EMPLOYMENT OF SRI STAFF THAT WERE IN POST IN SEPTEMBER 2004

  As far as known on 8 March 2006, the destination of staff after leaving SRI employment is or is expected to be:

	All staff (% of those whose destination is known)		Scientific and technical staff (%)
Employment in scientific research	46	(24)	46	(41)
Job using science	3	(2)	3	(3)
Consultant or small business based on science	22	(12)	22	(19)
Other employment	41	(21)	15	(13)
Early retirement	19	(10)	8	(7)
Retirement	11	(6)	5	(4)
Unemployed	25	(13)	9	(8)
Career break	9	(5)	5	(4)
Expected to transfer to EH	15	(8)	0	(0)
Not known	3		0

  There will be three staff still employed at SRI to complete the closure process for the charity.

  With more than 60% of scientific and technical staff already finding employment in science related activities, much of the scientific skills developed at SRI seem likely to be effectively used. Of these:

—  17 staff have transferred to Rothamsted to work in biomathematics (10) and soil physics (7).

—  5 plus a student have joined RVC to work on animal behaviour and welfare.

—  9 have joined Cranfield to work on decision biomathematics and sensing and to give technical support.

—  5 have joined The Arable Group and others are working with them in a consultancy capacity on pesticide application research.

—  Of the others to note, two to University of Birmingham (wind engineering) plus consultancy support, one to Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association (hygienic process engineering), one to AEA Technology (computational fluid dynamics), one to ADAS (animal transport), one to University of Luton (image analysis) and one to Open University (biosensors).

  The other large category is consultancy and small businesses. Predominantly these relate to the core engineering areas which, though often successful at SRI in both scientific and business terms, did not have any logical destination identified as part of BBSRC's view of areas of important science to save. Of the 22, nine are associated with businesses seeking to operate under subleases on the Wrest Park site.

  Overall it is encouraging that 83% of all staff seeking employment have found something promptly. Please note that these figures are estimated from informal knowledge in some instances, and no formal survey has been undertaken.

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

  Response to the questions 1-7 as listed above.

1.   General expectations regarding embedding of RCIs in universities

  Nearly all the MRC's UK Institutes and Units are "embedded" in universities. (We do have institutes on the Harwell Campus but they are closely associated with Oxford University. We also have two Units in Africa.) The advantages of embedding are mutual. MRC staff have access to a wider range of expertise than could be maintained on a permanent basis in a stand-alone RCI. At the same time, the special qualities and strengths of RCI science, facilities, skills and training environments are accessible to the university. These include some increased efficiencies, including avoidance of duplication of some facilities such as access to journals. One of the drivers for moving NIMR to a central London location is to place it in an environment where it could increase its inter-disciplinary range of interactions, particularly with clinical research, the physical sciences and mathematics.

2.   Processes to ensure RCIs are aware of government policy requirements

  This works at several levels. Firstly, Health Department officials are members of Council,[28] and "concordats" or partnership agreements exist with a number of Government Departments (eg the Health Departments, DFID) that aim to:

—  promote co-ordination of planning and activities;

—  ensure departmental research needs and user perspectives are taken into account by the MRC; and

—  ensure that government policies and priorities are informed by scientific advances.

  Secondly, Directors of the MRC's RCIs are closely engaged in the MRC's priority setting. This enables the MRC to ensure that Directors are aware of current Government priorities.

  Thirdly, specific RCI staff work closely with Government officials. For instance, members of the MRC Collaborative Centre for Human Nutrition Research are serving or have served on a number of Government Advisory Committees on nutrition, and on healthy lifestyle. Other examples include: Professor Chris Higgins (Director of the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre) who currently chairs the Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee; and Professor David Coggan (MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, Southampton) chairs the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit is jointly funded by MRC and the Scottish Executive, and the Executive is in regular contact with the Unit. The Scottish Section of the MRC Institute of Hearing Research is also jointly funded by the MRC and the Scottish Executive. As part of an Advisory Group, representatives from the MRC and the Chief Scientist Office meet regularly with the Glasgow-based Scientist-in-Charge and the IHR Unit Director. The MRC Prion Unit works closely with Government on tackling issues of national importance such as decontamination of surgical instruments, and determining prevalence of vCJD in the population. NIMR is closely involved in discussions on pandemic `flu.

3.   Ensuring a strategic approach to collaboration/competition with universities

Collaboration

  Science is inherently a collaborative process: MRC staff in RCIs and university scientists, here and abroad, actively seek collaborative opportunities with each other—wherever they may be. Such collaboration is driven by the scientific needs of each research project.

