Is it time to start preparing for association to the EU’s flagship R&D programme?

Following the announcement of a new deal between the EU and the UK over the trade of goods in Northern Ireland, Ursula von der Leyen has said that work can start “immediately” on securing UK association to EU R&D programmes once the deal is implemented. Sophie Inge brings us the news.

The European Commission president was speaking at a joint press conference with UK prime minister Rishi Sunak yesterday to unveil “the Windsor Framework”, which sounds a bit like a new audit system for higher education. Rather, it is an agreement that has been heralded as “a decisive breakthrough” and “a new chapter” in EU-UK relations.

Speaking in the House of Commons last night, the prime minister said that the government would now not proceed with the Northern Ireland protocol bill, which would have enabled Westminster to unilaterally renege on its treaty obligations with the EU. The EU is also set to drop the legal action it had initiated against the UK.

“The moment we have finished this agreement—so it’s an agreement in principle—the moment it is implemented, I’m happy to start immediately right now the work on an association agreement, which is the precondition to join Horizon Europe. So [it’s] good news for all those working in research and science,” von der Leyen told the press conference.

The deal opens the door for UK participation in the €95.5 billion (£84bn) Horizon Europe programme as well as the EU’s nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth observation programme Copernicus. Rachel Magee has been listening to sector reactions to the announcement.

So, can we start breaking out the sangria, dust off the lederhosen and prepare for association? Not quite, or at least not yet.

As von der Leyen was careful to say yesterday, association to Horizon Europe can begin once the agreement has been implemented—even if all goes well, we are still probably six to nine months away from association. But all eyes are now on the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sunak’s backbench Brexit ultras, who could yet wreck the deal.

The prime minister has calculated that he has the numbers to get the agreement through Westminster. Given the concessions made by the European Commission, Conservative MP holdouts against the deal are likely to be limited to only the most theologically inclined.

Speaking in the Commons last night, DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said his party would “take time” to read the legal text of the agreement. He did not put a date on that scrutiny process.

It is now all about giving the DUP time and space to work out a way to climb down from the high horse it has been on since the 2022 elections to the Northern Ireland assembly, where the party became the junior partner in power-sharing arrangements with Sinn Féin. It is not yet clear whether the DUP really wants to do that, and the loyalist party now holds the future of Horizon association, and likely Sunak’s premiership, in its hands.

Windsor knot

Following the establishment of the Whitehall Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, does the time and political capital invested by Sunak in addressing the Northern Ireland protocol further underline his commitment to prioritising R&D? Not really.

The reason Sunak has taken the risk of facing down his backbenchers and the DUP over this agreement is that should the deal get through, it will give the prime minister options in the months of his premiership before the next general election.

A continued impasse over Northern Ireland would mean sour relations with the EU, no prospect of a presidential visit from Joe Biden to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, and even less chance of a much-vaunted trade deal with the US. And without being seen to be able to stick to international accords, there would be little possibility of a successful UK application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A deal over Northern Ireland, then, is for Sunak about much more than unlocking access to Horizon Europe, welcome though that is. Rather, Sunak’s deal allows him to take his distance from the inheritance of Boris Johnson’s “oven-ready” Brexit, which is acting as a drag anchor on the UK economy, while hoping for French cooperation on small boats in the English Channel.

Sunak now has an alternative narrative for growth and economic life after Brexit. That includes once again making the UK a stable and attractive place for inward investment—an essential condition for the government’s ‘science superpower’ ambitions.

As things stand, and with local elections only a few months away, voters on the mainland are more concerned about the lack of tomatoes in Lidl and the price of switching on the central heating than either the Northern Ireland protocol or cross-border R&D programmes. But in the coming months, the deal will allow Sunak to outflank the European Research Group of Eurosceptic MPs and marginalise the influence of Johnson in the parliamentary party.

If he can pass his deal, Sunak will emerge with greater authority as prime minister and leader of his party, even if the agreement amounts to little more than the UK achieving a new trade deal with itself (and even then, we needed the help of the EU to do it).

Improved relations with the EU can only be good news for higher education and research in the UK. Is it too much to hope that Sunak might also now find a route back into Erasmus+ and ditch the little-loved Turing Scheme?

Yesterday, Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern said: “We are relieved to hear that the Windsor Framework has been agreed. The removal of this political roadblock must now lead to the rapid confirmation of UK association to Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom, as set out in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

“Full association with Horizon continues to be the best outcome for both the UK and for our research partners across Europe and beyond. We urge all sides to start the necessary talks now so that association can take effect as soon as the framework is implemented.”

But, but, but…last night, loud voices in the DUP were letting it be known that the party could well reject the deal. Ian Paisley Jr told the BBC that the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard” and provides “no basis for the DUP to go back into government”, adding that Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU.

The DUP here does not necessarily speak with one voice. Leader Donaldson is likely to be more pragmatic than colleagues like Paisley or Sammy Wilson—the Conservatives are not the only party to be split by the deal.

Paisley was critical of what is being called the “Stormont brake”, designed to give the Northern Ireland assembly a say in the application of EU law in the province if 30 MLAs sign a “petition of concern” to trigger a cross-community vote. The DUP currently has only 25 MLAs at Stormont and would need the support of others to ensure a vote, meaning the brake would effectively remove the DUP’s veto on the process.

Paisley said that “the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”.

So, once again the future of science in the UK is in the hands of a party that questions the existence of dinosaurs. The sad fact is that the DUP’s existential concern is not the passage of sausages through green or red trade lanes but Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill becoming first minister.

The Windsor Framework does not magically change the result of the 2022 Stormont election. To this end, Sunak may yet find that he will have to tackle the DUP problem in a more robust way, with a change to the Good Friday Agreement to remove the right to collapse power-sharing institutions by any one side.

That really would be a risky step to take. Sunak has no more got Brexit done than Johnson did—he has merely taken a more attractive turn on the long, winding road of UK-EU relations. He may yet encounter potholes and sinkholes along the way—don’t shelve plan B just yet.

And finally…

Speaking of how the electorate views science, the Campaign for Science and Engineering releases data this morning on public attitudes to investment in R&D during the cost of living crisis. A third of those polled can think of very few or no ways in which investment in science and innovation improves their lives.

Almost half (46 per cent) of people surveyed by Case in 2022 would only choose to invest more in R&D when the economy is in better shape. The polling suggested that only 21 per cent of people felt that R&D could reduce the cost of the products they need and that 55 per cent felt that “other issues are more pressing at the moment, with people struggling to pay their bills and the economy in a bad way. Funding for luxuries like R&D can wait for another day, when money is less tight,” was a common argument.

The findings come as part of the campaign group’s Discovery Decade report. The data show a mixed picture of support for R&D investment across demographics and regions, via polling and focus groups.

Case says: “R&D is at risk of being labelled a ‘luxury’ in the current economic climate; more than half of people think this is a strong argument for delaying investing.” The group calls on science advocates to redouble their efforts to continue making the argument for investment.

Commenting on the data, Rachel Wolf of Public First said: “The R&D sector starts from an enviable position—the public support funding it. But without tangible detail, that support won’t survive tough times and other priorities. There will need to be a lot of targeted work to maintain and increase public interest through the next decade.”

On Research Professional News today

Fiona McIntyre reports that University of East Anglia vice-chancellor David Richardson has resigned amid growing concern over the university’s finances, and the University of Brighton has said that an employee who was convicted of embezzling more than £2 million “abused his position” at the institution.

Sophie Inge writes that according to the president of the European Commission, work can start immediately on securing UK association to EU R&D programmes once the agreed Northern Ireland deal is implemented, and the Welsh government has unveiled a mission-based innovation strategy that seeks to drive up investment in the nation’s R&D sector amid Brexit-related uncertainty.

Rachel Magee covers comments from a research policy expert who says that a UK-EU deal on the Northern Ireland protocol reportedly reached yesterday will elicit a “sigh of relief” from researchers, as it paves the way for the UK to associate to the bloc’s R&D schemes.

Rachel also reports that the academic publishing company Springer Nature has announced a spate of deals it said will expand the global reach and international momentum of open access to research papers, and polling has revealed that UK public support for R&D is fragile.

Mico Tatalovic tells us that the UK Health Security Agency has said it is working to identify bird flu ‘knowledge gaps’, amid fears that the virus might jump more frequently from birds to humans.

According to Andrew Silver, representatives of European drug companies have called on the EU to streamline its regulation of the sector, and the Council of the EU member state governments is set to call for better synchronisation of research and innovation funding across the bloc, in a move designed to address concerns raised by auditors in a report last year.

In the news

The BBC reports that a vice-chancellor has resigned from a university facing a £30m deficit, a university lecturer with a learning disability offers new insight, A-level pupils in Northern Ireland are to be told exam topics in advance, a £3m nursing department is to open at Newman University, the US president’s student loan forgiveness plan has reached the Supreme Court, and there’s a look at whether the debt forgiveness plan is fair.

In The Guardian, universities have been rebuked over academic misconduct cases in England and Wales, and ChatGPT is allowed in international baccalaureate essays.

The Financial Times says that scientists have hailed the prospect of Horizon re-entry after a Brexit deal, and UK cities are set to host fintech hubs to help drive innovation.

The Independent reports on the Brexit deal and the UK’s Horizon prospects.

i News says the Windsor Framework paves the way for the UK to join Horizon Europe.

In The Times, an investment fund is striving to build a regional powerhouse in science and technology.

The Evening Standard reports that a London university has been hit with resignations over its approach to strikes and working conditions.

Mail Online says that white working-class students were banned from a Cambridge postgraduate course, and Britain will be able to rejoin the EU Horizon scheme as part of a new Brexit deal.

The day ahead

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator publishes a casework note on complaints relating to academic misconduct.

A parliamentary debate on the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill is on Hansard.

The education charity Ygam publishes research on student gambling.

The Prospect union says that its members in the civil service have voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action.

The Welsh government publishes a written statement on the launch of an Innovation Strategy for Wales.

A blogpost on Conservative Home says that too much focus on levelling up will hinder progress on science and technology.

The Quality Assurance Agency is holding a webinar from 9.30am on developing and maintaining a quality culture.

At 2.30pm, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee is taking evidence on UK universities’ engagement with autocracies.

Today and tomorrow, Universities UK is hosting its International Higher Education Forum.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering publishes a survey on public support for R&D.

The Higher Education Statistics Agency will publish an update to its higher education student data.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Harriet Swain, Chris Parr and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Horizon unlocked? appeared first on Research Professional News.

R&D risks being seen as luxury rather than necessity amid cost of living crisis

Public support for R&D is “fragile”, given the current pressures on public finances, new polling has revealed.

Science advocacy group the Campaign for Science and Engineering warned that R&D is at risk of being seen as a luxury rather than a necessity after its new polling showed that over 60 per cent of people either agreed that “R&D doesn’t benefit people like them”, or felt neutral or unsure about R&D’s impact.

In a report released on 28 February, Case said that this was a “precarious” position to be in for a sector that receives “substantial public investment”. It urged science advocates to make the benefits of R&D more visible, as the polling data suggests that tangible messages about R&D could change people’s minds.

“Although the public are broadly supportive of R&D, that support is fragile,” Case said.

“Unsurprisingly, given its intangibility to many people, R&D risks being labelled a ‘luxury’ rather than a necessity, especially amid a cost of living crisis.”

Given the choice, 46 per cent of the 18,000 people surveyed said they would only choose to invest more in R&D when the economy was in better shape. Over a third said they could think of very few or no ways that R&D improved their lives.

“We are very fortunate that there is currently significant political consensus on the need to invest in and support R&D. But this consensus relies on a strong case being made to the public on how R&D can improve their lives,” said Stian Westlake, chief executive of the Royal Statistical Society.

“Case’s research will be invaluable in helping policymakers understand what the public values when it comes to R&D, and shaping policy and communications to be more resonant and effective.”

Nurses over research

When presented with a hypothetical government proposal to immediately halve the R&D budget, a third of people were supportive.

When this cut was framed as freeing up money for hiring nurses or lowering energy bills, a majority (52 per cent) supported halving the R&D budget.

Case said this sentiment was echoed in the focus groups that were carried out, with one woman saying other areas that the government oversaw needed to be sorted out “before we start spending money on possible, probable, maybes and maybe nots” in the form of R&D.

“Wealthy people” and “big businesses” were cited as the major beneficiaries of R&D and people viewed R&D activity as being clustered in London and South East England, according to the report. Case said there needed to be clearer messaging about R&D’s benefits and its UK-wide footprint to remedy this viewpoint.

The polling found that linking R&D to problems such as the cost of living crisis, the sustainability of the NHS and the impact of climate change would help to make it feel more relevant to people.

The chief executive of national funder UK Research and Innovation, Ottoline Leyser, said research and innovation must be a “shared endeavour” that brings people together, and that the survey results “provide an important insight into how this can be best achieved”.

The polling was commissioned by Case as part of its wider Discovery Decade project, which aims to help R&D organisations and advocates to connect with a broader base of public supporters.

“The UK can never hope to become an R&D-intensive nation if the public aren’t part of that journey,” said Kim Shillinglaw, chair of the Discovery Decade project.

“This new data is the start of encouraging the sector to work together on building a science-positive, innovation-positive society, and [to] grow the public identity of R&D to a place where it feels non-negotiable as a priority.”

The post UK public support for R&D is ‘fragile’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

“Historic” agreement clears the path for association to EU science programmes, says European Commission president

The European Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen has said that work can start “immediately” on securing UK association to EU R&D programmes once the agreed Northern Ireland deal is implemented.

Her comments came at a joint press conference with UK prime minister Rishi Sunak, where the leaders hailed a “decisive breakthrough” in talks over trade in Northern Ireland.

UK participation in the R&D programme has been held up owing to a dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol, leaving UK grant winners from the EU’s Horizon Europe programme unable to directly access any funding they win.

Participation in the EU’s nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth-observation programme Copernicus has also been put on hold as a result.

But speaking at the press conference on 27 February, the two leaders confirmed an agreement on the protocol had been reached.

‘Free-flowing trade in the UK’

The deal has been described as “a breakthrough” by Sunak and as “historic” by von der Leyen. Agreed in principle by the two leaders, it includes issues such as medicines approval, taxes on goods, and a Stormont “brake” for changes to EU goods rules.

“Together we have changed the original protocol and today are announcing the new Windsor Framework,” Sunak said.

“Today’s agreement delivers free-flowing trade within the whole of the United Kingdom, protects Northern Ireland’s place in our union and safeguard’s sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland.”

Sunak said on Twitter: “We’re also delivering a landmark settlement on medicines. From now on, drugs approved for use by the UK’s medicines regulator will be automatically available in every pharmacy and hospital in Northern Ireland.”

‘Good news for scientists’

Von der Leyen said: “We knew we had to work hard with clear minds and determination but we also both knew that we could do it because we were both generally committed to find a practical solution for people and for all communities in Northern Ireland.”

