Following the evidence session on Research Council Institutes (RCI) on 28 June, the S&T Committee has asked RCUK to provide supplementary information in relation to the following questions:

  1.  What general expectations are there regarding the embedding of RCIs in universities in the medium and long term? What areas are thought most likely to be affected? (Qs 8, 32-2)

  2.  What processes are in place to ensure that RCIs are aware of the policy requirements of government departments when forward planning, in the absence of specific requests? (Q42)

  3.  What means are used to ensure that a strategic approach is adopted to establishing areas suitable for collaboration rather than competition? How is unnecessary duplication of resources avoided? (Q47)

  4.  When will the analysis of the impact of full economic costs be completed and will it be published? (Q50)

  5.  For BBSRC, which areas will be "difficult to recover"; what has been the response from Government to these concerns; and how effectively is BBSRC's strategic planning linked to that of Defra? (Q71).

  6.  What principles govern the representation the Government has on RCI management boards (eg where RCIs are part Government funded)? What factors govern the input of industry and universities into the management of RCIs?

  7.  What are the conclusions of surveys carried out on the destinations of staff leaving RCIs, particularly in the event of the closure of an institute? (Qs 82-4)

  Listed below is the response from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences (BBSRC) Research Council, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

  Response to the questions 1-7 as listed above.

  Further questions from the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee to RCUK following the evidence session on Research Council Institutes (RCI) on 28 June.

DRAFT RESPONSE FROM BBSRC

Q1  What general expectations are there regarding the embedding of RCIs in universities in the medium and long term? What areas are thought most likely to be affected? (Qs 8, 32-2)

  A1  BBSRC encourages close working relations between RCIs and universities wherever this will deliver added value to the UK research base, but does not assume that this must be achieved by embedding RCIs within universities. For example:

—  the Institute of Food Research (IFR) and the John Innes Centre (JIC) both work closely with the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the training of PhD students, providing common training courses;

—  researchers at the Sainsbury Laboratory, part of UEA, work very closely with staff at JIC, with which it is co-located on the Norwich Research Park;

—   discussions of joint working in vaccinology are on-going between the Institute for Animal Health (IAH) and the University of Oxford.

  There are circumstances in which more formal joint arrangements might be preferred: BBSRC expects that the new EBRC (Easter Bush Research Centre) which will house BBSRC employees currently at Roslin Institute and the Neuropathogenesis Unit (currently part of IAH) to be embedded within the University of Edinburgh as it is due to be built on University land and to house University employees. The exact form of governance is under review. There is also discussion about whether the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth should have a closer formal relationship with Welsh universities including those at Aberystwyth and Bangor.

  In terms of future institute governance, BBSRC is awaiting the Follett committee's review of governance of all its sponsored institutes. This is due in September for discussion and subsequent implementation.

Q2  What processes are in place to ensure that RCIs are aware of the policy requirements of government departments when forward planning, in the absence of specific requests? (Q42)

  A2  BBSRC-sponsored institutes keep in close contact with the relevant government departments, especially Defra, through their normal contacts. In addition a number of institute staff sit on government advisory bodies. BBSRC CE is an assessor on the Science Advisory Council for Defra and has regular meetings with the Defra Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA). Defra is also a member of BBSRC Council, and can contribute a Defra perspective when RCI Directors make annual presentations to Council. Other significant mechanisms include:

—  DTI/OSI representation on BBSRC Council;

—  The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) is represented on BBSRC's Strategy Board, which also includes a representative from the BBSRC-sponsored institutes;

—  BBSRC CE has regular meetings with the Director of R&D at the Department of Health;

—  BBSRC CE chairs quarterly meetings of the Institute Strategy Committee, which includes all BBSRC-sponsored institute directors;

—  Defra's Chief Veterinary Officer is a member of the IAH Governing Body;

—  BBSRC's Director of Science & Technology is an observer on SEERAD's Strategic Science Advisory Panel, and on the Defra Research Priorities Group on Sustainable Faming and Food.

  It is important that departments such as Defra have a clear policy direction to ensure coordinated planning. Without this BBSRC-sponsored institutes have to make short-term decision which will not necessarily be in the long-term interests of the UK science base.

