A brief but important mention of the letter in today’s Times signed by over 100 cancer scientists and doctors. The letter cites Breast Cancer Campaign (an AMRC member) and highlights the importance of the Government-backed Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) to the funding of research in universities by medical research charities.
If you want a succinct but well-articulated case for CRSF then you need look no further than this letter. And it’s significant in my opinion that the argument is being made directly by scientists themselves rather than charities. This is not special pleading. The fact is that the Fund is an important foundation for the partnership between Government, universities and charities in the name of research, and a vital mechanism for helping to leverage research funds from our sector.
You may also wish to look at the joint statement on CRSF that AMRC produced with BHF, Breast Cancer Campaign, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust, Universities UK and the Russell Group in July this year. The statement was submitted with our spending review submission.
All our discussions with Government thus far suggest the arguments for the Fund have been accepted just as those on ‘science = economic growth’ were taken on board by HM Treasury with its spending review announcement. But how this translates into actual money won’t be known for possibly a few weeks yet. So letters like today’s can play a useful role in keeping the issues to the fore.
A change is as good as a rest they say. So I am delighted that our former Chair (as well as former Director of the Wellcome Trust), Dame Bridget Ogilvie, took up my invitation to give us her perspective on the spending review and its implications. Its closing sentiments about the development of young scientists will strike a chord with many I feel…..
Dame Bridget Ogilvie
At last we know the worst now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken. It’s great news that he thinks that investment in scientific research is necessary for the future growth of the economy. So the good news is that the science budget will remain at its current level of £4.6b per annum over the next 4 years, although the research councils and universities will be required to deliver efficiencies worth £162 million a year by 2014-15.
In addition, the Government has confirmed that they will give £220m in capital funding from the Department of Health budget to UKCMRI, the consortium which includes the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and UCL. Also, the Government will maintain its commitment to fund developments at the MRC’s LMB, Pirbright and Diamond facilities.In the nation’s present financial predicament, all this is wonderful news and far better than most of us had anticipated.
But….as the cost of scientific research always outruns the general level of inflation, over this time period the value of these funds for science will fall. We must also remember the wider context of overall funding for universities falling from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion. Although this settlement excludes research funding, its ultimate impact remains to be seen. However, I am sadly sure this will affect the research productivity of universities.
We know too that many research funding charities have already seen a reduction in their ability to fund. When money for research was reduced in the 1980’s and 90’s, the Wellcome Trust’s funds were increasing exponentially which ensured that the UK remained a real force for medical research internationally. What Wednesday’s announcement means for charities and other funders we don’t know yet, but many anticipate that it will increase the number of applications for a grant that they receive. So even with this relatively good news, the competition for funds, already severe, will get worse.
What to do?
We know that failure to support the young when times are hard has bad long term consequences. We are still feeling the effect of poor levels of research funding in the 1990’s because the age cohort beneath the present leaders is below strength which is a real worry. We also know there is an increasing tendency to give very large grants to existing leaders with consequent reduction in funds for the less established, and nowadays scientists often don’t get their independence before they are 40+. My generation became independent 10 or more years earlier.Many excellent people leave a research career when they feel they are unlikely to become independent until after the age of 40.
Funders rarely pay attention to the way scientific leaders lead and manage their group. There is evidence that once groups exceed 10-12 in number, productivity drops. Therefore, leaders and funders need to address this issue not only by making sure that developing scientists get a fair share of available resources. But also that they are properly managed and not unfairly used by their seniors to the advantage of the leaders but the disadvantage of the whole scientific community.
An extract from today’s speech by the Science Minister, David Willetts, at the HEFCE conference in London. Medical research charities will be pleased with the recognition of their role in delivering research that he mentions several times:
The other main news from the Chancellor yesterday concerned funding for science and research. It is good news for HEFCE’s QR funding and Higher Education Innovation Fund, and good news for the Research Councils and National Academies.
It is proof that this Government recognises the fundamental role of science and research in rebalancing the economy and restoring economic growth. Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the overall level of funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms. And as we implement the efficiency savings identified by Bill Wakeham, we should be able to offset the effects of inflation – thus maintaining research funding in real terms.