Asked what the deal would mean for UK participation in Horizon Europe, she said it was “good news for scientists and researchers in the EU and in the UK”.

“The moment we have finished this agreement—so it’s an agreement in principle—the moment it is implemented I’m happy to start immediately right now the work on an association agreement which is the pre-condition to join Horizon Europe. So [it’s] good news for all those working in research and science.”

Her comments will likely be widely welcomed by the sector, but also mean the sector will have to wait for the deal to be approved by both sides and implemented before there is EU approval of the UK’s association to EU R&D programmes.

Details of the deal are yet to be published and Sunak has promised to give the House of Commons a vote on it.

Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society,  welcomed von der Leyen’s “commitment to progressing association as soon as the Windsor Framework is implemented”.

“With the Northern Ireland protocol impasse resolved, we need to swiftly secure access to the EU’s international research programmes,” Smith said.

He added: “It is more than two years since the government agreed association to Horizon Europe, Euratom and Copernicus—two years of delays that have damaged science across Europe. These schemes support outstanding international collaboration, and the sooner we join them, the better for everyone.”

The post New UK-EU deal ‘good news’ for Horizon, says von der Leyen appeared first on Research Professional News.

Rate of virus in birds raises fears of increased transmission to humans

The UK Health Security Agency has said it is working to identify bird flu ‘knowledge gaps’, amid fears that the virus might jump more frequently from birds to humans.

In a 23 February update, the agency said there is an increased chance of people encountering the virus due to the high levels in birds and that it is working with partners—including the Animal and Plant Health Agency—to identify ‘knowledge gaps’ around avian influenza, such as whether lateral flow devices could be deployed to test for the bird flu in humans.

Other knowledge gaps include the development of a blood test that detects antibodies against the virus and analysis of the genetic mutations that would signal an increased risk to human health.

‘Vigilant of changing risk’

“The latest evidence suggests that the avian influenza viruses we’re seeing circulating in birds do not currently spread easily to people,” said Meera Chand, incident director for avian influenza at UKHSA. 

“However, viruses constantly evolve, and we remain vigilant for any evidence of changing risk to the population, as well as working with partners to address gaps in the scientific evidence.”

‘Tragic’ bird flu death

The briefing came ahead of reports on 24 February that a girl in Cambodia had died from bird flu.

James Wood, head of the department of veterinary medicine at the University of Cambridge, described the death as “tragic”.

“Clearly the virus needs careful monitoring and surveillance to check that it has not mutated or recombined,” he said.

“But the limited numbers of cases of human disease have not increased markedly and this one case in itself does not signal the global situation has suddenly changed.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, said: “This is a very sad outcome for the young girl infected with a particularly aggressive form of avian influenza or ‘bird flu’…Thankfully, human infections are still rare, and the likelihood of onward human to human transmission very low.”

‘Low risk to humans’

But he added: “This virus keeps cropping up in various mammals and this could potentially increase the possibility of further human infections. 

“The risk to humans is still very low, but it’s important that we continue to monitor circulation of flu in both bird and mammal populations and do everything we can to reduce the number of infections seen.”

Ball underscored the importance of efforts to develop the next generation of vaccines.

The post UK health agency examining bird flu ‘knowledge gaps’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Devolved government announces mission-based approach and says bemoaning lost funding is “not productive”

The Welsh Government has unveiled a new mission-based innovation strategy that seeks to drive up investment in the nation’s R&D sector amid Brexit-related uncertainty.

The Welsh R&D sector has been hit particularly hard by the loss of EU Structural Funds, which were used to fund numerous university-related projects. There is also ongoing uncertainty over UK association to the EU’s R&D programme, Horizon Europe, leaving researchers unable to directly win funding.

But, writing in the strategy, which was published on 27 February, Welsh economy minister Vaughan Gething said bemoaning the loss of funding “is not productive”.

“It’s a reality check, for sure. There will be less money…and Wales will have less control over it,” he said.

The goal of the strategy, Gething explained, was to “point the way to a different approach to innovation in the future”, adding: “We can’t compete in everything; we can adopt a mission-based attitude.”

The strategy, titled Wales Innovates: Creating a stronger, fairer, greener Wales, sets out four specific “missions” that will shape its new future outside of the EU.

These include a mission to create an education system that “supports the development of innovation skills and knowledge throughout people’s lives in Wales”.

With the ending of structural funding, the strategy says researchers will need to transition to alternative funding sources, including the UK government, national funder UK Research and Innovation, charities and businesses.

Business R&D funding

The second mission sets out the devolved government’s plan to build an economy that “innovates for growth, collaborates across sectors for solutions to society’s challenges, adopts new technologies for efficiency and productivity, uses resources proportionately and allows citizens to share wealth through fair work”.

Currently, the strategy says, the small proportion of large R&D businesses mean “Wales has not achieved its potential in traditional UK competitive bid funding rounds”, with just 3 per cent of Innovate UK’s budget invested in the country and activity concentrated in South Wales.

It sets out the aim to “consistently achieve 3 per cent in three years’ time, with a more even geographical spread”, with a view to increasing this share to 5 per cent of Innovate UK’s budget by 2030.

“We will apply similar targets to other sources of innovation funding in due course, including other research councils within the UKRI structure,” it says.

The third mission, which centres on health and wellbeing, aims to build a “coherent innovation ecosystem where the health and social care sector collaborates with industry, academia and the third sector to deliver greater value and impact for citizens, the economy and the environment”.

To achieve this, the Welsh Government says it will target “new and different ways of working, identify opportunities to bring additional value to patients, lever additional funding and better support the adoption of innovation at scale”.

The final mission is to “optimise our natural resources for the protection and strengthening of climate and nature resilience”.

“We will focus innovation efforts of the ecosystem towards tackling the climate and nature crises simultaneously, ensuring a just transition to a wellbeing economy,” the strategy says.

The post Welsh innovation strategy sets out post-Brexit future appeared first on Research Professional News.

Sector awaiting next steps after von der Leyen and Sunak agree on Northern Ireland protocol

A UK-EU deal on the Northern Ireland protocol reportedly reached today will elicit a “sigh of relief” from researchers, as it paves the way for the UK to associate to the bloc’s R&D schemes, a research policy expert has said.

Prime minister Rishi Sunak held a summit on 27 February with the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at which they reached an agreement on the protocol.

The long-running spat over post-Brexit trade in Northern Ireland has been a major barrier to the UK joining the EU’s €95.5bn (£84.2bn) R&D programme, Horizon Europe, as well as the nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth-observation programme Copernicus.

With a deal to resolve the dispute, hopes have been raised across the R&D sector that the EU will now allow the UK to take part in the schemes.

“We welcome the meeting between Ursula von der Leyen and Prime Minister Sunak this afternoon,” said Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former adviser to three universities ministers. “We hope that this will finally unlock access for the UK to participate in Horizon Europe, giving our world-class universities and researchers the funding that they need to ensure that the UK remains a science superpower.”

She added that it is hoped this new Brexit deal will give research-performing organisations the “certainty and stability needed to continue powering the engine of UK innovation” and that the newly formed Department of Science, Innovation and Technology should now commit to “funding association to Horizon”.

But, speaking ahead of the official announcement today, some experts have also warned that hurdles remain.

“The long-awaited deal on the Northern Ireland protocol will be greeted with a sigh of relief by the research community, who remain strongly supportive of continued association to Horizon Europe,” said James Wilsdon, a professor of research policy at UCL.

“But we aren’t out of the woods yet. Three further hurdles will now need to be jumped.”

Sunak will firstly need to get the deal over the line without hardline Conservative Brexiters and Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party “sabotaging it”, Wilsdon said.

Secondly, there will need to be “fresh haggling” between London and Brussels on the costs of the UK’s association to EU programmes. “I’m sure [this] will be resolved but [it] could slow things down,” Wilsdon explained.

The final hurdle will be the time it will take to “undo all the damage of the past few years, as collaborative networks need to be rebuilt and repaired”, Wilsdon said.

“I would expect it to take two to three years for levels of UK participation to return to where we would want and expect them to be.”

Flexibility urged

Kurt Deketelaere, secretary-general of the League of European Research Universities, also said news of a deal raised hope for UK association to EU programmes, but warned that revisions to the earlier association deal might take some time.

The terms of the UK’s Horizon association were set out in a trade and cooperation agreement between the UK and EU signed in 2020, and would have to be updated.

“Let’s hope that revisions and updates of the earlier association deal can be kept to a minimum, and both sides act with flexibility and goodwill so that we can welcome all UK-based researchers as soon as possible back at full strength in EU-funded research proposals and projects,” Deketelaere said.

Martin Smith, head of policy at health research funder Wellcome, echoed this sentiment, saying he hoped for “swift progress” to finalise a Horizon agreement given the groundwork for UK association was laid in 2020.

“If a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol can be made to stick, it would remove the biggest political barrier to the UK joining Horizon Europe,” he said. “Unlocking easy research collaboration would be a great result for researchers and businesses across the UK and EU.”

Jan Palmowski, secretary-general of the Guild of European Research Intensive Universities, described the dispute around Northern Ireland as “the big stumbling block for the EU’s finalising the accession of the UK” and said that with this resolved “association must happen without delay.”

But he warned that further talks on the revised costs of the UK’s delayed association should be done swiftly to avoid further harm to the sector.

He said: “The UK has now asked to reconsider the agreement around the cost of participation as an associated country, but all sides must understand that too much time has been lost; if new technical issues are raised, these must be resolved urgently.”

UPDATED AFTER PUBLICATION—This story was updated after publication to reflect that a deal has now been announced.

The post EU-UK deal prompts ‘sigh of relief’ from researchers appeared first on Research Professional News.

With university pay negotiations continuing, Playbook takes a look at the state of nursing education

On Friday afternoon, the five higher education unions negotiating over pay and conditions with the Universities and Colleges Employers Association confirmed that ongoing talks, mediated by the conciliatory service Acas, will continue this week.

As we reported on our site when the news broke, negotiators on both sides of the discussions feel that progress is being made. However, the unions also expressed disappointment that Ucea has instructed institutions to crack on and impose the first element of the current 2023-24 pay proposal.

“This is despite nothing yet having been agreed on pay,” the unions—including the University and College Union—said. “The unions will continue to make that clear in negotiations.” Ucea has always maintained that the offer on the table is its final position.

The Acas talks are set to resume tomorrow, and strike action by the UCU has been paused while they continue. We will be keeping a close eye on the outcomes of those discussions as the week progresses.

Nursing wounds

Whether the UCU likes it or not, public support for the strikes is fairly low. A poll published by the survey firm YouGov in January showed that out of 14 professions taking strike action, only driving examiners, baggage handlers and Transport for London workers have less public support than university staff, who had 36 per cent of the public behind them.

At the other end of the scale, nurses have the most public support, at 65 per cent. That support holds despite the huge disruption caused by the walkouts, with the NHS Providers organisation estimating this month that 137,000 appointments had already been postponed.

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the vital role that nurses play in our society, and the public knows that clapping on the doorstep isn’t a substitute for humane working conditions and a pay packet that covers the bills.

They also know that the situation is pretty dire and improvements for nurses are urgently needed to stem a mass exodus of staff that is leaving the NHS under even more pressure. A report on nursing retention published by the Royal College of Nursing this month painted a bleak picture of the profession.

It found that “the nursing workforce is in crisis, with high and rising numbers of vacant posts, not enough new staff entering the profession and a long lead-in time for domestic recruitment, and too many nursing staff leaving the profession”.

Between 2018 and 2022, 32 per cent of those leaving nursing (42,756) were aged between 21 and 50, well below retirement age. For nurses working at the top of bands five and six, who can earn roughly £33,000 to £41,000, the Royal College of Nursing said that salaries have fallen by 20 per cent in real terms since 2010.

The college also found that more than half of nurses who were thinking of leaving the profession said they were feeling undervalued, as well as suffering from the pressures caused by low staffing levels and feeling exhausted as a result.

With this in mind, it is little wonder that the most recent application data from Ucas show a significant 19 per cent fall in the number of students applying to nursing degrees for the 2023-24 academic year.

Although that fall brings applications only slightly below the usual average following a spike during the Covid-19 pandemic, it comes as the NHS faces a nursing vacancy rate in England of around 47,000.

Acceptance dip

Vanessa Wilson, chief executive of University Alliance—many of whose members offer nursing degrees—says that while there isn’t an established cause for the drop in applications to nursing courses, the negativity surrounding the profession at the moment is likely to be a factor.

“It’s not too much of a stretch of the imagination to understand why we might have seen numbers reduce, given there’s so much in the news about the nursing profession and it’s obviously not all good,” she says. “Hopefully this isn’t a thin end of the wedge and we’re not going to see this sustained, but I don’t think it helps with the wider contextual picture around the profession and the issues.”

Having said that, Wilson points out that even with the fall in applications, universities are still turning away large numbers of potential students. In 2022, there were 56,155 applicants, a fall of more than 6 per cent compared with the previous year, although it was still higher than in 2020 and 2019.

But universities accepted 29,440 applicants in 2022, the lowest since 2019, when 44,335 applied and 25,890 were accepted.

Wilson says that if they could, universities would gladly accept more nursing students. Capacity within the NHS is a constraint, however, as students must complete at least 2,300 practice hours as part of their degree before they can work as a fully qualified nurse. That requirement is set as part of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s regulatory framework for nursing education, which follows EU guidelines.

Last week, the MillionPlus group of modern universities called for a reduction in the number of hours student nurses spend on placements in a bid to help tackle recruitment issues, arguing that poor-quality placements are often cited as a reason why students don’t complete their studies.

Graham Baldwin, chair of MillionPlus and vice-chancellor of the University of Central Lancashire, said that clinical placement requirements were “a clear barrier for growth in a system already creaking at the seams”.

Wilson believes that switching to a competency-based approach, as is used in other countries like Canada and much of the US, would let universities use other ways to train students instead—such as simulation for different scenarios nurses might encounter.

This would free up time within the NHS and allow universities to recruit more students, ultimately helping to ease staffing pressures on wards in the long run, she says.

She adds that University Alliance has “had some success already”, as measures introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic to allow 600 hours of training to be carried out by simulation have been adopted permanently.

But she stresses that if changes to the framework allow simulation to be used more widely, universities will need an injection of capital funding as the need for cutting-edge teaching technologies “could create a slight inequality in the system”.

In its report, the Royal College of Nursing called on the UK government to improve its workforce planning and recruitment strategy, and it urged the leaders of all four nations to “take actions to grow the domestic supply of nurses and retain UK and internationally trained staff”.

Time for compromise

Wilson says that closer working between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care would help. During the Covid-19 pandemic and the chaotic A-level results, a ministerial taskforce was set up that brought together university representatives, membership bodies, health leaders and government ministers. As a result, extra money was sourced and universities were supported in taking on more students who had met their grades.

