Introducing the newly formed Office for the Life Sciences

The Office for the Life Sciences (OLS) will work with industry to make further improvements in the operating environment for the pharmaceutical, medical biotechnology, and healthcare technology industries in the UK, culminating in the publication of a Life Sciences Industrial Strategy this summer.

The OLS has said that it is, 'pleased with a set of measures put forward in last week's Budget which will have a positive influence on the operating environment for life sciences companies and which recognise the importance of supporting the life sciences industry as a key strategic sector of the future' in a DIUS announcement.

The announcement goes on to quote Lord Drayson, who leads the work of the OLS who says, "It is an important achievement for the newly formed Office for Life Sciences that the Budget included a commitment to explore the tax treatment of Intellectual property to enhance the competitiveness of the UK."

Read the DIUS announcement in full.

Hopes of £1 billion funding increase quashed

After weeks of hope that the UK scientific sector would see a funding boost, similar to that seen in the US, Darling's budget has come as a huge disappointment. The new budget does not contain any new money for places or research, although an existing commitment to ring-fence the science budget remains, an article in THES reports.

In a £400 million savings package, universities will be required to compete for grants. 'The £400 million in efficiency savings in further and higher education is expected to be found through the "use of benchmarking data, greater contestability, particularly in commissioning new programmes and services; reduced expenditure through lower than expected rates of inflation and the strategic reprioritisation and rephasing of programmes".'

Read the THES article in full.

Call for additional £2bn in funding

The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta) and a group of research-based universities led by Sir Roy Anderson, rector of Imperial College London are calling for as much as £2bn in additional funding in the budget, reports the Financial Times.

It is envisioned that the money would be spent through two streams, the first would be allocated to the seven research councils to support research and postgraduate training. The second 'would be used to help finance small high-tech companies and start ups' which are suffering from a long-term shortage of early-stage venture capital funding.

David Delpy, chief executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is quoted as saying, "The big risk now is that, with the US planning to invest $18bn in research grants and $3.5bn in scientific infrastructure, we could lose what we have built up over the past decade."

Read the Financial Times article in full.

Scottish universities face funding cuts

In the wake of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), 'nearly a third of Scotland's universities will see their total funding cut in real terms for 2009-10' reports the THES.

In comparison with England which saw a 4 per cent cash increase and a 2 per cent real-terms rise when inflation was included, in Scotland, total funding increased 3.4 per cent in cash terms, equating to 1.4 per cent including inflation. This news comes after the Scottish Funding Council announced how the £1.14 billion allocated by the Scottish Government would be spread across 20 universities in 2009-10.

Stirling and Strathclyde have seen the biggest decrease in funding with falls of 1.6 per cent and 0.3 per cent respectively. This is 'despite receiving special moderation funding funding of £1.5 million and £1.3 million to soften the cuts' reports THES. The University of Dundee, Queen Margaret University and Glasgow Caledonian University have all seen below-inflation rises.

Within these allocation to Universities, some science areas fared better than others: Community-based medicine rose 102 per cent, physical sciences rose 31.5 per cent, hospital and laboratory medicine rose 30 per cent, while funding for biological sciences fell 19 per cent.

Read the THES article in full.

EPSRC considers blacklisting measures

The Guardian reports that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has 'announced plans to "blacklist" academic researchers who submit three unsuccessful research proposals in any one year and have a low personal success rate of winning grants'. The EPSRC has said the proposal will help to manage demand for grants. David Reid, EPSRC's head of communications is quoted as saying, "A small number of people put a disproportionate burden on the peer-review system. We're talking about weeding out consistently low-quality proposals."

However, the announcements have caused fear and anger in the chemistry community, with concern about the impact of such measures on scientist's careers and potential department closures as a result.

In a letter to the Guardian, Professor Joe Sweeney (University of Reading) states: 'This policy will not increase the number of scientific projects funded: only the success rate will improve. Thus, then it presents the ludicrous possibility that the distribution of public funding for science will now be judged not by quality, but by the amount of money, in a self-destructive negative-feedback loop: the less money available, the less success, and the higher the body count of blacklisted scientists.'

A petition against the policy has been set up on the Number 10 website.

Read the Guardian letter in full.
Read Professor Joe Sweeney's letter in full.
Sign/view the online petition.