There has also been a great deal of pressure to maintain flexibility in government spending. A stable investment climate for science and research – as we all know – allows universities and research institutes to plan strategically, and gives businesses, public services and charities the confidence to invest in the research base. I am delighted to confirm, therefore, that the ring-fence for science and research programmes has therefore been maintained.
Across the country, we have excellent departments with the critical mass to compete globally and the expertise to work closely with business, charities and public services. This £4.6 billion settlement for science and research should mean that we can continue to support them.
RAND Europe and the Office of Health Economics (OHE) last week published this rather fascinating occasional paper from a seminar in May. It examines the spillovers (wider benefits) from biomedical and health research and seems highly salient given what is going on. I thought some of the diagrams were helpful in visualising the multilying effect of investment and collaboration across the research funding community and helping us to define what the spillovers are. As the paper concludes these must be targets for further research.
It also gives me an opportunity to flag-up that we will be publishing our ‘Ways and Means’ report looking at research charity collaborations and the wider benefits, at our AGM and Annual Conference on 24th November 2010.
If you are looking for coverage of the Browne review of university funding here’s as good a starting place as any: Daily Telegraph.
After three weeks on the road it is only to be expected that the fringe meetings take on the choreography of a well-rehearsed show. It certainly felt that way with tonight’s Royal Society fringe. The performances were faultless but there was never any real hope of artistic interpretation.
The science minister, David Willetts, sang well from his hymn sheet but did not, dare not, go beyond the notes or melody we have heard before. It must be a strange existence being a minister ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR); so much to possibly say, so much that can not be said.
At times tonight’s fringe almost felt like the summing up by respective lawyers in a legal case with the final decision now left to Judge Osborne and his cabinet. All the talk around about the conference has been how David Willetts and Vince Cable are persuaded by the arguments but that those to be persuaded are burning the midnight oil in HM Treasury. So I think he and others are probably finding it helpful that the lobby remains active against ‘cavalier’ cuts.
He said he had found the discussion illuminating and expressed the hope that, whatever the outcome in two weeks time, ‘people will feel we have reached a judgement that is fair’ and that they would work with the coalition government to ensure science in the UK remained ‘vigorous, health and strong’.
I was interested in Willetts’ recollection of his early career days at HM Treasury and the nightmare scenario that then existed of the government having to take its orders from the IMF. It perhaps explains why his peers in the coalition government seem so adamant about going so hard at cutting the budget deficit and quickly.
If I am honest, it was one of the new players tonight who interested me most. Richard Lambert from the CBI who seemed more willing to play the scenario game than anyone else. He concluded his opening remarks by saying: ‘A squeeze is absorbable but it has to go with a strong statement of clear intent.’ ‘Spending should be focused on human capital,’ he said. It was also a sobreing moment when he astutely pointed out that in terms of cutting public expenditure at BIS, the department only has three pots to play with – Higher Education, Training and Science, ‘ the rest are just crumbs.
You can always trust a journalist to cut to the chase. The last question of the evening went to a journalist from the Sunday Times who asked what a 15% cut would mean for science.
But with catering staff waiting to set up for the next show, the curtain went down on the this final performance before David Willetts was given the chance to answer. Just in the nick of time.
Two down, one to go. Here’s science related ‘matter’ at the Conservative Party Conference which starts in Birmingham tomorrow.
Birmingham University was of course the venue for the Science Minister, David Willett’s, first speech after taking office. I am looking forward to being one of the hosts when he joins us for a roundtable breakfast on Wednesday. I have been speculating whether he eats ‘clusters’ for breakfast or plain old corn flakes person.
In terms of the formal conference agenda items of interest include debates on ‘Big Society and People Power’ (cue a reminder to sign the Science is Vital peititon which has over 10,000 signatures now including support from the Wellcome Trust) on Sunday afternoon, ‘The Economy’ on Monday morning before lunch, debates on publci services and welfare onTuesday and the Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, speaks on Wednesday afternoon. You can see the agenda here.
