Table Of ContentHOUSE OF LORDS
Science and Technology Committee
3rd Report of Session 2009-10
Setting priorities for
publicly funded
research
Volume II: Evidence
HL Paper 104-II
Wa i
= SS
22503113733
HOUSE OF LORDS
Science andS pc aaU CBYaCeo mmittee
3rd Report of Session 2009-10
Setting priorities for
Ermitely. funded
research
Volume II: Evidence
Ordered to be printed 23 March 2010 and published 14 April 2010
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
London : The Stationery Office Limited
£36.00
HL Paper 104-II
CONTENTS
Page
Oral Evidence
Mr Feremy Clayton, Government Office for Science, Dr Graeme Reid,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Written evidence from the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills 1
Oral evidence (28 October 2009) 10
Supplementary written evidence from the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills 18
Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a Member of the House of Lords
Oral evidence (28 October 2009) 31
Supplementary written evidence from Lord Sainsbury of Turville 39
Professor Mark Welland, Ministry of Defence, Mr Paul Stein, Ministry
of Defence, Professor Robert Watson, Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, and Dr Miles Parker, Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs
Written evidence from the Ministry of Defence 41
Written evidence from the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs 43
Oral evidence (5 November 2009) 46
Supplementary written evidence from the Ministry of Defence 54
Supplementary written evidence from the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 60
Further supplementary written evidence from the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 65
Professor Dame Sally Davies, Department of Health, Professor Tom Walley,
Department of Health, Dr Andrew Steer, Department for International
Development, and Dr Gail Marzettit, Department for International
Development
Written evidence from the Department of Health ; 70
Written evidence for the Department for International Development 74
Oral evidence (5 November 2009) 76
Supplementary written evidence from the Department of Health 85
Supplementary written evidence from the Department for International
Development 90
Ms Miranda Kavanagh, Environment Agency, Dr Andrew Stott,
Foint Nature Conservation Committee and Dr Andrew Wadge, Food
Standards Agency
Written evidence from the Environment Agency 96
Written evidence from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee 98
Written evidence from the Food Standards Agency 102
Oral evidence (11 November 2009) 105
Supplementary written evidence from the Environment Agency 115
Supplementary written evidence from the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee 115
Dr Brian Bowsher, National Physical Laboratory, Professor Chris Thorns,
Veterinary Laboratories Agency, and Mr Derrick Ryall, Met Office
Written evidence from the National Physical Laboratory 118
Written evidence from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency 119
Written evidence from the Met Office 121
Oral evidence (11 November 2009) 122
Supplementary written evidence from the Met Office 131
Mr David Sweeney, Higher Education Funding Council for England
Written evidence from the Higher Education Funding Council for
England 132
Oral evidence (2 December 2009) 135
Mr David Sweeney, Higher Education Funding Council for England,
Professor Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council,
Professor David Delpy, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council,
Dr Steven Hill, Research Councils UK, and Sir Leszek Borysiewicz,
Meaical Research Council
Written evidence from Research Councils UK 140
Written evidence from the Medical Research Council 154
Oral evidence (2 December 2009) 158
Supplementary written evidence from the Higher Education Funding
Council for England 172
Supplementary written evidence from Research Councils UK 172
Professor Sandy Thomas, Foresight, Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills, and Professor Chris Gaskell, Science Advisory Council,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Oral evidence (9 December 2009) 184
Mr Nick Dusic, Campaign for Science and Engineering,
Professor Geoffrey Boulton, Royal Society of Edinburgh, and
Professor Roger Kain, British Academy
Written evidence from the Campaign for Science and Engineering 193
Written evidence from the Royal Society of Edinburgh 196
Written evidence from the British Academy 202
Oral evidence (9 December 2009) 205
Mr Colin Smith, Rolls Royce, Mr Simon Denegni, Association of Medical
Research Charities, and Ms Anne Glover, Amadeus Capital Partners
Written evidence from the Association of Medical Research Charities 213
