contribution to policy development, their role in providing regional hubs for collaboration with business and their successes in commercialising research outputs and launching spin-out companies.

Q2.   The balance between Research Council expenditure on RCIs and on grant funding

  8.  Table 1 below provides a summary of the investments made by the Research Councils in RCIs compared with investments in HEIs during 2004-05. These figures provide a comparison on expenditure on research (resource allocation) and do not include Council's capital investments in RCI infrastructure. Further details are given the relevant Annex for each Council.

  1  Non-RCI expenditure in HEIs. NB This includes MRC Research Centre expenditure and NERC Time-limited Collaborative Centre expenditure.

  2  RCI expenditure including that provided to centres in RCIs (except MRC Research Centres and NERC Time-limited Collaborative Centres).

  3  All AHRC and ESRC Research Centres are based in HEIs, but expenditure is shown as RCI expenditure.

  4  Based on PPARC gross expenditure.

  9.  Decisions on the level of investments in RCIs and HEIs are made by each Council according to strategic need. As such, investments will fluctuate over time as new RCIs are established and older RCIs are wound down or closed. The relevant Annexes contain information on the processes each Council employs in establishing new RCIs, monitoring and evaluating their performance, and in taking decisions about the renewal of funding or closure. These processes vary according to whether or not RCIs are stand-alone centres or embedded in HEIs, but reflect the generic assessment factors for the establishment and review of RCIs set out in 2001 QQR. These are:

(i)  a strong mission focus is needed, with close scientific management and leadership—to forge challenging multidisciplinary links, to reflect specific scientific needs, to co-ordinate distributed research programmes, or to back the vision of an outstanding individual or team;

(ii)  critical research mass is needed on a scale that would not fit well within a host university's structures, or does not fit well with relevant universities' interests and strategy;

(iii)  the scientific work needed cannot be obtained from universities at the same quality and costs, possibly because the research area is not well developed in universities or not attractive to them; or

(iv)  there is a need for close management of partnerships and stakeholder links, for example to ensure a balanced and integrated flow of high quality, independent, scientific advice to Government, or to optimise links with industry.

  10.  A major consideration for Councils is the sustainability of the research base. Concern about sustainability in the HEI sector led to the implementation of the Full Economic Cost (FEC) funding model for university research and Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF) to address backlogs in investing in research infrastructure. Following the Government's Cross-Cutting Review of Science and Research, similar questions were asked about the longer-term financial sustainability of RCIs and public sector research establishments (PSREs). OSI funded a study to explore these issues and the Research Council Institute and Public Sector Research Establishment Sustainability Study (RIPSS) report was published in 2002. This is available at: http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/RIPSS_Full_Report.pdf

  11.  This study explored the contribution RCIs (largely wholly-owned RCIs) make to the UK research base and how their work complements that of other PSREs, and the relationships between RCIs and the Government Departments which are substantial funders of some RCIs. The report recommended that all PSREs, including RCIs, need to cover the full economic cost of their research, have a forward looking asset management and investment strategy linked to their research strategy, and have agreements in place with main strategic partners about responsibility for risk sharing and capital renewals. Research Councils have implemented FEC for their RCIs and have produced capital investment strategies which have been considered by OSI.

  12.  In implementing the RIPSS recommendations the Government has established a new forum, Research Establishment Sustainability UK, on which RCUK, OSI, HMT and Government Departments are represented. OSI has also conducted a comprehensive survey of the sustainability of PSREs to provide a baseline against which to measure future progress. The results are currently being analysed.

Q3.   The rationale behind the different approaches adopted by the Research Councils to supporting RCIs and the case for greater harmonisation of practice

  13.  The approaches to establishment and support of RCIs reflect the nature of the science and research they have been established to deliver. Each RCI is designed to achieve a range of different strategic outcomes, and this is mirrored in their level and mode of support and operational arrangements. The information at Annexes 1-7 outlines the full spectrum of approaches adopted, and the reasons for each.

  14.  In 2005 OSI undertook a review of the governance arrangements of RCIs managed by BBSRC, CCLRC, MRC, NERC and PPARC. The report is available at:

http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/councils/revrci.pdf

The review noted that Research Councils employ a number of governance models in managing RCIs and concluded that as these are largely effective, there was no value is pursing a "one-size fits all" approach. The report recommended changes in the governance arrangements for BBSRC institutes, and BBSRC has launched an independent review of the governance of its sponsored institutes to address these recommendations. The report also noted the significant role that other public sector funders play in supporting RCIs and the risks that this presents to Councils in managing their RCIs.

Q4.   The role of Research Councils UK in monitoring and improving the effectiveness of Research Council's support for RCIs

  15.  As outlined above, RCIs are subject to regular independent review and scrutiny by their own Councils, both in terms of their research portfolio and operational effectiveness. Given that many of the issues with regard to the creation, continued funding and closure of RCIs are specific to the scientific field for which an individual Council is responsible, it would not be appropriate for RCUK to be engaged in monitoring the scientific effectiveness of RCIs.