My pick on the fringe….I shall be chairing the ‘Innovation as a cure’ meeting organised by Alzheimer’s Research Trust, Anthony Nolan and ABHI on Sunday evening at 5.45 or there is the Breakthrough Breast Cancer tea party starting at 5.30pm if you prefer, and another of our charities, Ovarian Cancer Action is looking at women’s health at 9.30. The latter features Sarah Wollaston MP who is on the Health Select Committee and a GP.
You can kick off your Monday at 8am with Birmingham Science City which has a fringe entitled ‘Innovation and the Green Revolution.’ A bit later at 12.30pm why not decompress after George Osborne MP’s speech to conference by going to the British Chambers of Commerce debate. I only mention it because the Financial Secretary, Stephen Timms MP, and Shadow Business Minister, Will-Butler-Adams MP, will be speaking. Surely after hearing from this trio we might be able piece together a narrative for economic growth?
But I am sure most of you would prefer to hear David Willetts speak at the NESTA fringe which is taking place at the same time (12.30pm) on the subject of ‘Made in Britain: Building a 21st century economy.’ Either that or hearing Earl Howe, the Department of Health Minister responsible for medical and health research, speak at the ‘Research to the rescue’ fringe at 12.45pm hosted by BHF, Diabetes UK and the Stroke Association.
The Guardian’s engaging Michael White chairs the Health Hotel debate on Monday evening (19.30) and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley MP is speaking at the Health Hotel reception afterwards (which is invitation only sadly, what happened to the days when you could walk in to these things).
The 1994 Group and others hold a lunchtime debate on the future of higher education at 12.30pm on Tuesday and so are Reform with Universities UK at 1.00pm with David Willetts MP invited. This one is called ‘Building the Future: Higher education and economic growth.’ [nb: one of the perils of conferences is the fact that many similarly-themed fringe meetings clash but I find you can run from one to the other if you are quick on your feet).
Also of interest on Tuesday lunchtime is the Asthma UK, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and Smith Institute fringe: ‘Can Health Cuts Be Good For You?’ Andrew Lansley is down to speak at this one which starts at 1.00pm.
The Royal Society takes its ‘Scientific Century’ debate to conference on Tuesday evening at 7.30pm with David Willetts MP, Paul Wellings (Chair of the 1994 Group) and Brian Cox. The Chemical Industries Association pop up this week with their own event at 7.45pm looking at ‘Science Education: The next deficit’ which looks more like a reception but I might be wrong.
And that’s it….a much busier conference than the other two as you might expect. I look forward to seeing you there.
Forgive the headline which is a version of Benjamin Franklin’s: ‘Glass, china, and reputation are easily cracked, and never mended well.’
If you haven’t seen today’s Guardian splash on science cuts then you should really take a look. There is a wealth of detail but the human stories are the most absorbing aspect of the piece as always. At least one of the scientists interviewed (David Proctor), is conducting work funded by medical research charities.
It is a tragedy to see confidence in the future of UK science slipping away among our scientists in this way. It will certainly have an impact of medical research charities and it will undoubtedly mean that it will be harder to make an impact with the donations they receive.
What did Benjamin Franklin also say: ‘It takes many good deeds to build a reputation, and only one bad to lose it.’
…Next week I’ll be blogging from the Conservative Party Conference as usual and we will be publishing our response to the NHS White Paper plus bringing together the latest reports and evidence on public and patient involvement in research.
Natureblog contains an interesting item today looking at the impact of science funding cuts on different universities assuming that funds are directed away from 2* as opposed to 3* or 4* research – the excellence rating given under the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).
But William Cullerne Brown goes into much more detail, looking at different cut scenarios and their impact. Fascinating but unpal;atable reading.
The knock-on effects will be significant for charities. 80% of all charity funding for research (£1.1 billion in 2009-2010) goes to universities. And about 80% of this goes to universities who are members of the Russell Group. But, depending on the scenario, significant amounts of charity research will be vulnerable.