Having that taskforce was “fantastic” as it helped to get things moving quickly, and Wilson wants to see a similar group set up again.

“I don’t realise why that can’t happen,” she says, stressing that it’s a “really efficient” way to tackle recruitment barriers.

For Wilson, “clearly the biggest problem is that we’re just not recruiting enough nurses into the system, which is putting huge pressure on those in the system because they’ve got so much work and they need more resource”.

“In reality, where are you going to get that resource from?” she asks. “The big solution is through your higher education and also your further education system,” where those nurses are trained.

If more nursing students are to be recruited, more nursing academics will be needed to teach them. Here again, Wilson says universities can help find the answer.

Professional doctorates, where candidates can work towards a research qualification while continuing to work in clinical practice, could help to “incentivise them to stay in the NHS but also work within the university sector”, while offering them a “long-term career pathway that benefits…future generations being trained”.

This gives nurses a “sense of recognition for their knowledge and expertise and enables them to contribute and give back”, she says.

But until ministers decide that they are willing to compromise and put resources into long-term planning for the NHS workforce, nursing staff on the picket lines outside hospitals could become as familiar a sight as university lecturers waving their placards on campuses.

“There’s lots that we can tackle jointly and help with this problem,” Wilson says. “It’s not a political issue—it’s absolutely something that concerns every single person. And it’s quite frustrating for us that the answers are there—let’s just work through them.”

And finally…

The war in Ukraine reached its one-year anniversary last week. Research Professional News has been covering the impact of the conflict on higher education and research, and you can access all our free-to-read coverage on our Ukraine news page.

On Research Professional News today

In yesterday’s Sunday Reading, Maddalaine Ansell argues that the UK needs to look after its international alumni.

Fiona McIntyre tells us that pay talks between higher education unions and employers mediated by the conciliation service Acas will continue this week, although the unions are “disappointed” that a pay uplift is going ahead before the talks are complete.

She adds that higher education experts have said that a rise in the number of dependants that international students brought to the UK was “inevitable” as universities sought to diversify their student populations, and a survey has found that almost a third of students in England have taken on more debt to cope with the high cost of living.

Rachel Magee tells us that Keir Starmer has said his “mission” to make the UK the fastest-growing major economy under a Labour government will “depend” on science, technology and innovation, and universities and learned societies have pledged to continue their support for Ukraine, one year on from Russia’s invasion.

University groups have decried the complexity of the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, while calling for a raft of improvements to be made, and a UK facility providing “mission critical” infrastructure for the study of infectious diseases in poultry has been launched. Robin Bisson reports.

A year since Russia escalated its war against Ukraine with a full-scale invasion, Ukrainian researchers have expressed thanks for the support they have received from colleagues and institutions around Europe, which they say has allowed them to live and work safely, as well as to expand their professional networks and knowledge. Andrew Silver covers the news.

Craig Nicholson reveals that the European Research Council has decided to move ahead with piloting broader use of the lump-sum funding mode.

In the news

The BBC reports on damages awarded to a Warwick student with cancer who was denied an extension.

The Financial Times says that the University of Oxford has been urged to review its donor policy after an outcry over Sackler ties.

In The Independent, a Warwick student with cancer has won a payout, and there’s a feature on Black international students caught up in the Ukraine conflict.

i News reports that a third of university students have plunged into double debt in the cost of living crisis.

The Telegraph says that the University of Cambridge planned to block white students from applying for a course.

In The Times, a university has 200 indigenous skulls, and an international baccalaureate lets pupils use ChatGPT to write essays.

A comment piece in The Sunday Times says it’s time to stop the shouting and learn other languages, and a graduate returns to Oxford to see if the Bullingdon days are over.

The Evening Standard covers a study that says that a quarter of UK university students who gamble are at risk of harm.

Mail Online says that a university finance official faces a lengthy jail term.

In The Scotsman, a University of Glasgow spinout has raised £9 million to work on a treatment for ‘tennis elbow’.

The week ahead

Monday

The Quality Assurance Agency has a webinar on assessment and trauma-informed policy from 1.30pm.

From 2.30pm, there will be education questions in the House of Commons.

The Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill will receive its second reading in the Commons after 2.30pm.

Tuesday

The Quality Assurance Agency is holding a webinar from 9.30am on developing and maintaining a quality culture.

At 2.30pm, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee is taking evidence on UK universities’ engagement with autocracies.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Universities UK is hosting its International Higher Education Forum.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering publishes a survey on public support for R&D.

The Higher Education Statistics Agency will publish an update to its higher education student data.

Wednesday

At 9.30am, the House of Commons science and technology committee is considering the UK space strategy and UK satellite infrastructure.

The Higher Education Policy Institute is holding a research conference from 9.30am with Elsevier.

The Association of Colleges is holding an exams conference on Wednesday and Thursday, which will explore the introduction of T-levels.

Thursday

The Quality Assurance Agency has two webinars: one on the student quality network at 12pm, and one on managing risk in UK partnerships at 2pm.

Friday

At 1pm, the Society for Research into Higher Education has a webinar on preparing special issues in journals.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Harriet Swain and Chris Parr.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Nursing headache appeared first on Research Professional News.

Labour leader says his economic growth mission will rely on “seizing opportunities of tomorrow”

Keir Starmer has said his “mission” to make the UK the fastest-growing major economy under a Labour government will “depend” on science, technology and innovation.

In a speech delivered in Manchester on 23 February, the Labour leader set out five missions that will be at the centre of the party’s manifesto at the next election and will guide his government if elected, including securing the highest sustained growth in the G7 group of countries.

Starmer said such growth “depends on seizing the opportunities of tomorrow, not falling behind, [and] on embracing technology, innovation [and] science”.

He added that the first steps his government would take to embrace research and innovation would be putting in place “a reformed planning system, a more powerful British business bank that can support startups to grow and scale, and a credible industrial strategy that gets everyone around the table and removes barriers to investment”.

Postulating that “some nation” would inevitably emerge as the leading country in developing offshore wind, creating the first generation of supercomputers and designing personalised medicines to match DNA, Starmer asked “why not Britain?” In saying so, he hinted at research and innovation areas that his government might prioritise. 

Five missions

As well economic growth, the other missions are: make Britain a clean-energy superpower with zero-carbon electricity by 2030; build an NHS fit for the future; make Britain’s streets safe; and break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage.

As prime minister, Starmer said he would make mission-driven government a “reality”. In the coming months, he said the shadow cabinet would be supporting him by meeting with experts—who he quipped Labour “still believe in”—to discuss the five missions.

His party would meet with “frontline practitioners, the doers, the thinkers, the entrepreneurs, the innovators” to ask what the barriers are in achieving the missions, he said.

In a briefing document published alongside the speech, Labour said the “scale and cross-cutting nature of the missions requires a sharp break from business-as-usual government”.

To make government more “agile, empowering and catalytic”, Labour said it would make six key changes, including “focusing on the ends, with flexibility and innovation on the means”.

According to the document, measures taken by Labour in this area could include “creating the conditions for innovation to thrive and technology to be harnessed for the public good, boosted by our industrial strategy focus on data and life sciences, and reviewing the institutional landscape of how we identify innovative practice and scale it up”.

The post Keir Starmer’s plan for economic growth ‘depends’ on science appeared first on Research Professional News.

A think tank explores how scientists should be influencing government policy

What role can scientific understanding play in government? This was a question posed by the think tank Reform in a webinar yesterday.

Paul Monks, a former pro vice-chancellor at the University of Leicester and now chief scientific adviser for the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, took part in the webinar. Jennifer Rubin, chief scientific adviser for the Home Office, was also supposed to be speaking but had “an urgent commitment”. Could it be anything to do with the news that the asylum backlog has hit a new record, or was she holding back home secretary Suella Braverman from jumping ship over the Northern Ireland protocol?

Questions about the role of scientific advisers are timely—and not just because the role was propelled to TV stardom during Covid. Two new scientific advisers were appointed this week: Angela McLean will replace Patrick Vallance as government chief scientific adviser on 1 April, and Julia Sutcliffe has become chief scientific adviser at the new Department for Business and Trade.

Radical change

Former Labour prime minister Tony Blair and former Conservative leader William Hague also joined forces this week to bring out a report published by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, warning that Britain must radically change its approach to science to keep pace with rapid advances in artificial intelligence, biotech and green energy.

They called for an overhaul of the way government manages R&D, for a pushback against Treasury micromanagement and for a tax regime that promotes domestic private research.

The British state should be radically, and rapidly, modelled around tech, they argued, recommending elevating the role of science and technology experts in government and creating “specialist Whitehall executive ministers”, promoting expert management similar to that of the Vaccine Taskforce during Covid.

This is an approach likely to find favour with Reform, a centre-right think tank dedicated to fostering a public service model that “reduces demand rather than simply manages it” and an “agile and fiscally sustainable” state, which it believes means “overhauling the centre; dismantling top-down bureaucracies and building local capabilities; rethinking outdated institutions; and challenging existing funding models”.

It is a think tank, therefore, dedicated to radical rather than cautious change—a former deputy director was one Liz Truss. That is not an association it now boasts about, but it does reflect an interesting tendency in recent right-wing circles to see science, which is more often associated with careful experiment and incremental advances, as a path to revolution.

After all, this formed a big part of the vision of former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings, along with his desire to bring in more outsiders with experience of science, technology, engineering and maths to shake up the civil service.

Logic vs politics

Yesterday’s webinar was held under the auspices of Reform’s Reimagining Whitehall programme, which promotes the idea that major change needs to occur in the behaviour, processes and structures of central government.

Monks, who was also chief scientific adviser at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy before it was broken up, suggested that there was a fundamental difference in the way scientists and politicians think. “As a scientist, you’re taught to use rational, logic-based arguments and evidence to inform your position,” he said.

“Politics is not a science. It’s not logical. I think you’ve got to recognise that from the outset.”

But he said this difference was a good thing since the point of scientific advisers is to help examine a policy from different angles. He drew an important distinction between evidence-based policymaking, which suggests scientific experts offer answers to follow, and evidence-informed policymaking, which acknowledges that many different issues need to be taken into consideration and it is up to politicians to make decisions on that basis.

Scientific methods

But does there, as Cummings often argued, need to be more scientific expertise in government? Does Whitehall have the skills and scientists it needs?

“Sort of,” Monks said, “but not enough.” He said membership of the science profession in government had increased by more than 50 per cent in the past five years, which showed growing recognition of the value scientists could bring, but that more were always needed. He also stressed the importance of diversity.

There is a danger, he suggested, in the idea that science has all the answers. Colleagues in the arts and humanities and social sciences are just as important in informing political thinking. The key thing, he said, is having different voices “to pull apart a problem in different ways”.

This, he suggested, was what politicians often found most useful: having someone there who pulled apart a problem and asked for explanations and posed questions—the application to a policy problem of the scientific method. Often lacking among ministers and policymakers more generally, he suggested, was curiosity. While they were good at quickly getting on top of detailed briefs, they could be less good at asking important “why” questions.

He suggested that scientists—and academics more broadly—also offered the ability to express uncertainty and different levels of confidence in what was known, when politicians were less free to admit when they didn’t know something. He is a strong advocate of ensuring that the scientific evidence being used for policy decisions is published to help make nuances clear.

Reacting to change

Responding to Blair and Hague’s report, he rejected the idea that under the existing system the civil service was unable to act fast enough to deal with the rapid pace of technological change.

Civil servants are actually good at handling change—“that’s what they do”, he said, pointing out that he was on his fourth minister in two departments. Certainly, it’s what they’ve had to do under the current government. More difficult, he suggested, is balancing short-term and long-term thinking.

Asked whether scientific advisers from different departments ever compared notes, he revealed that they had breakfast together every Wednesday morning, “although no-one ever brings anything to eat”. In fact, scientists are often used as a way of “de-siloing” in Whitehall, getting through to people in different departments when other civil servants are having difficulty with this.

As for what is currently in Monks’s in-tray: energy affordability is a pressing policy issue, but top of the pile in scientific terms is establishing the evidence base needed to make decisions about transitions to net zero, incorporating issues around the use of hydrogen, carbon capture, biomass, critical minerals, nuclear fission and fusion.

He painted the role of scientific adviser as a constant balancing act between idealism and pragmatism—pragmatism often involving financial constraints. It will be a balance to watch at next month’s budget, when the desire to make the UK a “beacon of science, technology and enterprise”, as prime minister Rishi Sunak put it, comes up against all the other demands on the public purse.

Horizon cash

And that’s without taking into consideration the future of Horizon funding, which remains murky.

Pressed by peers on the final destination of the £1.6 billion of “unused funding for Horizon and Euratom association” that it was revealed this week had been returned to the Treasury, Stephen Parkinson, undersecretary for arts and heritage, said it “reflects the fact that if we were to associate in this financial year, which ends soon, any cash payment would take place next year”. He said the government’s guarantee scheme for UK-based Horizon winners would be “demand driven”.

It was a politician’s answer that could do with some further scientific picking apart.

And finally…

Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, will be bracing herself today for a potentially bruising meeting of the union’s Higher Education Committee, with some members not too chuffed about her decision to pause the lecturers’ strike.

Grady announced the pause as a result of “significant progress” made during talks with employers mediated by the conciliation service Acas in the long-running dispute over pay, casualisation and working hours. The talks are due to continue for the rest of the month.

But union activists complained that any such decision should have gone through the Higher Education Committee, and they have been calling on members to lobby the committee before today’s meeting.

An online survey was circulated to members earlier this week on whether they “support the principle of the union pausing action to create a period of calm to allow negotiations to take place in a better environment”. The results, out yesterday, showed more than 71 per cent support, according to Grady.

She said today’s Higher Education Committee meeting would be considering a range of options, including calling further strike dates to replace the ones during the pause. “As general secretary, I am comfortable with this position,” she said.

The survey is not to be confused with a separate postal ballot on further strike action, which opened on Wednesday and which would extend the UCU’s mandate for strike action for another six months.

On Research Professional News today

Chris Parr reports that universities and colleges in England would be required to keep a register of personal relationships between students and staff under proposals announced by the Office for Students.

A strong UK response to the Ukraine crisis raises broader questions about higher education’s humanitarian role, says Jamie Arrowsmith.

Peers have voiced concern over the Treasury clawing back £1.6bn in unspent funding earmarked for association to EU R&D programmes, and a survey has found that over half of small businesses that have received R&D tax credits in recent years are planning to scale back investment in research and innovation if the government goes ahead with plans to slash such relief. Rachel Magee reports.

MPs have heard that the UK risks falling behind in its development of artificial intelligence systems unless the government commits to investing in UK university research. Rachael Pells reports.

Policies to counter nepotism influence evaluation processes and attitudes to reform, says John Whitfield, and Oksana Seumenicht writes that international cooperation and solidarity can give postwar reconstruction sound foundations.