Oral evidence (15 December 2009) 217
Supplementary written evidence from Rolls Royce 227
Mr Iain Gray, Technology Strategy Board, Dr Graham Hillier, Centre for
Process Innovation, and Dr David Clarke, Energy Technologies Institute
Written evidence from the Technology Strategy Board 230
Written evidence from the Centre for Process Innovation 232
Written evidence from the Energy Technologies Institute 236
Oral evidence (15 Decernber 2009) 238
Supplementary written evidence from the Technology Strategy Board 248
Supplementary written evidence from the Centre for Process Innovation 249
Professor Andrew Watkinson, Living With Environmental Change,
Professor Sir John Bell, Office for Strategic Coordination of Health
Research, Dr Graeme Sweeney, Energy Research Partnership, and
Professor John Loughhead, Energy Research Partnership
Written evidence from Professor Andrew Watkinson,
Living With Environmental Change ard
Written evidence from the Office for Strategic Coordination of
Health Research 254
Oral evidence (12 January 2010) 258
Dr Paul Nightingale and Professor Andrew Stirling, Science Policy
Research Unit, Sir Richard Brook, Leverhulme Trust
Written evidence from Dr Paul Nightingale 268
Oral evidence (12 January 2010) 274
Supplementary written evidence from Professor Andrew Stirling 283
Professor Sir Martin Taylor, Royal Society, Dr James Wilsdon, Royal
Society and Professor Dame fanet Finch, Council for Science and Technology
Oral evidence (19 January 2010) 289
Professor fohn Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Written evidence from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser 299
Oral evidence (19 January 2010) 302
Supplementary written evidence from the Government Chief
Scientific Adviser SIZ
Professor Adrian Smith, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Oral evidence (4 February 2010) 316
Rt Hon Lord Drayson, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Oral evidence (4 February 2010) 324
Written Evidence
Academy of Medical Sciences GY Ja
Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs 334
Alzheimer’s Society SX ja
Aporia 336
Biosciences Federation and Institute of Biology (now the Society of
Biology) 338
Professor Donald W Braben 343
Breast Cancer Campaign 345
British Computer Society (The Chartered Institute for IT) 347
British Council for Ageing 348
British Heart Foundation 351
British Psychological Society 355
British Society for Development Biology 356
Cabinet Office olay
Cancer Research UK 358
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management 363
Council for the Mathematical Sciences 367
Department for Children, Schools and Families 369
Department for Transport oyp|
Department for Work and Pensions 373
Department of Communities and Local Government 379
Department of Energy and Climate Change 381
Dr Martin Dominik 385
Energy Research Partnership 386
Foreign and Commonwealth Office 388
Forensic Science Service Ltd 388
GeneWatch UK 389
Professor Luke Georghiou 395
Government Chemist 399
Government’s Chief Social Scientist 401
Mr Chris Harries 403
Health and Safety Executive 403
HM Revenue and Customs 406
HM Treasury 407
Home Office 412
Imperial College London 416
Institution of Chemical Engineers 419
Institute of Physics 423
James Lind Alliance 430
John Innes Centre 433
Professor Michael J Kelly 437
Linnean Society of London 442
Ministry of Justice 445
Office of the Vice Provost for Research, University College London 447
Dr James Ren 453
Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network 454
Roche 462
Roslin Institute 465
Royal Academy of Engineering, Institution of Chemical Engineers,
Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Engineering and
Technology, Engineering Council UK and Engineering and
Technology Board 468
Royal Astronomical Society 472
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 475
Royal College of Physicians 477
Royal National Institute for Deaf People 479
Royal Society of Chemistry 482
Russell Group of Universities 485
Sustainable Development Group of the Institute of Materials,
Minerals and Mining 492
Syngenta 493
UK Computing Research Committee 496
UK Deans of Science 498
UK Government’s Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committees 502
Professor Christos Vassilicos 504
Wellcome Trust 505
NOTE:
The Report of the Committee is published in Volume I, HL Paper No 104-I
The Evidence of the Committee is published in Volume IT, HL Paper No 104-II
an!
ir e
v, 7
fen teks eee hee
in dovtsooe oat} 16
TS: oan ee a a | seed 308
we ogatins ei tarsoe ie 2s ett
ire ae a pee rar, A Ad 7! Ti wih aioe ysh e—s
SRR) «ag, SOON © ihMe RD n= Ri A e/a sikioas yiihs®
| ook oo eee ; weg Belling) tel simone) bas aoe a
ne! VOR Ay | AE 4 eee. ine |
\4 ij She ' P r .