Please sir?

The BBC reports that the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills is in discussion with the Treasury about about a £1bn cash boost for scientific research as part of a stimulus package, similar to that seen in the US.

This funding is intended to 'keep academic talent in the UK while putting money into the ailing economy.' There is a concern that the downturn could destroy the scientific skills that draw high-tech companies to the UK in addition to potential 'brain-drain' which could see UK scientists drawn to the US and Asian countries where research funding has been dramatically increased.

It is hoped a decision will be made by the end of the month.
Read the BBC article in full.

US Congress passes science stimulus package

Analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science reports that the finalised $790 billion economic recovery bill will allocate $21.5 billion for federal R&D. The $21.5 billion will give $18 billion to federal agencies for the conduct of R&D and $3.5 billion for R&D facilities and large equipment. For a federal research portfolio that has been declining in real terms since FY 2004, the final stimulus bill provides an immediate boost that allows federal research funding to see a real increase for the first time five years.

High priorities are basic competitiveness-related research, biomedical research, energy R&D and climate change programmes. The National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE OS), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the three agencies highlighted in the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), will all receive significant boosts to their budgets. The final stimulus bill challenges the major R&D funding agencies to spend these large stimulus appropriations quickly, while at the same time spending them well. There will be unusual scrutiny of how and how fast the money will be spent. Scrutiny will be made possible by extensive accountability and transparency mandates in the bill, including separate appropriations for agency inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor stimulus spending.

Read the comprehensive AAAS report in full.

Funding to focus on global challenges

John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has indicated that decisions taken in next's year Comprehensive Spending Review will be influenced by a desire to allocate to studies with a commerical application, or those that address urgent global problems.

In the Times article he is quoted as saying, "I don't think the question now can be whether we go in this direction, but there are a great many questions about how we do so most effectively." Although Mr Denham has pledged that 'the new policy would protect basic curiosity-led research', he has acknowledged that some cuts will be involved. He also added that fundamental research was central to the new strategy - 'though scientists should make sure that they were quick to exploit any useful insights that emerged from it'.

Read the Times article in full.

Are research councils to blame for the fall in the number of UK Nobel Laureates?

Twenty eminent UK scientists have written to THES, calling for academics to 'rebel against new rules that state that the potential financial or social effects of research must be highlighted in a two-page "impact summary" in grant applications'. The letter's authors urge peer reviewer to ignore these summaries, arguing that the economic potential of "blue-skies" research is impossible to predict in advance.

The letter was coordinated by Professor Donald Braben (UCL) and Professor Philip Moriarty (University of Nottingham). Professor Braben is quoted as saying, "As soon as you identify a beneficiary for researh... the councils are going to turn it around and say, right, deliver. And then it is applied research... You can't have blue-skies research if you put caveats on it."

Speaking on behalf of the Research Councils, Philip Esler (chief executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Council) is quoted as saying in response, "The description of impact that the research councils work with is broad, encompassing not only the contribution research makes to the economy but also to society as a whole. It covers not only economic benefits, but also those related to public policy, quality of life, health and creative output. Research councils will not be disadvantaging blue-skies research, nor stifling creativity."

Read the THES article in full.

HEFCE: Here to help

THES reports on a £50 million emergency fund launched by HEFCE to help fight the economic downturn. The fund is designed to create new opportunities for academics who are keen to work with local businesses to to help them survive the credit crunch through practical projects.

Hugh Tollyfield, HEFCE's special advisor on employer engagement, cited the example of 'how institutions situated near the factories of steel manufacturer Corus, which recently announced massive job cutes because of the slump, might attract ECIF cash. "They might offer short courses to people who have been made redundant so they have better prospects in the job market, or they might look at opportunities for improving processes (such as steel production)"'.

Read the THES article in full.
Visit the HEFCE website to find out more.

Will QR reinforce hierachies?

An article in the THES addresses the potential effects of the QR formula. The RAE findings showed that research excellence was widely spread across the sector, leading to speculation that large research-intensive universities was lose funding due an allocation formula which promises that research in the top three of four categories (4*, 3* and 2*) would be funded wherever it was found.