Competition

  MRC science is mainly investigator-led rather than directed. The primary determinants of what science is funded by the MRC, whether intramural (in RCIs) or extramural (grants to universities) are scientific quality and importance/relevance to mission. Like other RCs, the MRC tensions the bids from RCIs and grant applications from universities so that quality is compared in a transparent manner. When proposals come to Research Boards for renewals of RCI funding their quality is expressed in precisely the same terms, using the same peer review and ranking mechanisms, as the grant applications that the Boards are looking at in the same meeting. This provides assurance that any continuing investment in RCIs is justified by the quality of the science. This mechanism helps to identify any needless duplication of research, or inappropriate competition for resources. Such funding decisions are made by Boards within a strategic framework which pushes resources towards priority areas such as clinical & public health research, pandemic `flu etc.

Strategy

  The MRC's Research Boards, who assess requests for funding, each review annually the research they support to identify opportunities and needs. This strategic analysis influences the funding decisions which a Board takes. In addition, the MRC publishes calls for proposals in specific areas, which enable choices to be made about which science is supported and where, around focused sets of research proposals from different institutions.

4.   When will the analysis of the impact of FECs be completed/published?

  The MRC 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 merged of how the new FEC arrangements for grants are working in universities. This position will be reached some time in early to mid 2007.

5.   Question 5 is directed at BBSRC and therefore not applicable to MRC

6.   Representation on RCI management boards. Factors governing industry and university input to management of RCIs

  The MRC does not have RCI management boards as such. Under the governance model adopted for MRC, each RCI Director is responsible for the management of his or her institute or unit, and is accountable to the Chief Executive and to Council. The RCI's scientific and knowledge transfer programmes and the case for continuation of intramural support are reviewed every five years (see above).

  Individual Directors also work closely with government officials (see examples above) or industry (eg the MRC Protein Phosphorylation Unit at Dundee which is part of a major consortium involving six major pharmaceutical companies). Strategic planning may also involve both academic and industrial partners (eg the GSK, Imperial College, MRC Clinical Sciences Centre partnership). Directors hold academic posts and work closely with fellow members of the university community. Such partnerships are consciously developed as part of the mission of an RCI (eg the MRC Institute of Hearing Research) or evolve as opportunities and needs present themselves.

  The OSI, the Health Departments, industry and senior academics are represented on the Council.

7.   Surveys of destinations of staff leaving RCIs

  Where an RCI closes, we invest considerable effort in trying to relocate support staff to available posts in other RCIs or, in the case of senior scientific staff, working assiduously with them on assisted transfer to another MRC Unit or to university post. For junior scientific staff we invest in skills training which will enhance their fitness for employment elsewhere. We may not always know where a former member of staff has moved to as they may choose to take a career break before seeking another job. In the 12 months to 31 August 2006, 80 MRC staff were made redundant out of a core complement of 2,900 staff.

  We try to obtain first destination data for staff and students who move to other jobs at their own initiative. While we have good data for PhD students (below) we currently have difficulty in achieving a good response rate for other leaving staff, particularly for those made redundant. However, of those for whom we do have data, only 10 were unemployed on leaving the MRC. As part of a new Human Resources Information System project, we will be developing our management information on career destinations. We recognise the importance of knowing that our investment in people is being used to good effect once they leave our service.

  For MRC-funded PhD students who started in 2001, the largest group (58%) have moved to academic appointments in the UK (42%) or overseas (16%); 13% have taken up research positions in industry; and 7% have gone on to do further training. Some 16% were either still writing up, awaiting a result or unemployed: this figure will have decreased since RCI returns were received.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL

  Response to the questions 1-7 as listed above.

ANSWERS FROM THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL (NERC) TO THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS POSED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE AS PART OF ITS INQUIRY INTO RESEARCH COUNCIL INSTITUTES

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)

  Most of NERC's 15 collaborative centres are hosted by (embedded in) universities. The exceptions are the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), the Centre for Air-Sea Interactions and Fluxes (CASIX) and the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS). PML works with the University of Plymouth through the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership and hosts CASIX which also has strong academic links. SAMS, though not in or near a university town, is an academic partner in the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) Millennium Institute.

  Although the four wholly-owned centres are "stand-alone" (in the sense of not hosted by a university), several of their main sites are located in or near university towns, and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) Lancaster is on the Lancaster University campus.

  The plans for CEH will increase the proportion of its scientists working at sites in or near university towns, and NERC hopes that staff and their research will benefit from the proximity.

  However, NERC believes that stand-alone centres have demonstrated their ability to support a diversity of skills and multidisciplinary research without the need for co-location or embedding in a university environment. As indicated in our original submission, the identity of stand-alone institutes can help them to become well known and to build partnerships (nationally and globally) irrespective of their location. Continuing with the present mix of institute models (as well as with funding individual academics in universities) would seem to be the most appropriate way of meeting NERC's science needs.