CER ibis OR bind leis vi a eae
* ; ; iia
SEBS Weebl lie lies pi ss oe
Séh Sy ae hs - Hays Mihtieals ale i
° | | oirO ov ases
TES fined, ps ¥ new pz te PASS. i. fsaoe ! oba hes 10 99h
ROR ryan tel , ) G3) —e
ot a aD tres v9 an ayo ilarA wa ey ers3 F e| avd
ey ee ae ‘yo dd subg ‘Pei cay wile
COD EH aoe elh ecur i eatin Cas ah | vasaand mute
Pusey 7a)a ti Be Peet weit sn aed te ob
lavas
np ta ety 1 bet ie, ALO ey tt hyiquseienl, A& vante) i iise e ’ rdtrbiont opt ls
| 1 heli oooh kbiniliae a| e a means nana siied, ‘hath » ALE deena. > 8 Ai foc att he
Ray chan | AS ay a. ae qolonsios T
DO ae oy aes Lie: ‘\aine % igoimedoreds hin
ee ade id “et sk) ug ee A j , dba, eaieibaatt to agate, cho
VabeP alhy , ¥" j st bo A
iynne RIE ig Rena Rial tema xl BBsLi pev adses aaligy Tiiynooead7l
Cob , ; ” , abr ron, s ts f a pao} ‘Yo hein SO.
P stp ; ! pe aig uh ’ ys savini es a—
| sniteubA |i oa siai n at ok Dina1 Nik
S.Ct a elit Utell eames seis a a snne bus 2 of
£Ob |. 's Ae ty Set Me eer) oi)
Oe ,
CHF Bik Raai st,S aatv isa ihe
3 Ore bP ey ne Kji a ws1 Sk dexy
OSES So! 3 lotT yewese wet
ee abiniter Ot pe By wie
Ris ti kc i.
LU-n20gfA :n e 0 9 aFok“ b : LParcueeni ll ee,4s he atHpe :t‘ weh nq ae
é - iene ' f i ; 1 is %
Minutes of Evidence
TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER 2009
Present Broers, L. May of Oxford, L.
Crickhowell, L. Methuen, L.
Colwyn, L. Neuberger, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L. Oxburgh, L.
Haskel, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. (Chairman)
Memorandum by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
This memorandum covers total BIS spend in science and research, which is relevant to the policy objectives
of most if not all Government Departments. BIS funding includes:
— The Science and Research Budget, including funding for the Research Councils and National
Academies
— HEFCE funding for research in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England
— Technology Strategy Board funding
— Asmall amount of policy-directed research.
Altogether this comprises over half of all Government funding for research.
2. OBJECTIVES OF PUBLICLY-FUNDED RESEARCH
Research enables us to deepen our understanding of our world and of our universe, and this knowledge
underpins a wide variety of economic outcomes. These include drivers of productivity and competitiveness
including innovation and skills creation. This justifies government intervention to ensure that enough
investment is undertaken to guarantee the maximum benefit for society and the economy. The research funded
by BIS, and its economic impact, is key to the success of Government policy in economic development, health,
education, defence, the environment and many other areas.
Although private firms do undertake investments in Research and Development, they normally only consider
the effects of these expenditure on their own profits, ignoring the wider benefits on other firms and society at
large. Given that the social benefits of investment in Science and Research exceed those accruing to the firms
themselves the private investment will fall short of the socially desirable amount. Therefore Government must
provide public funds to fill the gaps left by the private activity.
Public intervention in this area is to fill this gap in two ways. On the one hand to fund directly the kind of
research that because of its uncertain and long term nature would not find space in the private initiative, so
called basic research. On the other hand to provide indirect incentives for the private initiative to invest more
by providing tax credits and subsidies and through joint ventures.