The pictures drawn here are helpful at least in, as Nature says, visualising what could happen to different institutions and making global figures begin to make sense in terms of the impact on the ground. Information that should be passed on to every MP with such an institution in their constituency. And you can do that through the Science is Vital campaign site.
Rumour has it that there is an outbreak of tonsilitis in the north-west at the moment…here’s hoping Ed Milliband is being kept in isolation until his leader’s speech this afternoon.
One thing I forgot to mention from last night’s meeting was David Lammy’s comment that the coalition government has yet to put together a convincing narrative for its growth strategy. We’ll have to see if Ed Milliband is able to do that today?
Meanwhile, I’ve heard positive things so far in terms of his stance on science. He has been interviewed in a special edition of a newsletter from ‘Scientists for Labour’ which is being hawked around here.
Imran Khan who is Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) has blogged in The Guardian today about the science challenges facing Ed Milliband.
Andrew Miller MP, chair of the Science Select Committee who attended our breakfast this morning, said he was able to discuss life sciences and science strategy with Ed during the Labour leadership race.
The Manchester Town Hall bell tolled ominously as the 31 organisations around the table inside debated and discussed the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). But the meeting covered a lot of ground and I hope it was helpful for Andrew to hear how the interplay between different issues is finely poised and fiddled with at the owner (government’s) risk unless based on sound exertise and advice.
One of the industry representatives there said that their global HQ regarded the UK as a ‘problem child’ not only because of the challenges of the spending review but also because of the poor uptake of medicines here. So, in the same vein, I hope that the Science and Technology Select Committee which can roam across all departments will see cause to look at the whole innovation pipeline in due course.
The town hall bell stopped I am pleased to say which gives me some hope that as another participant said ‘there is still all to play for’ ahead of the CSR announcement on 20th October. Indeed, Andrew Miller encouraged us to bombard parliamentarians and others with views and perspectives now and after that date to ensure our concerns are heard.
First, a general observation. Less than one day here and I have met four ‘Eds’ already – more than in the previous ten years travelling the breadth of the UK. Strange that. But perhaps when you are faced by David Willetts you need as many ‘Eds’ as you can get.
I came expecting a muted, self-sorrowful Labour Party conference. But my assumptions have been confounded. This is a political party that, run out of town six months ago like the shamed sheriff who lost the biggest gunfight of them all, is now appearing on the horizon with renewed appetite for the affray.
Whether you agree with that analogy or not, the Labour Party is showing that its vital signs remain strong.
It was good to see 50+ delegates turn-up to the lunchtime fringe meeting ‘Innovation as cure’ organised by the Alzheimer’s Research Trust, Anthony Nolan and the Association of British Healthcare Industries (ABHI) and chaired by yours truly.
Robert France who was in Liverpool with me, spoke movingly again of the stem cell transplant received by his son, Jackson. Dionne Priddy described the hopelessness her family felt after her husband, Mark, was diagnosed with pre-senile dementia and entered a rapid decline. He died earlier this year and Dionne still ran the marathon just days later to raise £14,000 for dementia research.
Questions from the audience of patients, carers, scientists and politicians ranged far and wide – from informed consent to the bonfire of the quangos. The opposition health spokesperson, Baroness Thornton, said that she and the health team were committed to campaigning for, and championing, health research. She explained how there would be a review of health policies over the next 12 months in what was intended to be an inconclusive process drawing in external views, with workstreams looking into particular issues. She expressed concerns over the possible break-up of the HFEA and said that their message on the health white paper was that it is the ‘wrong white paper and the wrong bill at the wrong time.’
The Royal Society meeting this evening (co-hosted by the 1994 Group) was more sparky than that at the Lib Dems. The Shadow Higher Education Minister, David Lammy MP, spoke powerfully about his determination to fight science cuts, expressed concern over the possible disappearance of the ring-fencing of the science budget (I heard it was 50:50 whether it would stay or not, which would be a break with 30 years of history), and argued that the result of the general election was the worst possible outcome for science. With an obvious nod to Tony Benn in the audience he said that Labour’s passion for science ran deep and over many generations.