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)

  Many of NERC's RCIs carry out commissioned research for Defra and some other government departments, and the interaction involved inevitably allows RCIs to develop an awareness of government research needs. RCI scientists often act as advisors on government committees, and some RCIs have government representatives on their management boards. In addition, some institutes have staff in the knowledge transfer area who monitor opportunities for commissioned or collaborative research in the public (as well as private) sector.

  In making proposals for core research funding from NERC, RCIs are guided to a large extent by NERC's strategy, which is developed in consultation with a range of stakeholders including government departments. Decisions about RCIs' core funding take NERC's strategy and science priorities into account, ie relevance is an important criterion. Defra's Chief Scientific Advisor is a member of NERC's Council, which agrees the strategy, and the Office of Science and Innovation also has an observer on Council.

  Decisions about NERC's thematic (directed) programmes are also based on its strategy, and may therefore also reflect government requirements. Programme steering committees sometimes include government representatives, certainly if they are co-funded. Thematic funding is available to RCIs as well as to academics.NERC is a member of the Environment Research Funders' Forum (ERFF) which brings together the most significant funders of environmental research in the UK including Defra and the Department for Transport. This improves NERC's awareness of government funding needs, and it is able to share the information with its institutes. In addition, NERC holds bilateral (high-level and working-level) meetings with a number of Government departments to discuss research needs, which again it communicates to its centres as appropriate. NERC's Chief Executive gains an insight into Defra's interests as a member of its Science Advisory Council.

  In June, NERC instigated a new fortnightly internal bulletin (The External Issues Bulletin) to alert NERC staff, including those in its institutes, to relevant developments in government, such as new strategies or policy needs, and to upcoming bilateral meetings and their outputs.

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)

  Much of NERC's funding is allocated under thematic programmes. Each programme addresses a particular research interest, and applications are invited from academia and RCIs. They can decide to submit collaborative proposals. Programme steering committees assess bids at an outline stage, and sometimes suggest that applicants submit their full bids as collaborators.

  Collaborative proposals that don't fit under thematic programme can be submitted under NERC's Consortium Grant scheme, and they are also eligible for standard grants.

  All proposals, collaborative or individual, are peer reviewed, and the reviews are considered by a moderating panel. Awards are made on the basis of quality and relevance. When institutes apply for their core research funding from NERC, their proposals are also subject to international peer review. Reviewers occasionally make recommendations regarding collaborative opportunities.

  Some of NERC's collaborative centres derive from thematic funding calls. Examples are the centres for Earth Observation. NERC has just announced, following a review, that these will now come together under a new National Centre for Earth Observation.

  The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research arose as a cross-council scheme, and the UK Energy Research Centre emerged from the cross-council Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy (TSEC) Programme. Councils wished to encourage collaboration in both areas.

  Some NERC collaborative centres are initiated as a result of a strategic need being identified by NERC's Science and Innovation Strategy Board (SISB) or Council. Examples of collaborative centres set up to meet such a need are the NERC Centres for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Centre for Population Biology (CPB).

  Overview and gap-analysis by SISB and Council largely ensure that duplication of resources is avoided. ERFF also plays a very important role in ensuring that environmental research funding is "joined up".

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

  NERC participated in a cross-research-council project board to implement the dual support reform, ie full-economic costing. Before it disbanded, the board decided that a review should be carried out in due course, but no date was set. In the meantime, Councils have been asked to provide quarterly grant statistics to the Office of Science and Innovation to assess the impact of the reform, but it is too early to draw any conclusions.

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)

  N/A

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?

  Defra's Chief Scientific Adviser is a member of NERC's Council which obviously has a large influence on NERC's decision-making.

  NERC's wholly-owned institutes have management boards with wide-ranging public and private-sector representation. This means that academics and Government department representatives serve on these bodies. However, there are no formal requirements for Government representation—it is based on need and appropriateness.

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)

  Surveys of staff leaving NERC institutes are managed by the institutes themselves. Some ask leavers to complete a questionnaire, but this is not compulsory and does not necessarily ask for the leaver's destination. Some hold exit interviews and ask staff why they are leaving (if departure is voluntary) but not necessarily where they are going. Although NERC's Swindon Office Personnel Section follows the destinations of staff leaving Swindon Office and analyses data every quarter, databases are not kept by any of NERC's four wholly-owned centres. However, plans to gather and record destination data are being considered, and some PhD-student destination data are already being collected. At an anecdotal level, it appears that voluntary departures by scientific staff are generally to other jobs in science.

  When some of the British Geological Survey sites were closed in the 1980s, most people transferred to the Keyworth site, although some took redundancy payments. The most recent site closures were at CEH in 2001 and 2004. Efforts are being made to collect data on the destinations of staff affected by the forthcoming CEH site closures. The picture thus far, is that the staff who are leaving, for whatever reason are moving to UK science research jobs in academia or in other institutes. The situation is being closely monitored as part of the CEH Transition and Integration Project. The plans of each member of staff are being discussed with the HR team.