Government also has a lead role in influencing or supporting the environment for innovation. Through the
funding and activities of the Technology Strategy Board, BIS looks to stimulate business innovation in those
areas which offer the greatest scope for boosting UK growth and productivity. This supplements the
contribution oft he research base to innovation and economic exploitation. The Government laid out in detail
its approach to making targeted interventions to help the economy of the future in the policy statement
Building Britain’s Future—New Industry, New Jobs, published on 20 April 2009.
Public funding for research is governed by the principle of excellence. This means that the quality of the
research, as judged by the research community, is the prime criterion for the allocation of funding. Experience
shows that this approach consistently produces the highest quality research base and generates the greatest
impact.
2 SETTING RESEARCH AND FUNDING PRIORITIES: EVIDENCE
3, ALLOCATION OF RESEARCH FUNDING
The mechanisms for allocating research funding are intentionally different for each funding stream, reflecting
the different aims and purposes of each stream. In particular, the Haldane principle (that researchers are best
placed to make detailed funding decisions and that Government should set the over-arching strategic
direction) applies to research that is, as Haldane put it, “for general use”. Haldane was also clear that “many
Departments must retain under their own control a distinctive organisation for the prosecution of specific
forms of research.” Government is clear that this type of policy-directed research should not be covered by the
Haldane principle.
Funding is supplied to HEIs, and also to a number of Research Council Institutes, which provide facilities and
carry out research of a type or scale that would not be possible for HEIs.
3.1 Science and Research Budget
As has already been noted, the Science and Research Budget funds research “for general use”, and as such is
rightly governed by the Haldane Principle.
This budget is the subject of a separate Request for Resource from Parliament, and is ringfenced by HM
Treasury. The Government remains committed to the Science and Research ringfence, as was made clear by
the Prime Minister on 27 February this year:
“We will maintain the ringfence we have placed around science funding—protecting money for science from
competing demands in the short-term and providing the sustained support the research community needs to
deliver world-class results in the medium and long term.”
Before allocating the Science and Research Budget following the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, the
then Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills collected evidence on the activities and performance
of all funding from this Budget. All the Research Councils and the national Academies provided detailed
delivery plans, which set out what future spending would deliver against the overarching objectives.
The following factors were taken into account in determining the Science Budget Allocations to individual
Research Councils and Academies:
— a thorough assessment of draft Research Council and Academy Delivery Plans for CSR07;
— the strength of the case for increasing the investment in any particular area of research in CSRO7,
which takes account of the quality of the research base in particular fields; and
— a full evaluation of the performance of each of the Research Councils and Academies through the
SR04 period.
Once each Research Council and Academy receives its allocated funding, it makes the detailed decisions on
allocation, in accordance with the Delivery Plan agreed with Government for the Spending Review period,
and with the Haldane Principle.
The Government has already committed to improving this process by consulting more extensively in the run
up to the next Science and Research Budget allocation. However, the Government sees no case for
fundamental change to this system.
Because of the strategic nature of its funding, the Large Capital Facilities Fund (LFCF, part of the Science
and Research Budget) is not allocated to any one Research Council. For the same reason, it is one of the few
cases in which Ministerial involvement is required. To determine which projects should be earmarked for
funding from the LFCF a project selection and prioritisation exercise, led by RCUK (Research Councils UK)
takes place every two years or so. LFCF projects are prioritised by RCUK according to published criteria.
The most recent version of the resulting RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap was published in 2008. A
consultation with the scientific community has just been launched by RCUK on its revision.
Once a prioritised list of projects has been agreed by the Research Councils, it is submitted to the Director
General Science and Research, (DGSR), for consideration by Ministers against the available LFCF budget.
3.2 The Dual Support System
Government funding for research in HEIs in England is channelled through the Dual Support System:
Research Council funding supports specific projects and postgraduate training and the HEFCE Quality-
related research (QR) block grant provides strategic underpinning support.