  16.  RCUK is involved in monitoring and improving the effectiveness of Research Councils' support in three main areas; in relation to major capital investments, as part of the RCUK Efficiency Delivery Project, and as part of the Research Councils shared services centre initiative.

Major capital investments in Research Council Institutes

  17.  The Large Facilities Capital Fund is used to contribute to the cost of large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects in UK universities and RCIs. Major capital investments in RCIs that utilise funding from the Large Facilities Capital Fund are subject to the same process of assessment and evaluation as major investments in laboratories and equipment in HEIs, and it is usual that the host Research Council also makes a substantial contribution towards the cost of capital projects.

  18.  The RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap provides a comprehensive picture of the new facilities which are already under construction in the UK, and gives details of potential large facility and equipment projects that the Government and the Research Councils would like to see available to researchers over the next 10-15 years. The current version published in December 2005 includes the redevelopment of the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright (BBSRC), the Laboratory for Molecular Biology (MRC), the new Halley Research Station in Antarctica (NERC), a replacement NERC research ship as well as plans for the redevelopment of the National Institute for Medical Research (MRC).

  19.  Inclusion of a project in the Roadmap does not guarantee funding from either Research Councils or OSI via the Large Facilities Capital Fund. Inevitably, there are more potential large facilities projects than available funding. For this reason, RCUK undertakes a biennial exercise to prioritise which projects on the roadmap might move into a capital construction phase in the next three years, and hence potentially draw upon the Large Facilities Capital Fund and/or require significant investment from Research Council funds. RCI initiatives are subject to the same process of prioritisation by RCUK and in competition with other projects in the Large Facilities Roadmap.

  20.  All large capital investments are subject to review at key stages in their lifecycle to confirm the business justification and sources of funding. The process used is designed to be consistent with the Office of Government Commerce's (OGC) guidelines embodied in their Gateway process, and is managed by the Research Councils on behalf of the academic community. Project proposals are first subject to an independent scientific review. Projects then proceed via the OGC Gateway process to a full business plan review. The RCUK Executive Group considers both the science case and business cases of all proposals, and where there is a request to draw upon the Large Facilities Capital Fund, the RCUK Executive Group recommends to OST whether funding should be made available. This is true of both RCI and HEI projects.

RCUK Efficiency Delivery Project

  21.  Research Councils have agreed to collectively make efficiency gains of £170 million per year by 2007-08. This money will be redistributed to fund more research and training and strengthen operational effectiveness.

  22.  Research Councils have set up a joint project to deliver the £170 million efficiency gains—the RCUK Efficiency Delivery Project. Research Councils will meet this efficiency target together by:

—  reducing the proportion of money that each Council spends on administration;

—  demonstrating effective reprioritisation of programme spend;

—  increasing the efficiency of Research Councils' Institutes;

—  growing the level of co-funding of research and postgraduate training with business, charities and other sponsors.

  23.  The workstream on RCI efficiencies focuses mainly on wholly-owned RCIs where Research Councils employ staff and encompasses:

—  closure/restructuring of institutes/units when funds can be better channelled to research of higher quality and/or relevance;

—  improvements in operational practices eg procurement;

—  increasing income from the exploitation of IP;

—  providing access to expensive/unique facilities or datasets to wider research community so ensuring more productive utilisation of existing assets and avoiding unnecessary duplication; and

—  ensuring that other funders/commissioners of research make a full and appropriate contribution to infrastructure costs.

  24.  It is expected that actions taken will lead to efficiency savings of £39 million per annum by 2007-08. Savings made are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers on behalf of the National Audit Office. Through the RCUK Efficiency Delivery Project, Councils are able to share information and good practice about the efficiency of RCIs and areas for improvement.

Shared Services Initiative

  25.  Research Councils have decided that by 2009 the majority of support services will be delivered to the Councils and their RCIs on a shared basis (RCIs embedded in universities and having university-employed staff are not included). The first phase of the work is the preparation of a detailed roadmap setting out plans for the integration of services including an outline business case (addressing the likely benefits, costs, savings and risks) for implementing the preferred option and a plan (identifying the main strands of work, communication channels, milestones, resource requirements etc) to achieve the 2009 target.

  26.  The working assumption is that the Councils should establish a Shared Service Centre to provide services on a common basis, and this could include some or all of: human resources, finance, procurement, information technology and telecommunications, administrative information systems and information management, some elements of facilities management, and grants, fellowships and studentships processing.

  27.  This project will be managed on an RCUK basis and provide a means to further improve efficiency in both RCIs and Council headquarters.

Q5.   The role of the Office of Science and Innovation in providing support for RCIs

  28.  This question is being addressed by the OSI in its response to the inquiry.

Q6.   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

  29.  Progress on reorganisations is described by BBSRC, MRC and NERC in Annexes 2, 5 and 6 respectively.