Switzerland’s exclusion from EU programmes is causing increasing harm to the country’s research, sector leaders there have warned, and Poland’s National Centre for Research and Development, a public research funder, has announced that it is being inspected by the country’s Central Anti-Corruption Bureau. Andrew Silver covers the news.

He adds that a group of European research funding and performing organisations has criticised what it describes as a shift in policies underpinning the EU’s research and innovation funding programmes.

Robin Bisson brings us news that the European Commission has confirmed that it is planning to provide funding to improve the security of research careers and is “ready to pilot” an initiative in 2023-24.

In the news

The BBC reports that Jason Arday has become the youngest Black person to be appointed as a University of Cambridge professor, a strategy on Nottingham’s student accommodation has been unveiled, and an MP says that the University of East Anglia must explain a rise in debt.

In The Guardian, a register of staff-student relations has been proposed, and a Warwick student with cancer has won a payout after the university denied an extension request.

In The Telegraph, a doctor claims to be worried by veganism at the University of Cambridge, and the University of Kent says everybody should be called ‘they’ until you know their pronouns.

The Times reports on immigration curbs after ‘a huge rise in foreign student families’, Jason Arday has become Cambridge’s youngest Black professor, budding dentists are put off by £50,000 in student debt, University of Kent students have been urged to use ‘they’ before confirming pronouns, a comment piece says that it’s time to look on the bright side of science, and another calls for medical school to be sped up to solve Britain’s doctor shortage.

The day ahead

The Office for Students publishes guidance for higher education providers on monitoring of capital funding in 2022-23.

The Department for Education releases a report on how educational attainment contributes to UK productivity growth, and it has an evaluation report on the T-level Professional Development programme.

Student Minds publishes a wellbeing research briefing.

The Westminster Higher Education Forum is holding a conference from 9am on priorities for supporting disabled students.

Advance HE is holding a development programme from 9am on flexible and hybrid leadership.

At 9.30am, the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Insights Conference 2023 continues for a second day.

From 10.30am, University College London’s Institute of Education is holding a talk on ownership, authorship and academic integrity within the context of machine translation.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Chris Parr and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post The science bit appeared first on Research Professional News.

Minister says “funding will remain available” for Horizon shortfalls under guarantee scheme

Peers have voiced concern over the Treasury clawing back £1.6 billion in unspent funding earmarked for association to EU R&D programmes.

The UK government had promised billions for association to EU programmes including Horizon Europe and the nuclear research initiative Euratom—or a homegrown alternative known as ‘plan B’.

But documents published on 21 February for the 2022-23 financial year show that £1.6bn of “unused funding for Horizon and Euratom association” will now be “surrendered” to the Treasury.

Labour peer David Blunkett said it would be “sophistry of the worst order” if the £1.6bn is not made available again as peers questioned Stephen Parkinson, parliamentary under-secretary for arts and heritage, over the Treasury withdrawing the funding in the House of Lords on 23 February.

Liberal Democrat peer Sal Brinton asked if the government would re-instate the £1.6bn “as a matter of urgency”.

‘Funding remains available’

Parkinson said the surrendering of the capital budgets “reflects the fact that if we were to associate in this financial year, which ends soon, any cash payment would take place next year”.

“But that funding remains available to ensure that people who would qualify for Horizon do not suffer a shortfall,” he said.

When pressed on whether the £1.6bn would be made available in the next financial year, Parkinson said the government’s guarantee scheme for UK-based Horizon winners was “demand driven” and would be determined by the number of successful UK applications.

It was unclear whether the funding that would “remain available” related to the £1.6bn. Research Professional News has approached the government for comment.

The government taking back the £1.6bn sparked outrage from senior figures in research who are calling for the money to be reinvested in R&D. News of the Treasury’s decision broke as the UK appeared to be on the brink of striking a deal with the EU over trade in Northern Ireland—a sticking point for participation in the R&D programmes that has left UK grant winners unable to directly access funding.

The post Peers voice concern over £1.6bn R&D funding returned to Treasury appeared first on Research Professional News.

UK risks being left in “an innovation wasteland”, says business group

Over half of small businesses that have received R&D tax credits in recent years are planning to scale back investment in research and innovation if the government goes ahead with plans to slash such relief, a survey has found.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced controversial plans to cut the rate at which small and medium-sized enterprises can use spending on R&D to lower their tax bills in his autumn statement in November. Moves to reduce fraud are also in the works.

The Federation of Small Businesses surveyed just over 1,000 of its members and found that 64 per cent of firms who received support through the scheme say they are now less likely to invest in innovation. One in five firms backed by the scheme in the past three years say the tax relief cuts will reduce their viability, a quarter of small firms say they will be forced to turn to lower-risk projects, and 1 in 10 say they may have to make staff redundant or put recruitment plans on hold.

The FSB urged Hunt to “change course”.

“The UK risks being left in an innovation wasteland if Jeremy Hunt does not take control of Treasury innovation policy and restore the single most successful industrial policy of the last decade,” said FSB chair Martin McTague. “Our findings are a reminder to the chancellor that the government still has time to do the right thing—delay or scrap the plan to cut R&D tax credits for small businesses from April.”

Waiting for spring

The findings come as small businesses await the spring statement on 15 March, where it is hoped Hunt could announce further R&D support for them ahead of the cuts coming into force in April.

The BioIndustry Association, a trade body, revealed in January that Hunt had sent it a letter saying the government would consult industry ahead of the spring statement on whether and how to provide further support for R&D-intensive small and medium-sized businesses.

McTague said the FSB had heard reports that startups were planning to expand overseas, where R&D support for small firms is more generous. “Gutting the R&D tax credits scheme will sadly be kryptonite for the prime minister’s pledge to make our country a science and technology superpower.”

According to reports, a range of options could be considered to support R&D-intensive small businesses in place of the current relief scheme, including more grants or limiting the scope of the proposed tax relief cuts.

But McTague said FSB members have told the organisation that the R&D tax credit system is “more accessible and useful” than public grants, which are “administered by quangos many inventors haven’t heard of” and where time is “wasted writing bid applications instead of innovating”. 

A government spokesperson said: “Our ongoing R&D tax reliefs review will ensure taxpayer’s money is spent as effectively as possible while improving the competitiveness of the R&D Expenditure Credit scheme, as well as taking a step towards a simplified, single R&D Expenditure Credit-like scheme for all. The government will work with industry over the coming months to understand whether further support is necessary for R&D-intensive small and medium-sized enterprises.”

The post Small firms plan to cut R&D over tax credit changes, survey finds appeared first on Research Professional News.

“Auditing” approach for real-time regulation of AI could ensure ethical development, MPs hear

The UK risks falling behind in its development of artificial intelligence systems unless the government commits to investing in UK university research, MPs have heard.

Giving evidence at a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee meeting on 22 February, Wendy Hall, regius professor of computer science at the University of Southampton, said that building “sovereign capabilities” would be crucial if society is to benefit from AI technologies.

“We are at the beginning of the beginning with AI,” she told MPs. “We need to keep our foot on the accelerator and keep ahead of the curve as much as we can.”

“We are not going to be able to compete with Google and Microsoft now, [but] we do absolutely need to create a sovereign ‘large language model’ capability,” she said, in reference to deep-learning algorithms such as ChatGPT that use large datasets to summarise and translate text.

“Do we really want to be reliant on technology from outside the UK for something that is going to be so powerful for the UK and the rest of the world?” she continued. “We need the government to get behind this…The money is out there.”

Power struggle

Also speaking on the panel, Nigel Shadbolt, professorial research fellow in computer science at the University of Oxford, warned that “one group who are really at risk of being left behind are the university researchers, where [AI research] was originally done, because their access to the kinds of [tools] we need is not organised terribly systematically”.

Historically, AI has “flourished because of lots of independent research in universities around the world”, he said. Now, major companies are “awash with power”—and university research has to find its place, he suggested.

Failure to expand UK research capabilities in this area, Hall added, would result in the country becoming a “service industry” and not a leader of economic growth. The UK is good at startup culture but bad at scaling up, she noted. “That’s our biggest problem.”

Going forward, she said, the UK Treasury “must help to create the incentives for investment” in order for companies to settle here instead of moving to the US to scale up.

A related point discussed during the session was the need for stakeholders to work together to build “trustworthy” data systems for AI.

A major sticking point, participants acknowledged, is that public mistrust of growing AI programmes, for instance ChatGPT, stems in part from a lack of transparency and understanding of how AI works.

“To explain all of AI, we need to have more research on that, and companies like Google and Microsoft need to be part of that and we need to think about how we develop systems that can explain what they do,” said Hall. “The government has to play a part in terms of the regulation [of that],” she added.

Her preferred approach is to think of AI regulation like “auditing”, she said, “because we can’t wait for the research to be done to be able to regulate AI”. An auditory approach would allow regulators to test AI systems and simulate them in “most environments” without necessarily understanding the finished product, she suggested.

Big tech

Shadbolt likened the difficulty of understanding AI to the difficulty of trying to understand the human brain, “the ultimate black box”.

When medical ethics first came to be, policymakers drew from those discussions to generate new terms for things such as informed consent, he added. Similarly, drawing up ethical guidelines for AI development early on would give both researchers and policymakers the added benefit of foreseeing potential problems, he said.

Public outreach, including a space for “citizens’ groups”, would make it easier for people to raise issues and report problems such as bias in AI applications “without being pilloried in the media for being whistleblowers” and “in a way that is easy and transparent”, Hall said.

The discussion on regulation followed comments made in a previous committee session that day, attended by representatives from BT, Microsoft and Google.

Hugh Milward, general manager for corporate, external and legal affairs at Microsoft UK, told committee members that AI systems currently in development had “capacity to solve some of society’s biggest challenges”. But the UK is perceived by big tech companies as one of the most heavily regulated countries—and this is creating barriers to investment, he said.

A balance is needed, he added: “We need to get regulation of AI right in order to serve society as it should.”

Ten commandments

Responding to Hall and Shadbolt in the second session, Katherine Fletcher, a committee member and MP for South Ribble, made the case for a “global standard of input rules for AI”, which she likened to a set of “10 commandments” for AI ethics.

Currently, she said, “it feels like we are trying to regulate AI in a way that feels analogue—build it, test it, make sure it doesn’t break. Isn’t there [an argument] for swapping that on its head?”

Her comments come ahead of a much-anticipated government white paper due to be published by the Office for AI next month.

“We will all have a chance to scrutinise that,” Hall concluded.

The post Experts call for greater investment in UK-based AI research appeared first on Research Professional News.

The OfS is consulting on proposals that aim to tackle sexual misconduct on campus

This morning sees the arrival of the latest Office for Students consultation, this time on the introduction of a condition of registration relating to harassment and sexual misconduct on campus. Let’s take a look at the main recommendations—which will almost certainly come to fruition, if previous consultations are anything to go by.

The OfS press release focuses on proposals that would require universities and colleges to keep a register of personal relationships between students and “relevant” staff—that is, staff members who have some form of educational relationship with the student too. This is one of two proposals on the table relating to staff-student relationships, with the alternative being an outright ban.

The OfS states that its preferred option is the register. Extra workload aside, it is hard to imagine that too many university staff will be opposed to such a list.

While some might argue that a relationship between two adults is none of anyone else’s business, the potential for abuses of power by those in positions of authority in universities is very real.

There is perhaps a hint of the contradictory about the fact that both consultation options see the OfS remove the right to privacy for some people who are not doing anything illegal, at a time when the OfS is actively recruiting a free speech tsar in advance of a bill that seeks to protect the right to free speech on campus. Do free speech rights not include the right not to speak about personal information?

Regardless, Playbook would take the line that any move to prevent those in positions of power from exploiting that position is to be welcomed. The consultation states that any staff failing to declare a personal relationship should be liable for dismissal.

Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the OfS, said she was “particularly interested” to hear what views about relationships between staff and students the consultation unearths.

“The majority of those working in higher education behave appropriately towards their students,” she said. “But we recognise that there can be a power imbalance in personal relationships that could be exploited by unscrupulous staff to subject students to harassment or sexual misconduct.

“That’s why we’re proposing that certain types of personal relationships should be disclosed, with staff dismissed if they fail to do so. Some universities already go further and have policies that ban all relationships between staff and students. We will continue to consider this option and welcome views on whether it is an approach we should require of all institutions.”

​​Nehaal Bajwa, vice-president for liberation and equality at the National Union of Students, said that students who experience misconduct from staff members “may be reluctant to report for fear of retribution that could impact their grades”.

“To address this, a cultural shift is needed that prioritises survivor wellbeing,” they said. “Supporting survivors, especially those who are people of colour, LGBT+, trans and disabled, is critical, and tailored support must be provided.”

It is not known how prevalent staff-student relationships are or how many have led to incidents of sexual assault or misconduct. The OfS says it will conduct a “prevalence survey” to find out.

However, according to the Office for National Statistics, in 2020, students were more likely to have experienced sexual assault in the past year than any other occupational group—a clear indication that there is a problem. The OfS is of the opinion that universities have not done enough to tackle it.

“We had hoped to see concerns about harassment and sexual misconduct addressed through effective self-regulation by universities and colleges,” the regulator says in the consultation document. “In April 2021, we set clear and consistent voluntary standards in our statement of expectations to support providers to develop and implement effective systems, policies and processes, to prevent and respond to incidents of harassment and sexual misconduct.”

Some universities, however, have “either been slow to take up the statement of expectations or have not sufficiently prioritised this issue,” the OfS says. “There has also been a lack of focus on forms of harassment that are not sexual harassment. Our evaluation ultimately concluded that while some progress has been made, it has not been sufficient.”

A spokesperson for the vice-chancellors’ group Universities UK said institutions were “tackling harassment and sexual misconduct extremely seriously and have been working hard to meet their obligations in this area”.

“However, we recognise that there is still work to be done,” the spokesperson added. “We look forward to working with the OfS so that these proposals will further strengthen universities’ own efforts to ensure student safety. It is crucial that any new obligations on universities are proportionate and work for the full range of institutions.”

Other recommendations in the proposals include introducing mandatory training relating to sexual misconduct for students and staff—including “bystander training” for potential witnesses.

Institutions would also have to publish a single document that sets out how they will make a “significant and credible difference” in tackling harassment and sexual misconduct—including information about how to report cases and an explanation of how students will be supported through the process.

There would also be an outright ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, while—interestingly—any existing NDAs would be deemed unenforceable, meaning those who have been silenced previously will be free to tell their stories.

This overlaps somewhat with the forthcoming free speech bill, which—following the government’s acceptance of a House of Lords amendment—now bans the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment or abuse, bullying and other forms of misconduct.

“These are important proposals which would allow the OfS—for the first time—to directly regulate concerns about harassment and sexual misconduct,” Lapworth said. “Some universities are already doing excellent work in this area, but we know that progress across the sector has been too slow and too patchy. Our independent evaluation found that self-regulation had not delivered the changes we think students are entitled to see.