Will Hutton (of the Work Foundation), who often succeeds in turning on its head any preconceived notion you might have held on an issue, argued that he would cut all budgets before laying hands on the science budget since it was the source of growth and wealth creation from which everything else ultimately stems.
He said that those countries who invested most in science and technology would be those than benefited most from leaps in knowledge and innovation in the future. He also spoke passionately about the science ecosystem and the need to create better systems and institutions – innovation centres – to enable knowledge transfer.
In response to a question from the floor about what the science community could do in the face of the forthcoming challenges, all the panel agreed that the most important thing was to build the largest collaboration of supporters possible.
And given that, can I point you and encourage you to sign the Science is Vital petition (which I signed today). You’ll also find details of the planned rally and lobby of parliament on 9th and 12th October.
You may have heard the news headlines this morning about the House of Lords Science & Technology Committee letter to the Science Minister, David Willetts, expressing fears about a brain drain of scientists from the UK to other countries.
Reasons include people’s growing concern over possible cuts in science funding and what it could mean for their work, but also the attractive packages now being put on the table by other countries such as Australia. You can find the full text of the letter on BBC New Online here.
It makes for sobering reason not least because of the evidence put forward by the six universities contacted by the Committee. Whatever the Government might say about wanting to be an international centre for science, my fear is that a combination of the CSR and unhelpful policies such as the cap on non-EU migrants is creating a perception that reality does not match Ministerial statements.
I did warn you that things would really get going this week….and with two speeches in as many days you can be forgiven if you feel as if you have taken a left hook and then a right hook in quick succession.
Science Minister, David Willetts, was on the stump at a Universities UK conference today. He used his speech to say that universities have become too focused on research. You can find a BBC Online piece here. And I am sure many of you also heard Willetts on the today programme this morning interpreting yesterday’s speech by Vince Cable. The Independent covers it here. And just to show that I for one will not be applying a cap to my readership wherever they come from, here’s a piece from WalesOnline which is rather good in capturing views of experts there including nobel prizewinner Sir Martin Evans.
In the hurly burly yesterday it was remiss of me not to mention that the Academy of Medical Sciences had published its response to the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Mid-summer it might be, but my sense is that the prospect of a single regulator for research continues to be the leading topic of debate around and about the community (after the Comprehensive Spending Review of course).
My office brought to my attention this series of comment pieces about a single regulator and its impact on the regulation of human fertilisation and embryology research that have appeared in BioNews over the last three weeks. They include articles by Professor Alison Murdoch (Professor of Reproductive Medicine), Ruth Deitch (former Chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)), and former MP, Dr Evan Harris. I strongly recommend a read in the interests of balance and it would be excellent to see BioNews publish a similar piece from a patient perspective.
AMRC is in the process of conducting a survey of our 121 members which will form the basis of our submission to the Academy of Medical Sciences’ second call for evidence on regualtion. My instinctive feel of where our members stand, is that they lean towards the idea of a single regulator but not unquestionably. We shall see if my instincts are correct in due course and we will publish our submission as always.
But it interestsed me that all of the above commentators cite the human admixed embryos debate in their arguments. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly when you are on the winning side. But my memory of that debate is that opposition to a merger of the HFEA and Human Tissue Authority (HTA) was as much promoted by a concern around merging two bodies at a time when the latter had barely got its feet under the table. Nor do I feel that any of us covered ourselves in glory in terms of the public engagement efforts during the pre-legislation consultation phase.
In any event, this is all water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. The key from this point onwards is that we are clear about what we want to achieve by establishing a single regulator or new regulatory framework. Also , that whatever body (or bodies) ultimately emerge, all are open to public scruitny. A point that Evan Harris makes very powerfully in his piece.
How such changes will be put before parliament is a question I have yet to fathom. Could they conceivably be part of the expected Bill which will introduce Lansley’s NHS reforms and is likely to be introduced in the Commons in October? Or will it require separate legislation? The concern would be that, if the former and in a parliamentary set-up which is notoriously poor at getting through a Bill in its entirety, regulatory reform as it pertains to research will get short thrift. Or that such debate is hijacked by single issue campaigns. Given this, one would wish at the very least to see pre-legislative scrutiny of the changes by parliamentary committee.
