skip to content

For staff

 

The government has announced that it plans to implement the recommendations of the Nurse Review, which proposes changes to the UK research landscape.

In a report published last month, Royal Society president Sir Paul Nurse called for greater collaboration between scientists and the government. His suggestions were backed by George Osbourne in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

The full report is available here and the following summarises some of the key points from the review.

Summary of key points

  • The Report refers throughout to the role of the Research Councils in supporting the wider research sector and the UK research endeavour.
  • It advises against an outright merger of the seven Research Councils, but recommends that Research Councils UK (RCUK, the current loose partnership of the UK Research Councils) “evolves” into a formal organisation known as Research UK (RUK).
  • The Report suggests the creation of a Ministerial Committee to act as a forum for “strategic discussions” regarding science investment.
  • These strands link up: evolution of RCUK into a formal organisation is intended to facilitate communication and engagement between the research community and policymakers. A Ministerial Committee would be the forum for these discussions. This “revised structure for science in Government” would, with the aid of a “high quality map of UK research strength”, enable the Government to invest in a particular discipline or technology or (geographic) area and help the UK research endeavour to realise its potential.

A formal organisation: Research UK

The Report recommends that:

  • Research Councils UK, the loose partnership of the seven Research Councils, should “evolve” into a single, formal organisation (RUK). RUK would be headed by one Accounting Officer, also RUK’s Chief Executive.
  • The Research Councils should maintain their distinct identities within RUK. RUK should not be seen as a single Research Council.
  • The Council Executives of the Research Councils should have budgetary control within the Research Councils and should retain responsibility for the articulation of funding calls.
  • However, RUK’s Executive Committee and Chief Executive should establish “common ways of working among the Research Councils”.
  • The RUK Executive should also manage a “common research fund” to support multi-disciplinary research and cross-Council research, proposals which address cross-cutting societal needs and which respond to emergency situations, and “the adjustment of individual Research Council portfolios in response to scientific developments”.
  • RUK would be responsible for “horizon scanning” in order to maintain the UK research endeavour’s capability to “respond quickly to new emerging scientific opportunities”.
  • The executive tiers of RUK should lead on the formulation of research strategy and should communicate this strategy to the Government.

The creation of a Ministerial Committee

The Report states that:

  • It is important to secure greater engagement between senior policy makers and the research community.
  • The creation of a Ministerial Committee, chaired by a senior Minister with cross-cutting cabinet responsibilities, would provide “a forum for interactions and discussions between policy makers and the research endeavour, including assessment of advice and proposals from Research UK”.
  • The Committee would also “address the Government’s overall capacity for research.”
  • As a forum for policymakers and the research community, the Committee would enable strategic discussions of the UK research landscape, including strengths and weaknesses, both geographically and by discipline/sector/technology. These discussions would assist the Government should it wish to invest in a particular area of the country in order to encourage economic growth through science and research.

Engaging with the UK’s wider research endeavour

The Report notes that:

  • It values the principle of “Investing in Excellence, Wherever it is Found”.
  • Research Councils funding could be dispersed more widely and responsively across the research endeavour. For example:
    • It is sometimes “appropriate” for Research Councils funding to “support research in other not-for-profit institutions” besides universities (although the majority of Research Councils spending should be in universities).
    • The Report suggests trialling an approach enabling Public Sector Research Establishments to receive Research Council funding when they put forward proposals in collaboration with a university partner.
    • Collaborative working with Government Departments could be strengthened.
    • There is felt to be room for further collaboration between the Research Councils and Innovate UK, and for Research Councils collaborative applied funding to involve Innovate UK.

Dual support

  • The Report recommends that the dual support system is preserved, with the current budget ratio retained.
  • The Report suggests there is a case for incorporating HEFCE’s research functions including the REF within RUK. This could mean that the RUK organisation assumes responsibility for allocating quality-related research funding.

Published

07 December 2015

Subjects