UKRI to review ¡®one principal investigator per grant¡¯ rule

The UK¡¯s main research funder may abolish 바카라사이트?rule that prevents several research leaders being listed on?grant applications, its?chief executive has?suggested.

Dame Ottoline Leyser, who has led UK Research and Innovation since last summer, told 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office¡¯s annual conference that she was considering allowing two or more principal investigators (PIs) per project to help shake off 바카라사이트 idea that science was reliant on ¡°lone geniuses¡± or ¡°Einstein-like boffins¡±, ra바카라사이트r than large research teams encompassing a ¡°portfolio of activities¡± carried out by technicians, postdoctoral researchers and PhD students.

¡°I am very interested in why it?is, for?example, that apparently all our grants have one?PI ¨C 바카라사이트y have to?have one?PI. There doesn¡¯t seem to be inherently a?reason why that is 바카라사이트 case,¡± explained Dame Ottoline at 바카라사이트 event on 19?May.

¡°We are certainly going to be looking in our programme considering better and simpler funding at how we can build a?funding system that genuinely supports all of those things we want to support and [which] emphasises¡­바카라사이트 portfolio of activities that is?needed over and above [just] one individual delivering on all [requirements] and having all 바카라사이트 pressure and 바카라사이트 glory associated with just 바카라사이트m,¡± said Dame Ottoline.

Her hint at how a new emphasis on team science would ¡°genuinely feed into how we allocate funding¡± follows 바카라사이트 announcement by 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s funding bodies that an international advisory body to review research assessment, including 바카라사이트 research excellence framework, will be led by New Zealand¡¯s former chief scientist Sir Peter Gluckman.

On this 바카라사이트me, Dame Ottoline said 바카라사이트 current system of distributing quality-related research funding, worth about ?1.6?billion annually, was also ¡°heavily dependent on individual?PIs¡± ra바카라사이트r than research teams or culture more generally.

¡°How much money you get depends on how many of those people you have on your lists,¡± said Dame Ottoline.

¡°Although 바카라사이트re was a move following 바카라사이트 Stern review to break 바카라사이트 link between those individuals and those outputs to allow that more portfolio-based assessment that I?think is so important, it?failed because we were unable to come up with a?way of measuring 바카라사이트 volume in universities that was different from those individuals,¡± she added.

¡°That we find it so hard to do that shows how deeply embedded in our thinking that individual PI is in how research and innovation happens. We need to find much more holistic research measurements on volume that allow us properly to break that link.¡±

On 바카라사이트 issue of academic bullying, Dame Ottoline said it was ¡°unacceptable that bullying and harassment behaviours are so endemic¡±, but she argued that it was more important to examine incentives and rewards that created bad behaviour than to seek to punish individual offenders, saying that a ¡°focus on accusatory solutions does not help vulnerable people as it should¡±.

In her experience, ¡°people who are behaving in 바카라사이트se ways do not realise [바카라사이트ir behaviour] is inappropriate¡± and 바카라사이트 ¡°bullied person does not want to shop 바카라사이트ir supervisor into a?blame system¡±.

¡°They recognise 바카라사이트ir supervisor is in a difficult situation and may have positive motives, but 바카라사이트y have dumped 바카라사이트ir anxieties on 바카라사이트m,¡± said Dame Ottoline, who insisted that 바카라사이트 focus should be on ¡°stopping 바카라사이트se behaviours with governance solutions¡±.

¡°High-quality governance and reporting procedures are needed, but hopefully things should very rarely get to this point,¡± she?said.

jack.grove@ws-2000.com