- Email: [email protected]
Nurse review paves way for merger of UK research councils
World Report
Nurse review paves way for merger of UK research councils
A review of the UK’s research funding system has recommended tighter integration of the country’s seven discipline-specific research councils under a single, new umbrella organisation that would oversee all government research funding in the country. Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, published his long-awaited report on Nov 19. He recommends that the councils’ current umbrella body, Research Councils UK, be replaced with one that has direct responsibility for the councils, and a single chief executive who would be the sole point of contact between the councils and the government. The new, more powerful overhead organisation, which he suggests should be called Research UK, “can support the whole system to collectively become more than the sum of its parts”, states Nurse in his report, by strengthening their voice in government, taking responsibility for cross-council strategy, and reducing the administrative burden on each council, allowing them to focus on their own research areas. The individual councils would continue to set their own research priorities, and retain control over their own budgets, as set by Research UK, but would pool a portion of their money to support interdisciplinary research—an area that has long been seen as a weakness of the current system. But despite Nurse’s desire to keep the existing research councils separate, most observers say the recommendations amount to a merger in all but name. “He stops short of recommending a full merger, because the community is against it, but it is basically a merger”, says Kieron Flanagan, www.thelancet.com Vol 386 November 28, 2015
who studies science policy at the University of Manchester, UK. A full merger, with the councils reduced to departments within Research UK, would chime with the stated goal of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Sajid Javid, who oversees the research councils. He wants to cut the number of independent agencies his department is responsible for by half. “If it’s not a merger now, it will be fairly rapidly”, says James Wilsdon, a science policy researcher at the University of Sussex, UK.
“‘He stops short of recommending a full merger, because the community is against it, but it is basically a merger’...” Nurse also recommends that Research UK take over responsibility for the quality-related research funding that is doled out to universities based on their scores in the UK’s periodic Research Excellence Framework assessments. The agency that currently administers this £1·6 billion annual fund, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is also on Javid’s chopping block. Although the two funding streams would be administered by the same agency, Nurse wants to maintain the existing “dual support” research funding system, with the research councils’ budgets and the quality-related research money kept separate and awarded independently. Both Wilsdon and Flanagan worry that combining so many previously independent funders into one agency could damage the UK’s research environment by reducing the diversity of funding opportunities. “Diversity breeds success”, says Wilsdon. “Choking off diversity is not a recipe for a strong system.”
Flanagan warns that there would be a danger of so-called groupthink in a single research council, dominated by one idea of how science should be done depending on the view of the person in charge. “The proof will be in how it is implemented”, he says. “They will need to go to great lengths to ensure they protect the diversity of outcomes to make up for the loss of diversity in funders.” Nurse also recommends that the government create a committee of ministers and senior civil servants to coordinate thinking on science, and bring it closer to the heart of government. “If we don’t get closer to the government, we will see the budget for science just drivel away”, said Nurse at a press conference. “They are political masters, elected by society, if we don’t engage them, they will take no interest.” The suggested arrangement fits well with the needs of large-scale biomedical research, such as the new Crick Institute in London that Nurse leads, says Flanagan. “You can build the Crick, but the research councils are under no obligation to fund it”, he says. “The committee and the RUK [Research UK] chief executive can make sure that happens.” But it is less well suited to other disciplines, such as the social sciences, he adds. Wilsdon says that the newly empowered Research UK, combined with the ministerial committee, offers the prospect of more integrated and higher level strategic planning. But he warns that many researchers would worry that it also has the potential for more centralised control and political interference. “Committees of VIPs are a long way removed from the lab bench”, he says.
Emmanuel Dunand/Staff
Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, has called for an overarching body to encompass all the UK’s research councils in a long-awaited review released last week. Brian Owens reports.
Paul Nurse For the review see https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/478125/BIS-15-625ensuring-a-successful-UKresearch-endeavour.pdf
Brian Owens 2129
Nurse review paves way for merger of UK research councils
A review of the UK’s research funding system has recommended tighter integration of the country’s seven discipline-specific research councils under a single, new umbrella organisation that would oversee all government research funding in the country. Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, published his long-awaited report on Nov 19. He recommends that the councils’ current umbrella body, Research Councils UK, be replaced with one that has direct responsibility for the councils, and a single chief executive who would be the sole point of contact between the councils and the government. The new, more powerful overhead organisation, which he suggests should be called Research UK, “can support the whole system to collectively become more than the sum of its parts”, states Nurse in his report, by strengthening their voice in government, taking responsibility for cross-council strategy, and reducing the administrative burden on each council, allowing them to focus on their own research areas. The individual councils would continue to set their own research priorities, and retain control over their own budgets, as set by Research UK, but would pool a portion of their money to support interdisciplinary research—an area that has long been seen as a weakness of the current system. But despite Nurse’s desire to keep the existing research councils separate, most observers say the recommendations amount to a merger in all but name. “He stops short of recommending a full merger, because the community is against it, but it is basically a merger”, says Kieron Flanagan, www.thelancet.com Vol 386 November 28, 2015
who studies science policy at the University of Manchester, UK. A full merger, with the councils reduced to departments within Research UK, would chime with the stated goal of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Sajid Javid, who oversees the research councils. He wants to cut the number of independent agencies his department is responsible for by half. “If it’s not a merger now, it will be fairly rapidly”, says James Wilsdon, a science policy researcher at the University of Sussex, UK.
“‘He stops short of recommending a full merger, because the community is against it, but it is basically a merger’...” Nurse also recommends that Research UK take over responsibility for the quality-related research funding that is doled out to universities based on their scores in the UK’s periodic Research Excellence Framework assessments. The agency that currently administers this £1·6 billion annual fund, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is also on Javid’s chopping block. Although the two funding streams would be administered by the same agency, Nurse wants to maintain the existing “dual support” research funding system, with the research councils’ budgets and the quality-related research money kept separate and awarded independently. Both Wilsdon and Flanagan worry that combining so many previously independent funders into one agency could damage the UK’s research environment by reducing the diversity of funding opportunities. “Diversity breeds success”, says Wilsdon. “Choking off diversity is not a recipe for a strong system.”
Flanagan warns that there would be a danger of so-called groupthink in a single research council, dominated by one idea of how science should be done depending on the view of the person in charge. “The proof will be in how it is implemented”, he says. “They will need to go to great lengths to ensure they protect the diversity of outcomes to make up for the loss of diversity in funders.” Nurse also recommends that the government create a committee of ministers and senior civil servants to coordinate thinking on science, and bring it closer to the heart of government. “If we don’t get closer to the government, we will see the budget for science just drivel away”, said Nurse at a press conference. “They are political masters, elected by society, if we don’t engage them, they will take no interest.” The suggested arrangement fits well with the needs of large-scale biomedical research, such as the new Crick Institute in London that Nurse leads, says Flanagan. “You can build the Crick, but the research councils are under no obligation to fund it”, he says. “The committee and the RUK [Research UK] chief executive can make sure that happens.” But it is less well suited to other disciplines, such as the social sciences, he adds. Wilsdon says that the newly empowered Research UK, combined with the ministerial committee, offers the prospect of more integrated and higher level strategic planning. But he warns that many researchers would worry that it also has the potential for more centralised control and political interference. “Committees of VIPs are a long way removed from the lab bench”, he says.
Emmanuel Dunand/Staff
Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, has called for an overarching body to encompass all the UK’s research councils in a long-awaited review released last week. Brian Owens reports.
Paul Nurse For the review see https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/478125/BIS-15-625ensuring-a-successful-UKresearch-endeavour.pdf
Brian Owens 2129