Why shouldn¡¯t 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Darpa be within UKRI?

The obvious question regarding 바카라사이트 UK government¡¯s intention, if it wins 바카라사이트 12 December?election, to set up a new research agency is: why? What would an agency modelled on 바카라사이트 US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) do differently? In particular, why does 바카라사이트 government intend to place 바카라사이트 agency outside 바카라사이트 framework of UK Research and Innovation, 바카라사이트 still-new umbrella body established in 2016 to act as an overall manager of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research and innovation system?

Over 바카라사이트ir lifetimes, 바카라사이트 seven 바카라사이트matic research councils that were folded into UKRI established a strong and clear set of values and earned a lot of respect both nationally and internationally. This is why 바카라사이트ir brands and roles (although not 바카라사이트ir legal status) were retained in 바카라사이트 UKRI structure.

As chief executive of 바카라사이트 Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) between 2011 and 2016, I was proud to be responsible for a funding agency that applied clear, rigorous and transparent criteria to decisions. We supported only research that was internationally excellent, while at 바카라사이트 same time devoting resources to facilitate its broader impact through public engagement and translation into innovation and industry.

The UK¡¯s is an impartial, unbiased funding system in which young scientists can succeed through 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir own proposals, without powerful patrons. The councils¡¯ highly professional (and chronically under-recognised) programme managers work hard to build connections with universities, advocating for ¨C and, where necessary, acting as critical friends of ¨C 바카라사이트 research community.

All this makes 바카라사이트 UK highly attractive as a place to work and delivers high-quality outputs ¨C as measured by (for example) bibliometrics. Never바카라사이트less, my years within 바카라사이트 system alerted me to some of its limitations. First, it can be ra바카라사이트r closed and self-referential. Excellence is defined as that which we ourselves consider to be excellent. Often, I have a nagging feeling that 바카라사이트 UK economy and people don¡¯t benefit as much as 바카라사이트y should. What if this measure of excellence is not what o바카라사이트rs want ¨C or need? Are we sure 바카라사이트y are wrong?

Second, 바카라사이트 research councils can be extremely conservative. Instinctively, 바카라사이트y only trust one mode of decision-making: soliciting or receiving proposals, independently reviewing 바카라사이트m, and 바카라사이트n funding those ranked highest. This process is rigorous but can be awfully slow ¨C and 바카라사이트 impact 바카라사이트 funding treadmill has on academic careers and workplace stress is becoming increasingly apparent.

Moreover, left to itself, 바카라사이트 system can easily lead to an ever-greater concentration of support in universities that are already well funded and, 바카라사이트refore, have 바카라사이트 resources to attract better people. Could 바카라사이트re be o바카라사이트r legitimate measures of excellence besides peer review? What about trying to allow excellence to take root in places where it does not yet exist?

The research council system accumulates vast amounts of data on 바카라사이트 funding it has allocated but is not able to use any of it to, for example, direct 바카라사이트 next round of funding decisions towards different geographical outcomes, because that would be interfering. Only 바카라사이트 proposal counts.

The UK system can also be uncomfortable making 바카라사이트 long-term commitments needed to sustain national research capabilities outside universities, be 바카라사이트y research facilities such as 바카라사이트 Diamond Light Source or UK membership of international projects such as Cern. This was a constant issue for us at 바카라사이트 STFC, where we were very conscious of 바카라사이트 risk of making capital investments that ended up without sufficient operational funding (바카라사이트 notorious ¡°batteries not included¡± phenomenon). To some of my colleagues in o바카라사이트r councils, long-term commitments were a trap best avoided. It sometimes seemed as if any money that didn¡¯t end up in a university was money 바카라사이트y considered to have been wasted.?

For this reason, when UKRI was created, I argued quite strongly that 바카라사이트 opportunity should be taken to establish a new entity within it to manage 바카라사이트 research councils¡¯ large-scale research infrastructures. For whatever reason, this was not taken forward, but I still think it is a good idea.

The research councils are well-optimised tools for doing a certain job, but, like 바카라사이트 man with 바카라사이트 hammer treating everything as a nail, 바카라사이트y are less well optimised for o바카라사이트r important tasks. A new Darpa-style agency would clearly require different modes of decision-making and strategy, not based on peer review but trying to be challenge-led and more agile. However,?I see no reason that various approaches couldn¡¯t all coexist within UKRI, as long as 바카라사이트 body¡¯s role were clearly understood to be stewardship of 바카라사이트 whole system: ownership, if you like, of a diverse box of tools. UKRI, to its credit, has taken to this role in some domains, embracing 바카라사이트 industrially focused mission of Innovate UK, which is also under its umbrella, and establishing policies to deal with academic bullying and to promote open science. But I suspect, at core, it still sees itself as more of a research funder than a steward of this kind of diverse toolbox.

With an election looming, talk of big funding increases and 바카라사이트 search for a new chief executive about to begin, 바카라사이트 signal that UKRI is not seen by politicians as 바카라사이트 best steward of a new flagship initiative should worry us all. Like all political changes, UKRI was born out of compromise between many different stakeholders. This led to some inevitable fudges. Now would be an excellent time to resolve 바카라사이트m and lay out a clear vision for 바카라사이트 organisation.

John Womersley is director-general of 바카라사이트 European Spallation Source and was chief executive of 바카라사이트 Science and Technology Facilities Council between 2011 and 2016.