Q3  What means are used to ensure that a strategic approach is adopted to establishing areas suitable for collaboration rather than competition? How is unnecessary duplication of resources avoided? (Q47)

  A3  BBSRC conducts four yearly (now to be five yearly reviews) of all science in its sponsored institutes, one element of which is to identify gaps or areas of overlap where cross-institute or institute-university collaboration might increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the UK bioscience research base. As a result, BBSRC Council has set up collaborative institute programmes where more than one institute has strengths in specific areas. The current two are in sustainable soil function and in crop genetics and genomics; as well as BBSRC-sponsored institutes, the latter involves researchers at the Scottish Crops Research Institute. Further programmes are under discussion.

  In addition, to stimulate more institute-university collaborations at project level, following the 2005 Institute Assessment Exercise, BBSRC Council changed the rules for institute applications for responsive mode grants, so that joint applications with universities would be outside the "cap" applied to the total amount of responsive mode funding for which an institute can apply.

Q4  When will the analysis of the impact of full economic costs be completed and will it be published? (Q50)

  A4  BBSRC has been paying full economic costs on the research it funds in its RCIs for some time. It will be possible to make a comparison with the costs of grant-supported research once a clearer picture has emerged of how the new FEC arrangements for grants are working in universities. This position will be reached some time in early to mid 2007, about one year after the first FEC grants were awarded.

Q5  For BBSRC, which areas will be "difficult to recover"; what has been the response from Government to these concerns; and how effectively is BBSRC's strategic planning linked to that of Defra?(Q71)

  A5  As a general point, BBSRC would emphasise that the cost of highly specialised infrastructure is much more transparent under FEC and thus needs above average increases in funding. This includes large animal facilities (for farm animals such as cattle, sheep and poultry), small animal facilities and controlled environments for plants and large land based experiments. Once built the facilities usually have to be run as a whole and cannot easily be subdivided into smaller units. Thus the overall cost is fixed. The recent rise in energy costs has made the situation worse.

  Although Research Councils, through OSI, received increased funding to implement FEC on research grants, other government departments did not. Therefore, any government department when asked for increased costs for FEC is likely to have to reduce the volume of research that it can fund if its research budget remains constant.

  More specifically, three BBSRC-sponsored institutes are very dependent on funding from Defra: the Institute for Animal Health (IAH); the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER); and Rothamsted Research (RRes), which undertakes research on sustainable plant-based agriculture and the environment. Each of these institutes has, in recent years, had to cope with the on-going uncertainties associated with Defra's inconsistent approach to funding research, including short-term decision making and lack of notice for changes, with the BBSRC (ie the Science Budget) and the institutes themselves having to pick up the high costs of resulting redundancies.

  In relation to linking BBSRC's and Defra's strategic planning, there are several mechanisms in place for relevant discussions (see A2, above), and BBSRC has contributed extensively to Defra's consultation on its Evidence and Innovation Strategy. However, delays in bringing this exercise to a conclusion are a major cause for concern. Advice from Defra in the meantime indicates that the Department will continue to cut funding for sustainable agriculture, further affecting IGER and RRes, and that, in the government's high priority area of animal health and welfare some further cutting is likely. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult to engage Defra constructively in implementing the recommendations in the report from the Research Council Institute and PSRE Sustainability Study (RIPSS report, http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-funding/ripss/page22675.html). This requires funders providing more than 15% of the research budget of an RCI or a PSRE to assume some responsibility for the long-term sustainability of that institution. There is little evidence that Defra intends to meet its obligations to IAH, IGER or RRes under the RIPSS report. In practice there has been a deterioration since the RIPSS report and BBSRC believes this needs to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007. The Chief Scientific Advisor's ongoing review of Defra science may also provide an opportunity to address current difficulties. BBSRC was notified at the end of July that DEFRA has brought in another moratorium on funding.

Q6  What principles govern the representation the Government has on RCI management boards (eg where RCIs are part Government funded)? What factors govern the input of industry and universities into the management of RCIs?

  BBSRC sponsored institutes are companies limited by guarantee with charitable status. Therefore they are subject to rules of the charity commissioners (eg no trustee can be paid other than expenses) and corporate governance. All institutes include academics and industrialists on their governing boards. BBSRC has a major say in the choice of chairman of the board, but not in the choice of other members. Current membership and templates for membership are available on the BBSRC website, at.

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/foi/pubscheme.html?IMAGE3.X=17\&IMAGE3.Y=9#10

Q7  What are the conclusions of surveys carried out on the destinations of staff leaving RCIs, particularly in the event of the closure of an institute? (Qs 82-4)

  The Silsoe Research Institute closed in March 2006. Just prior to final closure the Institute Director reported to the BBSRC Audit Board on the known destinations of staff at that time. The report is at Annex 1.