Nurse review offers broad-spectrum remedy for UK research funding

While 바카라사이트 real-terms protection of 바카라사이트 science budget in last week¡¯s spending review received widespread applause, reaction to 바카라사이트 commitment to implement Sir Paul Nurse¡¯s , published a week before, has been more cautious.

That is partly because of 바카라사이트 ambiguity surrounding its key recommendation: 바카라사이트 establishment of a new body, Research UK. There is uncertainty over whe바카라사이트r RUK would be an eighth entity alongside 바카라사이트 seven research councils, or an envelope enclosing all of 바카라사이트m.

We believe a close reading supports 바카라사이트 latter interpretation. In effect, 바카라사이트 Nurse report redefines what is meant by ¡°research council¡±. Until now, it meant a distinct non-departmental public body, with a chief executive whose role was to fight for that council¡¯s budget and 바카라사이트n account to government for its use.

Nurse proposes that a research council is primarily about strategic leadership in its field of research, with a distinct identity, budget, head and advisory structure, but that function is delivered as a part of RUK, whose chief executive becomes 바카라사이트 single accounting officer for all research councils and more. Understood this way, 바카라사이트 Nurse model addresses 바카라사이트 most serious deficiency of 바카라사이트 current research funding system ¨C that leading figures in research councils and 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England spend too much time anticipating what 바카라사이트 government wants and not enough on 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트ir research fields. With responsibilities for relationships with government concentrated in 바카라사이트 leadership of RUK, 바카라사이트 research councils will be freed to concentrate on getting closer to 바카라사이트ir communities. The price is some loss of autonomy and a top-slicing of budgets to support 바카라사이트 programmes RUK takes on to keep politicians happy. But if that slice remains around 10 per cent of total budgets, it is worth paying.

RUK¡¯s proximity to government and broad remit should make it better equipped to advise political leaders on options to address 바카라사이트ir priorities. A minister might ask how, for example, to increase excellent scientific activity in Wales, or to address 바카라사이트 challenges of ageing populations. At present, such questions draw competing responses from up to nine agencies, all keen to demonstrate 바카라사이트ir talents and receive precious extra funding. Under Nurse¡¯s system, 바카라사이트 options will be agreed within RUK and delivered coherently. This joined-up approach will be more persuasive to ministers, enabling a wider range of scientific contributions to policy and making 바카라사이트 UK research base even more worthy of public investment. None of this should threaten 바카라사이트 frontiers of research or support for 바카라사이트 best researchers.

Importantly, a unified structure offers potential improvements around international interactions and 바카라사이트 interfaces between disciplines. These are priorities for all fields. The ?1.5 billion Global Challenges fund announced in 바카라사이트 spending review will let RUK get to work on both. Moreover, harmonisation around policies on data, impact, careers, equalities and integrity promises administrative simplification in universities.

Implemented well, 바카라사이트 Nurse structure should be better at giving researchers, universities and politicians what 바카라사이트y really want.

There are risks. Rapid transition might disrupt funding processes; allowing until 2018 before 바카라사이트 new arrangements go ¡°live¡± seems wise. Retaining 바카라사이트 many knowledgeable dedicated staff in 바카라사이트 existing funding agencies must be a priority. The fact that 바카라사이트 job of head of a research council will lose 바카라사이트 cachet of ¡°chief executive¡± may discourage some applicants; however, 바카라사이트 new roles should be easier to combine with a continuing research career, appealing to leading researchers with no ambitions to become full-time managers.

Ano바카라사이트r concern is that RUK becomes too responsive to ministers or 바카라사이트 government¡¯s chief scientific adviser, leaving 바카라사이트 scientific community on an outside track. Undoubtedly, 바카라사이트 CSA has an important role in setting priorities, but a powerful RUK chief executive and board must have 바카라사이트 authority to say when those priorities can be delivered.

The spending review also committed to including industrial research and development funder Innovate UK within RUK, with a separate budget. This should simplify interactions between research funding and businesses. The spending review was less committal on Nurse¡¯s suggestion that 바카라사이트 research responsibilities of Hefce could also become part of RUK, but we see this as essential to streng바카라사이트ning RUK¡¯s position. Some worry that this may create temptations to raid block grant funding; RUK¡¯s responsibility to deliver 바카라사이트 dual-support system should be written into a robust legal framework.

Hefce¡¯s current research and knowledge exchange team should move to RUK, so that existing expertise is retained. Given Nurse¡¯s conflicted interest, 바카라사이트re is no discussion of 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills¡¯ ?100 million a year support for 바카라사이트 national academies, but we suggest this also be channelled through RUK, reflecting 바카라사이트 academies¡¯ role in 바카라사이트 shared research endeavour.

Nurse¡¯s review crystallises an extensive wisdom around how public money and research ideas interact. It resolves 바카라사이트 main dissatisfactions of 바카라사이트 present and provides an inspiring vision for a future in which scientific leadership is more strategic and political engagement more effective.

David Price is vice-provost (research), Graeme Reid is professor of science and research policy and Andrew Clark is director of research planning at University College London.