“Harassment and sexual misconduct can have a profound—and sometimes devastating—impact on the lives of students, including damage to their education. Our proposals would ensure that victims of harassment and sexual misconduct are appropriately supported, and that universities and colleges make significant progress to reduce these incidents.”

And finally…

Where’s Wharton? Where exactly is Office for Students chair James Wharton? His absence at a press briefing yesterday about the consultation launch jogged Playbook’s memory. Previous OfS press briefings certainly featured former chair Michael Barber on more than one occasion.

To our knowledge, Wharton has yet to consent to an interview with any higher education press. In fact, his profile is so low that a Google search for “James Wharton” and “Office for Students” returns just 79 hits. Nine pages’ worth.

That doesn’t stop our “James Wharton” search engine alerts from delivering results on an almost daily basis. Unfortunately, they tend to be for namesakes in the guise of a Yorkshire cricketer and a highly regarded upcoming racing driver.

On Research Professional News today

Chris Parr covers news that the MillionPlus group of universities has said urgent reform of clinical training placements is required in order to tackle a nursing recruitment crisis in the NHS.

Sophie Inge writes that senior figures in research have reacted with indignation after the Treasury took back £1.6 billion in unspent funding earmarked for association to EU programmes or domestic alternatives, and are calling for the money to be reinvested in R&D.

Rachel Magee tells us that the Economic and Social Research Council has announced that Stian Westlake—a former adviser to three science ministers and head of the Royal Statistical Society—is to be its new executive chair, following two years without a permanent leader.

She adds that the EU’s flagship innovation funder has launched a scheme to help researchers and early-stage startups commercialise research, and a Hungarian university set to be cut off from the EU’s Erasmus+ academic mobility programme has said its students have the “right” to participate in such programmes.

The UK should radically change its approach to R&D in order to keep pace with global technology-driven change, according to Tony Blair and William Hague. Robin Bisson reports.

According to Andrew Silver, several university groups have called for allocations to be rebalanced within the EU’s research and innovation funding programme Horizon Europe.

In the news

The BBC reports that the Office for Students has floated a university staff-student relationship ban, a University of Bristol professor shares his anger at an Islamophobia claim, and there’s a feature on a university that changed the world.

In The Guardian, Jason Arday is to become the youngest-ever Black professor at Cambridge.

The Telegraph says that University of Oxford staff guilty of sexual misconduct towards students were allowed to keep working.

In The Times, the University of Edinburgh has been accused of trying to block a women’s rights film, lecturers ‘must register flings with their students or face the sack’, an NHS workforce plan would double medical school places, a law student who took on a former employer has won, and future lawyers are said to use alcohol as a crutch.

The Evening Standard says that regional universities are rushing to grab space in London.

The day ahead

The Office for Students opens a consultation on a new approach to regulating harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education.

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change publishes a report on how innovation can power the future of Britain.

From 9.30am, the Quality Assurance Agency is holding its Quality Insights Conference 2023.

At 11am, the House of Lords will discuss a question on the loss of funding to the UK since 2020 as a result of leaving the EU’s Horizon R&D funding programme.

From 2pm, the Centre for Global Higher Education is holding an event on international education in Hong Kong.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Harriet Swain and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Registry office appeared first on Research Professional News.

Former party leaders urge major reforms including breaking Treasury “micromanagement” of science spending

The UK should radically change its approach to research and development in order to keep pace with global technology-driven change, according to Tony Blair and William Hague.

In a report published on 22 February, the former party leaders say that the UK has strengths in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotech and climate tech, but that “without radical change, we risk decline”.

Published by the former prime minister’s think tank, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the report lays out a series of reforms for achieving a “new national purpose” based on innovation.

The proposed reforms include a “reorganisation of the centre of government” to prioritise science and technology and push back against Whitehall “micromanagement” of R&D.

“We need to reform how investment is made in fields relevant to R&D, and in turn break the control of the ‘accountant’ mindset over the UK government,” the report says.

Treasury clawback

The recommendation comes a day after it emerged that the Treasury has clawed back £1.6 billion that was due to be spent on joining the EU’s Horizon Europe R&D programme—a move that science leaders have reacted to with outrage.

The report says the Treasury “strongly micromanages science and technology spending” and calls for R&D funding agencies to be given more freedom.

The Treasury has been approached for comment.

Instead of having short-term budgets like many other government bodies, UK Research and Innovation should have spending cycles lasting between seven and 10 years, as is the case for the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the report says.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hague said that the next decade should see government “speeding up decisions of investments in science [rather than them] being considered in the same way that you consider investment in a hospital or a road”.

Global leadership spend

While both main political parties support greater investment in R&D, the report calls for increases that would “make the UK a leader among comparable nations within five years”.

Despite revised statistics showing the UK spends more on R&D than previously thought, the country still lags behind competitors like the United States and Germany.

The report also praises the creation of the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology but says more must be done to embed the science and innovation agenda across government.

It recommends elevating the role of science and technology experts in government, as well as creating a new type of “specialist Whitehall executive ministers” to attract expert leaders, in a similar way to how the Vaccine Taskforce was run during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Relandscaped R&D

The report also criticised the “ever-growing audit culture” for research institutions, calling for the Teaching Excellence Framework and Knowledge Excellence Framework to be scrapped. It also recommended a raft of changes to the UK’s R&D landscape, including:

• Restructuring UKRI away from “decades-old academic disciplines” and towards “new bespoke research councils”.
• Expanding Aria.
• Dividing universities into different categories, with special support structures for specialist institutions.
• Reforming technology transfer offices to encourage more university spinouts.
• Investing in a network of research institutes focused on competitive technology areas.
• Expanding the Catapult Network of innovation centres.
• Creating fast-track processes for R&D infrastructure planning.

James Phillips, an author of the report and a former science and technology adviser to No 10 under Boris Johnson, said on social media that the UK is “not acting with sufficient boldness”.

He added: “The UK is falling behind, and needs a radical whole of government, bipartisan effort to seize this opportunity and recover lost ground.”

The post Blair and Hague say ‘radical change’ needed in UK R&D appeared first on Research Professional News.

Government urged to reinvest funding originally destined for EU programmes or alternatives back into R&D

Senior figures in research have reacted with indignation after the Treasury took back £1.6 billion in unspent funding earmarked for association to EU programmes or domestic alternatives, and are calling for the money to be reinvested in R&D.

The UK government had promised billions for association to EU programmes including Horizon Europe and the nuclear research initiative Euratom, or a homegrown alternative known as ‘plan B’.

But Treasury documents published on 21 February for the 2022-23 financial year show that £1.6bn of “unused funding for Horizon and Euratom association” will now be “surrendered” to the Treasury.

It came as the UK appeared to be on the brink of striking a deal with the EU over trade in Northern Ireland—a sticking point for participation in the R&D programmes that has left UK grant winners unable to directly access funding.

Senior figures in R&D have reacted angrily to the Treasury’s move, which was first highlighted by the Campaign for Science and Engineering.

Science superpower?

“The failure of all sides to secure the UK’s association to the EU’s research programmes has now cost UK science £1.6bn. That comes on top of the talented researchers who have left the UK in order to carry on their collaborative work,” said Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society. “How does this sit with the government’s stated mission to have the UK as a science superpower?”

He urged the Treasury to “ensure that this money is reinvested in research in the coming years”.

Joe Marshall, chief executive of the National Centre for Universities and Business, suggested that the move sent the “wrong kind of signal at a critical time” to businesses looking to make long-term investments in R&D and innovation.

He added that next month’s spring budget—set to take place on 15 March—“presents an opportunity for the government to send the right signals by bringing funding and policy commitments in line with its bold rhetoric and ambitions”.

Sarah Main, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, urged the government to “follow through its ambition for science and innovation with coordinated action and investment across government, not reversals and false starts”.

“Can the prime minister now set out how he plans to mitigate this loss and put science and engineering at the heart of the UK’s future?” she added.

The development follows the creation of a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and appointment of a science secretary, which many in the sector saw as a demonstration of the government’s commitment to R&D.

“With new government departments recently announced, that include a seat for science at the cabinet table, we urge the government to deliver on the promise to protect historic R&D funding commitments by making this funding available to future programmes,” said Mark Downs, chief executive of the Royal Society of Biology.

‘We will only pay for the periods of association’

A government spokesperson told Research Professional News that funding “remains available to finalise association with EU programmes, but we have been clear that we will only pay for the periods of association”.

“In the event we do not associate, UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much money as they would have done from Horizon over the spending review period,” they said.

The spokesperson added that the Horizon guarantee—which is providing replacement funding for successful UK Horizon Europe grant winners—remained in place, with £645 million provided so far through the national funder UK Research and Innovation. The government has also provided a further £684m in direct funding to UK science, fusion and Earth observation.

The government did not address questions about whether the £1.6bn returned to the Treasury would be reinvested in R&D.

The post Outrage as Treasury claws back £1.6bn in unspent R&D funds appeared first on Research Professional News.

R&D is once again collateral damage in the row over the Northern Ireland protocol

As professor Fats Waller once said, ironically on his In London album, “you can’t have your cake and eat it”. We ignore the wisdom of the ancients at our peril.

Yesterday was a day of crepes and carnival but today is one of abstinence and sobriety as we learn that the Treasury has clawed back £1.6 billion of science funding earmarked for associate membership of Horizon Europe. Sophie Inge brings us the story.

The news comes as the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology emerges from the calving glacier that is the break-up of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The optimism that greeted the creation of the science ministry, as a sign of the priority to be given to R&D by Rishi Sunak’s government, has now been considerably tempered by the funding clawback.

An analysis by the lobby group the Campaign for Science and Engineering shows that government documents published on 21 February for the 2022-23 financial year indicate that £1.6bn of “unused funding for Horizon and Euratom association” will now be “surrendered” to the Treasury. Science minister George Freeman had warned of just such a scenario shortly before the cabinet reshuffle that saw the creation of the science department, as he called on the prime minister to give the green light for his plan B Horizon alternative.

It’s a funny way to become a science superpower and no mistake. Rather than roll out plan B or roll over the funding for future years, the Treasury has spotted an easy win in its attempt to shore up the public finances after the disastrous mini-budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng.

It is of course a small, short-term gain at the expense of long-term investment. At the first opportunity, Sunak’s commitment to R&D has disappeared like ashes on the wind.

In total, £6.9bn has been set aside in the expanded science budget for association with Horizon Europe until 2025. We now know that with every day’s delay in joining the programme, the Treasury is likely to reclaim the money.

Last night, a government spokesperson told Research Professional News: “The government has been pushing the EU for two years to implement our association with EU R&D programmes, as agreed under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

“Funding remains available to finalise association with EU programmes, but we have been clear that we will only pay for the periods of association. In the event we do not associate, UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much money as they would have done from Horizon over the spending review period.

“During this period, the government has stepped in to continue to support the UK’s world-leading R&D sector. The Horizon guarantee is still in place and so far the government has provided £645 million to date via UK Research and Innovation through the guarantee, and £684m of direct funding to UK science, fusion and Earth observation”.

On Monday, we learned that Horizon Europe was now open to researchers in New Zealand. Yes, you read that right: New bloody Zealand.

Ulster fry

In the meantime, the UK remains outside the scheme while the EU decides whether it can trust Britain to stand by the legally binding international agreements it signed only a few short years ago over the status of trade in Northern Ireland. The issue has been front and centre this week as Sunak attempts to persuade the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the European Research Group (ERG) of Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to accept a possible deal with the EU.

Cabinet resignations have been threatened—allegedly home secretary Suella Braverman is on the watch list, not that anyone in higher education would shed a tear if she resigned from her post again. Disgraced former premier Boris Johnson has also been rocking the boat over possible Sunak plans to ditch the legislation that would enable the UK to unilaterally renege on its commitments to the Northern Ireland protocol.

The Whitehall scuttlebutt is that a deal with the EU is on the table, involving the use of red and green lanes for goods in and out of Northern Ireland but with the role of the European Court of Justice intact. Needless to say, the DUP is not impressed, and Johnson and the ERG—who previously threw the Ulster unionists under the bus to get Brexit done—are now encouraging the Northern Ireland party to stand firm and so continue to block power-sharing arrangements in the province.

It is all as big a mess as ever it was, because basically Fats Waller was correct but neither the DUP nor the Boris Johnson fan club are yet prepared to admit it. One suspects that should Johnson ever make it back into Downing Street, he would ditch the protocol bill and the DUP like a shot, all over again—but hey ho, reason and principle are in short supply these days.

To be fair to the DUP, the Sunak government has repeated the same errors of its predecessors by cutting the parties in Northern Ireland out of discussions and then handing them a widely leaked fait accompli agreed with Brussels (and by extension the Dublin government). It’s enough to make any self-respecting unionist say no.

Yesterday in London, Sunak, his aide and former Spectator journalist James Forsyth and the Northern Ireland secretary Chris ‘bring out your curricula’ Heaton-Harris spent three hours talking to members of the ERG, insisting that no deal had yet been agreed in principle with the EU. Even the members of the ERG know that is not true.

So, Sunak is now in some thick weeds—does he face down the DUP and the Brexiteers in his own party and use Labour votes in the Commons to pass his deal, or does he retreat and thereby please no-one, while simultaneously demonstrating his political weakness? We are not sure a well-wrought Instagram message will help him much on this occasion.

We will resist diving into those thick weeds ourselves—this is a story that is not going to be resolved any time soon. If Sunak and his people imagined it could be pushed through this week, they must think the DUP came up the Lagan in a bubble, to borrow a phrase popular in Belfast.

Meanwhile, UK universities and researchers remain excluded from Horizon Europe, while scientists in New Zealand are joining international teams and preparing funding bids. The gap between the government’s rhetoric and the reality of the UK’s standing as a science superpower was always large, but now it is deepening like a coastal shelf.

Sage and well-intentioned voices will say that the £1.6bn Treasury clawback is a sign that universities and the R&D sector should get their act together to activate Freeman’s plan B as a short-term boost for science while the Northern Ireland protocol issues are resolved. Only last week, science secretary Michelle Donelan was telling us that the UK is “more than ready to go it alone” with a domestic alternative to Horizon Europe.

That is the same Donelan who—counts on fingers—three jobs ago was telling us that the government would not hesitate to defund universities that did not act over antisemitism, or was it non-disclosure agreements, or false advertising, or low-quality courses, or maybe all of the above? “More than ready” sounds to us more like barely prepared.

By way of response, University College London professor James Wilsdon, sometimes of this parish, put it best when he told The Guardian: “There’s no scenario in which life outside Horizon will be good for UK science. The sooner ministers stop pretending that it could be and drop the ‘science superpower’ froth in favour of a level-headed assessment of UK options and priorities, the better. The policy goal should remain association. In absence of that, it’s all about damage limitation.”