In reading around this subject I remembered the very powerful Reith Lectures by Baroness O’Neill in 2002 entitled ‘A Question of Trust.’ I am glad that I took the time to read them again last night. They are chock full of messages of relevance to the ongoing debate about regulation. The theme that particularly resonated with me was the argument made that trust lies not in increased transparency (indeed it can be counter-productive if over done) but in good governance and people having the opportunity to track back, question, check and assess how decisions are reached.
That process needs to begin in parliament this autumn.
On a lighter note, those setting off on one of those long car journeys in search of a holiday, may wish to pass way the hours with your passengers thinking of the name for a single research regulator.
Global warming was not high on the Victorians’ agenda as anyone who attends a summer event in parliament will attest. But the heat is usually a good sign that your event is packed and the conversation flowing. So it was with yesterday’s excellent All-Party Parliamentary Group on Medical Research summer reception.
The show of strength at the event – which brought together medical research charities, funders, the university sector, other science organisations, MPs and Peers including two Ministers (David Willetts and Lord Howe) – felt well-timed given the summer recess in a few days time and the hard negotiations over the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in a time of economic drought.
I was especially delighted that the research showcased in the room and accompanying event programme had clearly struck a chord with the Science Minister, David Willetts. In his speech he highlighted that this was just the sort of evidence the Government was looking for and that he was minded to send a copy to HM Treasury. They, and you, can find it here! And shortly we will post photos from the event on AMRC’s website.
It seems as if the world is besotted right now with the gathering of evidence about research and its economic and social return; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is imploring the community for economic analyses, examples, case studies and vignettes. And it seems the same is true for other sectors in contact with other Departments. Out of such trends, industries are created.
In this hive of activity, not a few of my colleagues have wondered aloud: ‘What are all those economists in the Treasury and across Government doing if they are so dependent on us for the data?’ A good question. Answers on a postcard please, or better still there is perhaps a lightbulb joke in the making.
Although we will learn the results of this exercise on 20th October it does all feel a little Kafkaesque. Who knows, in twenty years time we may well find ourselves opening a locked door marked ‘Science Settlement 2010′ leading to an underground vault in HM Treasury. It will reveal masses of CSR submissions along one wall, copious evidence of impact (some of it undisturbed) against another, and a few untidy, intriguing but essentially meaningless civil service notes on a low-down shelf against the third. But we wouldn’t really be any the wiser for the revelations.
For the fact is, we can never be sure how it all adds up in the end.
(My next blog will be one continuous sentence lasting over a page)
I originally intended this to be a politics free blog for once. But such is life.
Today we put in our submission on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) which you can find on our website. I see there was some coverage of the Royal Society’s own submission in this morning’s papers.
Many of the messages in our submission will be familiar to those of you who have followed the debate about science funding over the last six months. But I also hope it goes some way to describing from a charity perspective, the foundations on which future Government science policy should be built.
I think our submission is also distinctive for three reasons: the way in which it conveys the overwhelming public commitment and support for medical and health research; in setting out very precisely why charities invest in research in the UK rather than elsewhere and; in highlighting the importance of specific levers such as the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) in underpinning the public’s commitment to research and making science happen. That is also amplified in the joint statement with universities that we have recently put together and which is included in the submission appendix.
One of the people who speaks very eloquently on this subject is Pamela Goldberg from Breast Cancer Campaign who has mentioned their concerns about CRSF on several occasions on her excellent blog over the past few months.
We have also included a number of vignettes about how charity research funding is making a difference to people’s lives. These perhaps take on greater poignancy given the Government’s preoccupation with evidence and impact. And we could have just as well added the following from this week’s news:
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable’s, speech on university reform can be found on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website.
It is always dangerous to take quotes out of context but I noticed this quite interesting bit.
‘Of course we must back internationally excellent research. But what we can’t afford is a system in which everybody tries to do everything – badly and at high cost. Research funding is already highly selective, and that is right. It will become more so.’