However, a decision was announced by HEFCE to ring-fence funding for science subjects (normally strongest in traditional universities) at the expense of other disciplines. This decision is expected to divert about £50 million away from arts-based subjects, where the research excellence of the post-1992 institutions is concentrated.

Professor Les Ebdon, chair of Million+ think-tank and vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire is quoted as saying that, 'while his part of the sector was "very pleased" that HEFCE had agreed to fund excellence where it was found and he was expecting "significantly more" funding flow to Million+ universities than previously, he was disappointed that research of "national significance" (1*) will not receive any funding, given its importance to "UK PLC"'.

Read the THES article in full.

Mainstream QR funding quandary

Research Fortnight reports that HEFCE and Ministers face a tough decision on how to allocate the Mainstream QR funding of more than £900 million following the 2008 RAE.

In the 2008 RAE many universities with smaller volumes of research have succeeded in getting a relatively high percentage of their staff into categories 4* and 3*. Research Fortnight uses the University of Wolverhampton as an example: in 2001 the history department was rated 4 with everything else rated 3a or lower. However, in the 2008 RAE it submitted 151 staff in total and 30 per cent were categorised as 4* or 3*.

Success of this kind threatens to divert money from traditional recipients of Mainstream QR. The annual grant letter to HEFCE from DIUS setting out guidance is due this week. The HEFCE allocation announcement will be made on Thursday March 5

Research Fortnight (subscription required)

Changes afoot at the BBSRC

The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has announced changes to the way its peer review committees are organised, the way new research and policy priorities are highlighted and a reorganisation of funding structures for its five sponsored Institutes.

The changes are:

• The creation of four new research committees from the existing seven


• The setting up of a mixed economy of peer review membership, including core committee members and a pool of reviewers able to be called on flexibly for their specific expertise


• New research and policy priorities that will overarch all of BBSRC’s activities. The policy priorities will help BBSRC researchers to consider the strategic relevance of their proposals when they make applications


• A system of highlight notices that BBSRC will use to generate demand when it identifies the need for more applications in certain areas


• Institute Strategic Programme Grants to replace Core Strategic Grants to the BBSRC-sponsored Institutes
  

BBSRC Chief Executive Doug Kell has said, "These changes are not about abandoning responsive mode or about forcing researchers to work in industry. It is a fallacy that responsive mode research is only for blue skies or fundamental science. The criteria for peer review will not change. BBSRC will always fund excellent science. What we want the new system to do is to encourage our research community to think about the strategic focus of their applications and then ensure that when we fund excellent science we are able to capture the impact of the outcomes."

Read the BBSRC News Release in full.

EPSRC puts up signposts

In an attempt to facilitate further interdisciplinary research, EPSRC has developed a system by which areas of special interest can be flagged. At the beginning of April the '"physics-life sciences interface" research was added to its list of transient blue-skies signposts along with a budget of up to £8 million. The EPSRC have stressed that they are not calls for research proposals. Proposals which fall into signposted areas will be treated by a different mechanism than solely responsive-mode peer-review panels; extra experts will be drafted in to help panels with their assessments.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401485

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/Content/News/PhysicsLSIFunding.htm

Comfortable in the middle

Data published by Research Fortnight shows that between the financial years 2005-6 and 2006-7 it was second-tier institutions (e.g. York, Reading and Bath) that received the largest increase in funding. Analysis shows that 'the Russell Group's share of total grant funding fell from 72.5% to 66.8% between 2005-6 and 2006-7, while the share of the 1994 group, the coalition of smaller research-intensive universities, rose from 14.6% to 17.1%'.

Steve Smith, chairman of the 1994 group is quoted as saying'"The area where the 1994 Group traditionally lagged was research grants per member of staff. Now everyone is realising that metrics are coming in, and grant income has become an absolute priority."'

http://www.researchresearch.com/

Cash boost for applied infection research

A total of £16.5 million has been made available for research that helps to deal with the health threats posed by viruses and bacteria, largely earmarked for consortium grants. This funding is the second wave of cash from the UKCRC Translational Infection Research Initiative through a partnership of seven funders: the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Health Departments in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust. Proposals are particularly encouraged from those aiming to facilitate natural collaborations with industry.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401239

http://www.idrn.org/translationinfectionresearch.php