Faith in government promises over science funding has taken a knock with news of the Treasury clawback. Those who make overblown claims about superpowers might remember the fate of Ozymandias—or slightly closer to home today, on Ash Wednesday, they should remember that bit about ashes and dust and whatnot.

And finally…

Yesterday evening saw the University and College Union hold an online gathering before the opening of a reballot of members to extend the mandate for industrial action. The union invited along some special guests to raise morale among the foot soldiers.

The guests included members of the 1980s Birmingham reggae outfit UB40—Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite band, apparently—and former Sunderland manager and Everton legend Peter Reid.

It is not known whether the meeting was treated to a rendition of the Roker Park classic Cheer Up, Peter Reid (to the tune of Daydream Believer by the Monkees). The lyrics could have been adapted slightly: “Cheer up, Peter Reid, oh what can it mean, to a UCU member to be ticking the box.”

On Research Professional News today

Sophie Inge reports that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been accused of giving up £1.6bn earmarked for research funding, and the government has commissioned an independent review aimed at boosting dwindling commercial clinical trial activity in the UK.

She adds that the outgoing director of the Wellcome Trust has said his “biggest regret” during his time at the health research funder was being “too slow” to address research culture problems.

Chris Parr covers statistics showing that the number of academic staff from the EU working in the UK has fallen for the second consecutive year.

Fiona McIntyre writes that the University and College Union is asking its members to back its decision to pause strike action while “intensive negotiations” take place with employers over pay, conditions and pension reforms.

Robin Bisson brings us news that the League of European Research Universities has said the European Commission should “dare to adjust or discontinue” elements of the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme that are not successful, and the government has followed up its appointment of a new chief scientist by naming an engineer from arms company BAE Systems as the top scientist at the Department for Business and Trade.

The agency that administers grants from the EU’s European Innovation Council funder is seeking intellectual property experts to provide due diligence services to EIC grantees, while senior voices from across the UK research sector have said that incoming government chief scientific adviser Angela McLean will be well placed to hit the ground running on pressing public issues and coordination of R&D spending. Rachael Pells reports.

Rachel Magee tells us that UK university groups have rejected Springer Nature’s latest offer in ongoing negotiations for access to its journals, and European researcher groups have called for “concrete” support for academics persecuted for their research activity by authoritarian regimes.

According to Andrew Silver, the European Space Agency is seeking ideas from industry and academia for a future Earth observation mission, which could cost it up to €550m (£484m) in 2022 prices, and the European Research Area and Innovation Committee has adopted new priorities for the next 18 months.

In the news

The BBC has updated its article on university staff across the UK taking industrial action, the Treasury has taken back £1.6bn promised for science, and a Nigerian student ‘has no option but to go back to Ukraine to study’.

In The Guardian, University of Cambridge students have voted for completely vegan menus.

The Telegraph says that University of Cambridge students have voted for a vegan-only menu.

In The Times, the University of Oxford took cash from the Sackler drugs firm despite links to the US opioid epidemic, William Hague and Tony Blair write that science is the single issue all our dreams depend on, a union leader has been called a traitor for pausing strikes, and a comment piece says that Britain’s status as a quantum star could vanish into a black hole.

The Manchester Evening News reports that police have been called in as students are occupying a campus building.

Wales Online says that Wales faces a massive shortage of specialist physics and chemistry teachers.

The Belfast Telegraph reports that a student accommodation proposal has resurfaced for a car park site near Belfast’s Sandy Row.

The day ahead

The Higher Education Statistics Agency publishes staff statistics for 2021-22.

Advance HE held a webinar at 7am on students as partners.

From 9am to 5pm, the Arts and Humanities Research Council is holding a course for academics on engaging with government.

At 9.30am, the House of Commons science and technology committee is hearing evidence on the governance of artificial intelligence.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Harriet Swain, Chris Parr and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Ashes to ashes appeared first on Research Professional News.

Campaign for Science and Engineering slams “reversal” of government’s position

The Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy has been accused of giving up £1.6 billion earmarked for research funding.

The government had promised billions for membership of EU R&D programmes Horizon Europe and Euratom or spending on a domestic alternative. But Treasury documents published on 21 February for the 2022-23 financial year show that £1.6bn of “unused funding for Horizon and Euratom association” will now be “surrendered” to the Treasury.

Sarah Main, executive director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering—which highlighted the move—called it a betrayal of previous promises.

“The government has repeatedly stated that R&D budgets would be protected and that the money allocated for association to Horizon Europe would be spent on R&D,” she said. 

“The government’s reversal of this position with today’s withdrawal of £1.6bn for R&D undermines the prime minister’s assertions about the importance of science and innovation to the UK’s future.”

Beyond the Horizon

UK association to the EU’s €95.5bn (£85bn) Horizon Europe programme, as well as the nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth-observation programme Copernicus, have been held up by a dispute over trade with Northern Ireland. 

It has left UK winners unable to directly access the EU funding awarded to them, although the government has provided some substitute funding and promised a long-term domestic alternative scheme if it is required.

Amid continued debates over Horizon access, there have been increasing concerns that the Treasury could claw back underspending from the £6.9bn it allocated to association or alternative programmes at the 2021 spending review.

Some of this money has already been spent on backstop funding for successful UK-based Horizon Europe grantees. It is not clear if the returned cash will be reallocated to research or not.

The government has been approached for comment.

The post Beis ‘surrenders’ £1.6bn earmarked for EU research access appeared first on Research Professional News.

Senior defence company engineer Julia Sutcliffe takes chief adviser role at newly created department

The government has followed up its appointment of a new chief scientist by naming an engineer from arms company BAE Systems as the top scientist at the Department for Business and Trade.

Julia Sutcliffe will be the chief scientific adviser at the department, which was created from two separate business and trade departments in prime minister Rishi Sunak’s recent Whitehall reshuffle.

Sutcliffe is a chief technologist at BAE Systems, which works in security and aerospace as well as the arms sector. She holds an honorary professorship at the University of Manchester and is a fellow of both the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Aeronautical Society.

She will be taking over from Mike Short, chief scientific adviser at the now abolished standalone trade department since 2017.

Global champion

“I hope to use the experiences from my career, alongside support from the UK’s scientific and industrial communities, to champion the UK’s science and technology excellence and partnerships globally,” Sutcliffe said.

The Department for Business and Trade is one of three new departments recently created by Sunak. The others are the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Angela McLean was announced as the government’s new chief scientific adviser, replacing Patrick Vallance, on 20 February. McLean, who is currently chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence, will be the first woman to hold the role.

The post BAE expert picked as science adviser for business and trade appeared first on Research Professional News.

Latest proposal from publisher “does not meet” needs of the sector, say university groups

UK university groups have rejected Springer Nature’s latest offer in ongoing negotiations for access to its journals.

A statement signed by Guild HE, MillionPlus, N8 PVC-Rs, the Russell Group and the University Alliance said the latest proposal—which was received in November and rejected by the team negotiating on behalf of UK universities—does “not meet the needs of the sector and our members”.

“UK universities agreed a clear set of requirements at the start of the negotiations and these must be met before we will support an agreement with Springer Nature,” the statement said.

The requirements include reducing costs, ensuring UK research can be published open access and providing greater transparency on costs and Springer Nature’s transition to open research, the groups said.

Consolidating spending

UK universities had two open-access agreements with Springer Nature via higher education IT firm Jisc, both of which expired on 31 December 2022. Springer Nature is honouring the terms of the expired agreements until further notice, Jisc said.

On top of these agreements, UK institutions spend around €8 million (£7m) on direct subscriptions to journals from Palgrave Macmillan, which is part of Springer Nature, and on article-processing charges for open-access publishing in other titles owned by Springer Nature, according to Jisc.

There are ongoing negotiations to combine the two agreements under one and include the Palgrave titles. Jisc, which is negotiating on behalf of UK universities, said the deal would be one of the largest agreements of its kind.

Despite the rejection of the latest proposal, the university groups said they support the “continuation of negotiations in the hope an appropriate agreement can be reached which will make the transition to open access financially sustainable and equitable”.

Talks ‘futile’

But Stephen Eglen, a computational neuroscience professor at the University of Cambridge, said on 20 February that the negotiations were “futile”.

Eglen said a “detailed critique” of the deal was not possible because of the confidential nature of the negotiations, but that Springer Nature sees gold open access—through which authors or their institutions must pay article processing charges (APCs)—as the “only viable way” to make content freely available.

“If we accept a gold-only view of open access, how can we objectively assess the sustainability of alternative models?” Eglen asked. “A move to a ‘gold only’ open-access world would shift the barrier from reading to publishing content.”

He added that the APC model “introduces as many headaches as it has tried to solve”.

He criticised Springer Nature’s APCs, which he said reach €9,500.

Eglen believes other models for open access are available and “show promise”, such as the subscribe-to-open model in which journals remove a paywall if a threshold number of subscriptions is received.

Research Professional News has asked Springer Nature for comment.

The post UK university groups back rejection of Springer Nature offer appeared first on Research Professional News.

Appointment of Oxford bio-mathematician an “inspired choice”, say research leaders

Incoming government chief scientific adviser Angela McLean will be well placed to hit the ground running on pressing public issues and coordination of R&D spending, senior voices from across the UK research sector have said.

The bio-mathematician was announced on 20 February as successor to Patrick Vallance as the country’s most senior scientist. Currently chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence, she will take up the role of chief scientific adviser to the government from 1 April.

The departmental shake-up is the latest indicator of the government’s intentions to increase its focus on science in the coming months. McLean brings extensive experience to the role, having worked on science and public policy across a multitude of roles including as a member of the Sage committee during the Covid-19 pandemic.

As chief scientist, she will help to steer the government’s science and technology policymaking with the emphasis on improving the quality and use of scientific evidence within government overall.

Deep expertise

Many of those welcoming McLean’s appointment commented on her breadth of expertise. 

Sarah Main, executive director for the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case) said it was “exciting to have someone with her depth of experience taking the helm in such a critical role for the sector and country. I am looking forward to working with her to put science and engineering at the heart of the UK’s future to improve people’s lives and livelihoods.”

Jim McDonald, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, praised McLean’s “impressive track record of leadership on science advice in government. The Academy looks forward to working with her to ensure that engineering and technology insights are at the heart of government policy making.”

Charles Godfray, director of the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University, said: “This is really excellent news; Angela brings to the job huge expertise as a brilliant research scientist as well as enormous experience of the science-policy interface—she is an inspired choice.”

Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society, added: “With Angela at the helm, we can look forward to science being at the heart of the government’s agenda.”

Rocky road

McLean’s appointment does not come without challenges. Speaking to Research Professional News, Adam Ritchie, senior vaccine programme manager at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Medicine, said this is a difficult time for science, which needs to regain public trust following the mistakes of the pandemic.

“Things near the top of her to-do list might be driven by the political environment and society more generally,” he said. “It’s a challenging time, as general public engagement with evidence and appetite for experts seems to be at an all-time low.”

Having worked with McLean personally, on science and public policy at Oxford, Ritchie said: “She was effectively my mentor…She’ll be great at the role, as she’s excellent at taking a balanced view on scientific evidence and bringing in views from a range of scientific experts.”

Her work will build on her previous experiences as a member of Sage, co-chairing the epidemiology subgroup that helped guide the country’s response during the pandemic.

“Given the last few years, I expect responses to infectious diseases will remain high on [her] agenda,” Ritchie said. Environmental issues are also likely to take prominence, he added, including “pesticides and bees, sewage in waterways, and active transport” alongside advances in technologies such as self-driving vehicles and drones.

“Smooth transition”

Kieron Flanagan, professor of science and technology policy at the Alliance Manchester Business School, told Research Professional News that McLean’s experience at the Ministry of Defence should ensure a smooth transition into the role. “She will not have to face that steep learning curve and should be able to hit the ground running,” he said.

“Her MoD experience and experience in the chief scientific adviser network also means she should understand the diversity of ways in which different parts of government seek and use science and technology,” he added. “MoD is a major R&D player, for instance, so managing programmes is relatively more important there than in some other places. This should stand her in good stead in terms of cross-government co-ordination of R&D spending, which is something the UK always struggles with.”

The big challenge

He thought her main challenge is likely to be “taking on a major role in the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology management team whilst still insulating go-science analysis work from the delivery end of policy and maintaining the crucial direct access to the PM and Cabinet for when it might be needed”.

Further clarity, he said, was also needed on whether she would inherit the separate national technology adviser role that Vallance has latterly held along with the chief government scientific adviser role. “Once more you’d imagine that her MoD experience would put her in a good position to take this role, but it hasn’t been mentioned [so far].”

Following her appointment, McLean said: “I am delighted to take on this role at such an important time in our country for science, innovation and technology.”

The post Warm welcome for chief scientific adviser Angela McLean appeared first on Research Professional News.

Ex-health minister James O’Shaughnessy to advise on key challenges to conducting studies in UK

The government has commissioned an independent review aimed at boosting dwindling commercial clinical trial activity in the UK.

The review, which will be conducted by Conservative peer and ex-health minister James O’Shaughnessy, will advise on how to resolve “key challenges” in conducting the studies in the UK, including a fall in the recruitment of patients.

It follows a significant drop in industry clinical trial activity in the UK, with the decline partly blamed on the Covid-19 pandemic, when large numbers of non-Covid studies were suspended.

O’Shaughnessy, who served as health minister between 2016 and 2018 in Theresa May’s government, is due to publish his findings this spring, including priority actions for 2023 as well as setting out longer-term ambitions, the government said.

Health minister Will Quince said the review will “help us to find new ways to conduct commercial clinical trials that will speed up diagnosis, enhance treatment and enable the NHS to deliver world-class care, as well as cementing our position as a life sciences superpower”.

‘Slow timelines’

According to figures published by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in October 2022, the number of industry clinical trials fell by 41 per cent between 2017 and 2021. The report found that the decline was driven by “consistently slow and variable study setup timelines”.

Science minister George Freeman said it was “vital that we act to rebuild competitiveness”.

He added: “Commercial clinical trials are absolutely vital to both our UK life sciences sector and widening NHS patient access to innovative medicines all across the UK.”

Covid springboard

The review follows the publication of the government’s 10-year vision for clinical trials, Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery, in March 2021. In the document, the government said the Covid-19 pandemic should be used as a “springboard” to deliver faster, more efficient and more innovative clinical research.

It outlined several priority areas, such as improving the speed and efficiency of setting up studies, building on digital platforms to deliver clinical research, and making research more diverse and relevant to the whole of the UK.

The post Review to address decline in commercial clinical trials in UK appeared first on Research Professional News.

The Westminster government has named its next chief scientific adviser

Long before the chief scientific and medical advisers to the government became front page news during the Covid-19 pandemic, they were science royalty. Yesterday afternoon, prime minister Rishi Sunak confirmed that the latest addition to this illustrious group would be University of Oxford professor Angela McLean, who has been appointed chief scientific adviser.

Dame Angela, a professor of mathematical biology at Oxford, will be the first woman to hold the position when she takes over from Patrick Vallance in April. That’s quite something when you consider that the role has been around since the 1960s.

Her research interests lie in the use of mathematical models to aid our understanding of the evolution and spread of infectious agents, and she established a mathematical biology unit at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council’s Institute for Animal Health in the mid-1990s.

Also in the 1990s, McLean was a Royal Society research fellow at Oxford and a research fellow at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. In 2009, she was elected as a fellow of the Royal Society. She was awarded the Gabor Medal in 2011 and the Weldon Memorial Prize in 2018.

Currently chief scientific adviser in the Ministry of Defence, McLean was also Vallance’s deputy during the pandemic—a period in which she was a regular attendee at the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. During this time, she sometimes appeared on screen behind the infamous “Stay Alert > Control the Virus > Save Lives” podium to field questions from the press.

In one exchange, she was praised (in non-ministerial quarters, at least) for an apparent willingness to be as critical of the government as the conference format would permit.

Speaking on the Covid response, she said that “running a rapid and reliable testing system is an entirely operational issue, and so the scientific advice is you need a rapid and reliable testing system”—hinting strongly that it was ministers, not experts, who were responsible for any delay on that front. Pressed on whether such a system was in place, she said “it is getting better”, before praising the response in “other countries”.

It might not be explosive, but speaking truth to power is pretty much the job description of the chief scientific adviser. McLean will be charged with offering independent scientific advice to the prime minister and the cabinet across its policymaking. That means sitting in a room with deputy prime minister Dominic Raab, home secretary Suella Braverman and levelling-up secretary Michael Gove and attempting to talk about the importance of rational thinking, logic and expertise. It’s a tough gig.

In addition, McLean will be head of the Government Science and Engineering Profession—a group of 10,000+ civil servants with a background or interest in science and engineering—and will be part of the executive team of the newly created Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. She will also head up the Office for Science and Technology Strategy, which will have a huge role to play in helping to realise the UK’s aim to be a ‘science superpower’.

“I am delighted to take on this role at such an important time in our country for science, innovation and technology,” McLean said of her appointment. “All of us in government are going to greatly miss Sir Patrick, and I look forward to working with colleagues to build on the work he has led during his time as government chief scientific adviser.

“My long-term mentor, the late Lord Robert May, held the post of government chief scientific adviser between 1995 and 2000 and that personal connection adds a particular depth to my sense of honour in being asked to take on this role.”

A warm welcome

The appointment comes at a critical time for UK science policy, with R&D now sitting under the jurisdiction of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The appointment has been roundly welcomed by those you’d expect to be in the know.

“The role of science in our society has never been more important,” said Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society. “In the aftermath of a worldwide pandemic, and with huge progress still to be made on the big challenges of our time, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, Angela’s appointment is excellent news.”

He described McLean as “an outstanding scientist and a leader in the science community” with “a proven track record of advising the government”.

“With Angela at the helm, we can look forward to science being at the heart of the government’s agenda,” he added.

Anne Johnson, president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, said the chief scientific adviser plays “an essential role in championing the opportunities that scientific research brings, including leading innovation, boosting economic growth and improving the health of the nation”.

“As we saw during the pandemic, research is vital for protecting the UK from future health threats,” Johnson added. McLean “brings a wealth of experience to this role, including her key contribution on the Covid-19 Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. Her previous role as chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence and her broad expertise in infectious disease epidemiology both place her well to best champion evidence-based decision-making in government.”

There was no shortage of glowing testimonies. Sarah Main, executive director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said it was “exciting to have someone with her depth of experience taking the helm in such a critical role for the sector and country”.

Jim McDonald, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, praised McLean’s “unique wealth of experience in both the theory of mathematical biology and crucially how to apply it to real-life challenges and assessment of resilience and risk”.

Playbook adds its voice to the welcoming party, too. Though we hope to be seeing rather fewer primetime television podium appearances than her predecessor endured.

And finally…

Did you know that the University of Sheffield holds the world record for the most people tossing pancakes at the same time? Well, you do now.

The record is 890, set at the institution in 2012. More than 1,500 signed up for the event but only 930 people showed up. Then, despite having only one job, 40 participants had to be discounted due to either dropping their pancake or not managing to toss their pancake within the allotted time.

Despite the problems, the record stands. We can’t quite recall if it made it into Sheffield’s 2014 Research Excellence Framework submission, bit it was a missed opportunity if not.

On Research Professional News today

Sophie Inge reports that the UK government has appointed Angela McLean to replace Patrick Vallance as its chief scientific adviser.

Fiona McIntyre covers the cancellation of strike action on campuses for the next two weeks.

Rachel Magee tells us that a think tank director has warned that researchers in the UK cannot be allowed to “simmer in uncertainty” as the country continues to be blocked from taking part in the EU’s research and innovation funding programmes, and the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency will have a relationship built on “partnership and trust” with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Rachel adds that Relx, the parent company of academic publishing giant Elsevier, has reported adjusted profit growth of almost 20 per cent for its 2022 financial year.

Andrew Silver writes that researchers in New Zealand can now apply to the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme in line with the association deal struck last year, and a single patent that would protect intellectual property across many EU countries is finally set to launch on 1 June after years of delays.

In the news

ITV News reports that a university is tackling period poverty with free products on campus.

The Financial Times looks at how the University of Oxford stuck with the Sacklers as opioid deaths led others to cut ties, and English colleges face a funding hit after a ban on commercial loans.

In The Independent, a professor at a Florida university may be fired for ‘indoctrinating’ students on race.

i News says that university students are squatting or sofa surfing as rent outstrips loans in most UK cities.

In The Times, the King has chosen an Aberdeen academic to write the coronation music, the vice-chancellor of the University of Bristol writes that her institution is not defensive or intolerant, and universities say that cheats who use an artificial intelligence platform risk disgrace.

The day ahead

The University and College Union is conducting an e-vote for members on whether they agree with the decision to suspend strike action, and there is an online rally with general secretary Jo Grady at 7.30pm tonight before a strike mandate reballot opens tomorrow.

Advance HE publishes a literature review on engaging students through partnership.

The Department for Education and the Higher Education Statistics Agency are releasing data on higher education staff for 2021-22.

At 8.30am, the Higher Education Policy Institute and Advance HE are holding a webinar in the House of Commons on financial sustainability at universities.

The Westminster Health Forum is holding a conference from 9am that will look at the next steps for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

From 2pm, the Centre for Global Higher Education is holding a webinar on graduate skills demand in Britain.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Harriet Swain and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Come McLean appeared first on Research Professional News.

Top Ministry of Defence adviser will replace Patrick Vallance as UK’s most senior scientist

The UK government has appointed Angela McLean to replace Patrick Vallance as its chief scientific adviser.

McLean (pictured), currently chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence, will become the UK’s first female chief scientific adviser.

Science minister Michelle Donelan said: “Dame Angela is well respected across the science community and I hope this appointment will inspire more women and young girls to see science, technology, engineering and medicine subjects as an exciting career choice. 

“I look forward to working with her to build on the immense work of Sir Patrick Vallance to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the science and technology revolution.”

McLean, who is also a professor of mathematical biology at the University of Oxford, said: “I am delighted to take on this role at such an important time in our country for science, innovation and technology.

“My long-term mentor, the late Lord Robert May, held the post…between 1995 and 2000 and that personal connection adds a particular depth to my sense of honour in being asked to take on this role.”

The post Angela McLean appointed chief scientific adviser appeared first on Research Professional News.

Centre-right think tank Onward pushes UK to advance its science and technology base

Researchers in the UK cannot be allowed to “simmer in uncertainty” as the country continues to be blocked from taking part in the EU’s research and innovation funding programmes, a think tank director has warned.

While the UK has said repeatedly that its ideal scenario is association to the EU’s Horizon Europe R&I programme, Sebastian Payne, director of the centre-right think tank Onward, said the “strength and longevity” of the country’s science and technology sector will depend on the country’s own ambitions.

He added that having a plan B in case the EU decides not to allow UK access to its programmes is “crucial” and that the country should seize the opportunities of Brexit to make sure its regulatory system is modern and promotes innovation.

The UK has been prevented by the EU from taking part in its R&I programmes due to political disputes over trade involving Northern Ireland. This includes Horizon Europe as well as the Earth observation programme Copernicus and the Euratom nuclear research and training programme.

“The UK is committed to association in the Horizon Europe programme, but we cannot allow our science community to simmer in uncertainty. The strength and longevity of these critical sectors will depend on our internal ambitions but also the success of international engagement,” Payne said in a pamphlet from the think tank, published on 18 February.

He added that the “ingredients for the UK to become a ‘science superpower’ are already present”, in light of the recent creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as well as the country having a good academic base, thriving science parks and long-term government support.

‘Set research missions’

In the pamphlet, Onward brought together a set of ideas presented by experts at two events earlier in the year focused on the UK’s science and technology global strategy.

John Bell, regius professor of medicine at the University of Oxford, said the UK needs to become a science superpower as this is “probably the only way to generate the levels of productivity and economic growth to remain a leading country in the world”.

“It is not optional for the UK to become a ‘science superpower’. The truth is, if we do not become a superpower, the nation as a whole will suffer,” Bell said.

He added that mission-based funding was “crucial” to advance science and technology as the UK currently largely uses response-mode funding, through which grants are awarded in response to research proposals.

“It is not about getting a grant, doing some research or writing a paper. It is about trying to head towards a result—one which makes a difference in a specific field,” Bell said.

“Whether in or out of Horizon, a question that must be answered is: how do we better incentivise and fund mission-based research to lie alongside ‘response-mode’ research?”

‘Free the servants’

James Phillips, former special adviser to the prime minister on science and technology, said the UK “needs to not only think about what we are weak at but what other countries are weak at”.

He said the UK should identify “niches” it could exploit, such as the “terrible situation” for junior scientists globally. Many young researchers are on short-term contracts and have to work in labs on research led by more established scientists.

“These junior researchers are an amazing resource,” Phillips said. “We should be creating institutions to attract them, offering an alternative to their current servitude.”

Priya Guha, a venture partner at Merian Ventures and non-executive director at national funder UK Research and Innovation, said the UK “needs to bring the City of London [financial services] much closer to the innovation ecosystem”.

She said it was an “intense source of frustration” that pension funds supporting UK innovation come from the US and Canada rather than the UK.

“We need to change that because the science that we want to be commercialised and scaled requires patient capital. Presently we do not have enough of that patient capital in the UK.”

Science minister George Freeman agreed with Guha at one of the Onward events, saying the country needs to connect the City of London to its science and technology base.

Freeman added that if the government can “get the right regime in place…I think we’re poised to unlock a sort of new golden era of science and technology companies floating in London” on the stock exchange.

The post UK-EU deadlock ‘cannot let academia simmer in uncertainty’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Framework agreement sets out funder’s relationship to parent department and UK Research and Innovation

The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency will have a relationship built on “partnership and trust” with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, according to a new framework agreement for the £800 million funder.

The agreement, published on 17 February, sets out the broad framework within which the funder for “high-risk, high-payoff” research will operate, and its relationship with its new parent department, which was created earlier this month following a split from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The document says Aria and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Dsit) will “work together in recognition of each other’s roles and areas of expertise, providing an effective environment for Aria to achieve its objectives through the promotion of partnership and trust”.

It adds that the funding agency will have “maximum autonomy” over its research and project choice, procedures and institutional culture.

“Decisions on the programme portfolio will be set by Aria, not ministers, and allocation of funding to research projects will be decided by those with relevant technical expertise.”

Advance sight of announcements

However, the agreement sets out some exceptions to Aria’s freedoms in relation to the department.

For example, Aria must “provide Dsit with advance sight of announcements involving significant programme funding, or appointments to Aria’s board, to enable effective joint planning and to give ministers the opportunity to be involved”.

The funder is also required to seek prior approval from Dsit and—where appropriate—the Treasury when incurring expenditure that “falls outside the delegations or which is not provided for in Aria’s annual budget” or which “might be considered novel, contentious or repercussive”.

In addition, the funder’s chief executive, Ilan Gur (pictured), is required to present the department with a three-year strategy and annual corporate plan and to inform it of progress in “Aria’s delivery of its strategic objectives, and in demonstrating how resources are being used to achieve those objectives”.

Formally established in January this year, Aria has been the subject of much speculation since it was first promised in the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto. Parliament passed a bill to create the agency last year, with its initial budget expected to be £800m for the first five years.

But Aria has yet to fund any projects and it is still unclear what the agency’s vision and missions will be—an issue that continues to divide opinion among politicians and the wider science community.

‘Mutually beneficial relationship’ with UKRI

As well as Aria’s relationship to Dsit, the framework agreement provides new information about the funder’s relationship with the national funder UK Research and Innovation.

Aria will build a “mutually beneficial relationship with UKRI”, including its research councils and Innovate UK, the framework says.

It adds that it is “mutually beneficial for Aria and UKRI to be aware of each other’s priorities and major research programmes” and also states that the funders “can enter into agreements where necessary to better support their objectives”, including agreements on shared projects and joint funding.

Meanwhile, it says Aria should “work closely and collaboratively with other bodies in the wider research and innovation landscape on areas of shared interest to maximise benefits”.

The post Aria and science department ties based on ‘partnership and trust’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Unions suspend strike action for two weeks as Acas talks intensify

On Friday evening, the University and College Union announced a breakthrough in the talks between employers and trade unions at the conciliation service Acas. General secretary Jo Grady took to social media to say that industrial action planned for this week and next had been called off, and she congratulated members: “You did it!”

Quite what the UCU members have done is not especially clear, and reaction to the announcement has been mixed. First, the detail on what has been agreed at Acas.

The Universities and Colleges Employers Association (Ucea) and the five higher education trade unions (the UCU, the Educational Institute of Scotland, Unison, Unite and the GMB) issued a joint statement on Friday evening. It confirms the suspension of planned action by the UCU, Unison and Unite—the EIS and the GMB had no strikes scheduled in the next two weeks.

According to the statement, all parties agree that “some progress at the lower end of the pay spine has been made”, although “an impasse, rather than an agreement, has been reached” and the pay dispute resolution procedure at Acas “has been exhausted”. So far, so what?

That sounds a lot like Ucea’s “full and final” offer is still the only thing on the table for most university staff, with a commitment to pay part of it early to help in the cost of living crisis. The lower end of the scale being referred to here does not even cover most postdocs.

Employers and unions have agreed to further “time-limited negotiations”, under the auspices of Acas, aimed at agreeing a revised pay spine. “The aims of this review would be to address the pay compression that has developed over recent years,” reads the joint statement.

A revised national pay spine is not an easy thing to produce. The reality of agreeing, introducing and implementing one in 150 universities means it would be unlikely to take effect until September 2025.

Employers and unions have also agreed to Acas-brokered talks on contract types, workload and pay gaps. On contracts, the unions say that they “welcome Ucea’s commitment to use its leadership and convening power to identify concrete steps which employers are able to commit to”.

According to the joint statement, “Ucea has agreed to consult its members, with a positive recommendation to take action on zero-hours contracts.” However, there is quite a big caveat here.

The statement reads: “While the contractual arrangements offered to employees will be for individual institutions to determine, we would expect indefinite contracts with fixed or minimal hours to be the general form of employment relationship between employers and employees in higher education institutions.

“We accept that there will be specifically defined reasons in any organisation for offering indefinite or fixed-term employment arrangements without fixed or minimum hours where it is appropriate. We would expect these reasons to be discussed between higher education institutions and their local trade unions.”

In other words, we might have an agreement on “expectations” on zero-hours contracts, but it is up to universities to implement and will not apply in certain circumstances. That does not sound like a particularly robust commitment that will survive contact with the reality of university financial planning.

The carefully worded phraseology of those sentences on “employment arrangements” could be said to accurately describe the present situation in universities—there is an expectation for permanent contracts, but circumstances exist where that is not always possible or appropriate. It is not clear what is going to change here.

That did not stop the UCU announcing “an end to all involuntary zero-hour contracts” in universities. Dear reader, you do not need to be FR Leavis to see that this is not what the joint statement says.

Talks will continue at Acas until the end of February. UCU members will be reballoted to extend the union’s mandate for strike action, with the postal vote arriving on Wednesday 22 February.

For the record, the UCU was represented at Acas by Grady, president-elect Justine Mercer and bargaining heads Jon Hegerty and Gregg Barnett. On the eve of the ballot opening, Grady will host an online gathering for members at 7.30pm. She can expect some interesting questions about what exactly has been agreed at Acas.

Pension day

Meanwhile, in what was surely a coordinated move, Universities UK and the UCU released a joint statement on Friday evening concerning the Universities Superannuation Scheme. The fund is currently going through its most recent valuation process.

“The latest information provided by the USS trustee suggests that the forthcoming 2023 valuation is likely to reveal a high probability of being able to improve benefits and reduce contributions,” reads the statement, to the surprise of no-one who has been watching the performance of the pension fund’s assets in the past 12 months.

“Should this be confirmed,” say employers and the union, “this would allow for a return to a comparable level of future benefits as existed before the April 2022 changes, as well as achieve a reduction in costs for members and employers.” In other words, things could go back to how they were, probably by April 2024.

The statement also commits to jointly exploring “a long-term solution for managing risk which can provide more stable and sustainable defined benefits and contributions, whilst protecting scheme members’ long-term interests, and so that we do not return to dispute at each valuation”.

“We agree, in relation to these aspects, to work together on a constructive dialogue with the Pensions Regulator and the Department for Work and Pensions,” it states.

There is no timescale put on that. Work will also continue on USS governance reform, a low-cost option for younger members and divestment from fossil fuels—even if the fund’s holdings in this field have contributed to the improving health of the scheme.

Greeted with much less fanfare than the announcement on pay, this joint statement seems much more significant for industrial relations in universities than the news of possible revisions to the pay scale or an agreed wording on zero-hours contracts. If contribution rates are decreased and benefits improved, and the fund continues to perform well, that is pretty much the end of the USS strike.

That much was clear before this current round of 18 days of industrial action was announced. There has been a suspicion among some that the ‘four fights’ dispute was only ever a proxy for the USS dispute, bringing out the post-1992s to prop up waning action over older universities’ pension scheme.

It now looks as if, with resolution of the USS dispute in sight, the pay and conditions dispute could also be drawn to a close, with a pay offer in the landing zone of 5 per cent for most university staff and a promissory note from employers on future talks about issues they have not been quick to deal with in the past. Will that be enough to satisfy the membership?

The reaction on social media over the weekend—just one way of sampling the mood of members—ranged from the triumphant and the congratulatory to those complaining of the short notice to prepare classes. Perhaps more ominously, there were significant voices decrying the failure to consult the union’s Higher Education Committee before calling off this week’s strikes.

Saira Weiner, a UCU Left member of the National Executive Committee and chair of the union’s recruitment, campaigns and organising committee, said: “It is absolutely not acceptable that the general secretary makes these decisions over and above democratic processes in the union.” Weiner also reminded her Twitter followers how Grady had opposed the actions of Sally Hunt, her predecessor as general secretary, when Hunt called off strike action after reaching an agreement with employers over the USS at Acas in spring 2018.

At the time, Grady tweeted: “Continuing action during Acas is not only the right move but a clear signal from the UCU that they are not backing down. Demonstrates our strength to Universities UK.” Hunt’s agreement was rejected by branch delegates and she was subsequently subject to a no-confidence motion at the union’s annual conference.

UCU Left held a Zoom meeting of its associates at 7.30pm last night. The group continues to push for a higher education sector special conference to discuss the strike action, with the UCU annual congress due to take place at the end of May.

So, much still remains up in the air. We have continuing talks rather than a substantive offer; an improving USS pension fund; and brewing fights ahead within the UCU over union democracy. Meanwhile, for the next two weeks at least, everyone can go back to work.

And finally…

In good news for sofas in south London, it is reported that Boris Johnson has bought a house. To be precise, a £4 million Georgian mansion in Oxfordshire—that speech writing must be going well.

To celebrate the news, British Academy chief executive Hetan Shah told Twitter that the house purchased by Johnson “was once owned by British Academy fellow and theologian William Inge, who was apparently anti democracy, anti social welfare but keen on animal rights and pro nudism”. Sounds like a nice guy. Let’s hope the academy has changed its fellowship criteria since Inge was elected.

On Research Professional News today

In yesterday’s Sunday Reading, Iain Gillespie looks at what Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation could mean for Scotland’s universities.

Fiona McIntyre reports that the amount of money that staff and employers pay into the Universities Superannuation Scheme could fall significantly as the overall contribution rate is not expected to top 20 per cent at the next valuation, and an analysis has found that business studies graduates enjoy high employment rates but not enough are continuing into academic careers.

Research policy experts have said that UK association to EU R&D programmes should take place “swiftly” if a trade deal on Northern Ireland is reached, but they warn that more negotiations will be needed. Robin Bisson and Sophie Inge have the story.

Robin adds that a group of learned societies and research organisations has urged EU research commissioner Mariya Gabriel to act quickly on initiatives to support research careers.

Peer review is “presiding over the collapse” of medical scholarship and other disciplines should “take note” to avoid going down a similar path, a study has claimed, and the European University Association has launched a consultation to consider the future of collaboration between higher education institutions. Rachel Magee reports.

Andrew Silver tells us that EU representatives have begun planning the bloc’s next research and innovation programme, which is scheduled to begin in 2028, and a group representing students across Europe has called for Switzerland to be allowed to regain full access to the EU’s Erasmus+ academic mobility programme, saying the existing freeze-out is harming the continent’s young people.

In the news

The BBC reports that seven days of university strikes have been paused, the University of Glasgow is to increase rents by nearly 10 per cent, a multimillion-pound university campus is ready to open in Dumfries, a student apartment block in Birmingham may get the go-ahead, and a woman who passed up university to care for her autistic foster brother says it changed her life.

In The Guardian, strikes by university staff have been called off after a pay breakthrough.

The Financial Times says that UK university strikes have been called off as talks near a deal.

In The Telegraph, a Harvard professor says that students are turning their back on ‘bullying’ cancel culture, university cheating doubled after a switch to online exams, and a comment piece says that striking lecturers are driving the best students west.

In The Times, the president of Oxford’s student union says the university needs diverse students, the University of Aberdeen is ‘to rid colonialism from courses’, and cheating at universities doubled after the start of online exams.

The week ahead

Monday

Advance HE is releasing a literature review on engaging students through partnership, and it holds a module from 10am under its Diversifying Leadership programme for early career academics and professional services staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.

Tuesday

The Department for Education and the Higher Education Statistics Agency are releasing data on higher education staff for 2021-22.

At 8.30am, the Higher Education Policy Institute and Advance HE are holding a webinar in the House of Commons on financial sustainability at universities.

The Westminster Health Forum is holding a conference from 9am that will look at the next steps for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

From 2pm, the Centre for Global Higher Education is holding a webinar on graduate skills demand in Britain.

Wednesday

Advance HE is holding a webinar at 7am on students as partners.

From 9am to 5pm, the Arts and Humanities Research Council is holding a course for academics on engaging with government.

At 9.30am, the House of Commons science and technology committee is hearing evidence on the governance of artificial intelligence.

Thursday

From 9.30am, the Quality Assurance Agency is holding its Quality Insights Conference 2023.

At 11am, the House of Lords will discuss a question on the loss of funding to the UK since 2020 as a result of leaving the EU’s Horizon R&D funding programme.

From 2pm, the Centre for Global Higher Education is holding an event on international education in Hong Kong.

Friday

The Westminster Higher Education Forum is holding a conference from 9am on priorities for supporting disabled students in higher education.

Advance HE is holding a development programme from 9am on flexible and hybrid leadership.

At 9.30am, the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Insights Conference 2023 continues for a second day.

From 10.30am, University College London’s Institute of Education is holding a talk on ownership, authorship and academic integrity within the context of machine translation.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Harriet Swain, Chris Parr and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Spin doctors appeared first on Research Professional News.

Reports of deal rekindle hopes of UK finally joining EU R&D programmes, including Horizon Europe

Research policy experts have said that UK association to EU R&D programmes should take place “swiftly” if a trade deal on Northern Ireland is reached, but warn that more negotiations will be needed.

On 16 February, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak travelled to Belfast to meet Northern Irish politicians amid widespread reports that a deal with the EU could be imminent. Foreign secretary James Cleverly is also holding talks with European Commission vice-president Maroš Šefčovič in Brussels.

The long-running spat over post-Brexit trade in Northern Ireland has been a major barrier to the UK joining the EU’s €95.5bn (£85bn) R&D programme, Horizon Europe, as well as the nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth-observation programme Copernicus.

With news of the talks, there was optimism that an end to the impasse might be in sight.

Mike Galsworthy, director of the campaign group, Scientists for EU, told Research Professional News a deal would “likely solve the Horizon issue overnight and allow our scientists to get back in the game”.

Peter Mason, head of global research and innovation policy at the international wing of Universities UK, which represents university vice-chancellors, said association was “vital for our sector to continue to attract global talent and to enable our researchers to collaborate with our closest partners on topics of global importance”.

Association “must be confirmed as swiftly as possible if a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol is reached”, he added.

Negotiations necessary

While breaking the deadlock on Northern Ireland theoretically removes the barrier to UK association, more than two years have elapsed since the launch of Horizon Europe, during which time the UK has redirected some money set aside for joining EU programmes.

For example, some of the budget has been used to provide replacement funds for successful UK-based projects which have been unable to access funding from the EU.

Kieron Flanagan, a professor of science and technology policy at the University of Manchester, pointed out that the original agreement would need to be renegotiated to deal with the “reality that the UK has paid for UK participation whilst the European Commission has still incurred administration costs”.

“My guess would be weeks rather than months, especially with the goodwill from the deal lubricating the discussion,” he said.

If a new deal is reached, Catherine Barnard, deputy director at the academic network UK in a Changing Europe and a professor in EU law at the University of Cambridge, said association to Horizon could be completed “reasonably quickly”. 

“If there is an agreement on Northern Ireland and the UK managed to get it through…then I think we will see quite a lot of defrosting of the relationship,” she said.

Once the agreement is reached, the “EU will want to show goodwill to the UK and Horizon is the most visible way of doing that,” she added.

Political priorities

A Commission spokesperson said it does not comment on ongoing discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol, but that there is no deadline for the UK to join its programmes.

Michelle Donelan, the UK’s recently appointed secretary of state at the newly created Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, has been urged by the research community to prioritise association to Horizon Europe.

Writing in the Telegraph on 11 February, Donelan said she would set out her position on the issue “in the coming weeks” but warned she would “not sit idly by while our researchers are sidelined”.

“If we cannot associate, we are more than ready to go it alone with our own global-facing alternative, working with science powerhouses such as the US, Switzerland and Japan to deliver international science collaborations,” the minister wrote. “The time for waiting is quickly coming to an end and I will not shy away from striking out alone.”

If association is not approved by the EU, the UK government has prepared an alternative set of programmes to support UK researchers—known as plan B—as set out in a document published in July 2022.

The plan includes a new “flagship talent offer” with “high-value, long-term fellowships and a strong international mobility offer”, as well as an “ambitious programme for supporting global collaboration” and an increase in investment for “end-to-end innovation”.

A spokesperson for the UK government said: “We have tirelessly been pushing the EU to implement our association to EU Programmes, but are ready to invest in the sector, if necessary, through launching our own comprehensive alternative programme of international science, research, and innovation collaborations.

“The terms we agreed to associate with Horizon Europe in 2020 were based on the UK’s participation for the full multiannual financial framework. We are clear that given the EU’s delays the UK will only pay for the period of actual association to the programmes. We remain ready to discuss this with the EU.”

Update 17/2 – This article was updated with a comment from the UK government.

The post Northern Ireland talks ignite hope for fast UK association to Horizon appeared first on Research Professional News.

Study claims peer review does not maintain standards in academic publishing

Peer review is “presiding over the collapse” of medical scholarship and other disciplines should “take note” to avoid going down a similar path, a study has claimed.

In a paper on the gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals, Stuart Macdonald, a professor at the University of Leicester, argued that peer review no longer maintains standards in academic publishing.

Rather, it covers up the gaming of citation and authorship, where researchers work the system and exploit loopholes, Macdonald found. He added that the situation is worse in medical publishing as authorship is also gamed with ghost writing and author slots being bought and sold.

“Far from being the guardian of scholarship in medicine, peer review is presiding over its collapse. Other disciplines would do well to take heed,” Macdonald said in the paper, published by Sage on 7 February.

Medical publishing warning

In medical academia, authorship is gamed as well as citations, Macdonald found. In the paper, he said that “author slots are openly bought and sold”, while ghost writing is common, with named authors often having made little contribution to an article.

Brokers in Russia and China sell authorship of medical articles, priced according to the prestige and value attached to the journal, Macdonald claimed. He said that corruption in medical publishing is “sanitised” and “even sanctified” by peer review.

For Macdonald, medical publishing is a “glaring” example of academic publishing gone “really bad” and a “warning” to other disciplines.

“Other disciplines should take note lest they fall into the mire in which medicine is sinking,” he said.

Gaming in all disciplines

In most disciplines, researchers are the “most creative and energetic gamers”, Macdonald argued, and their techniques can include mutual citation agreements with others, self-citation and repeatedly downloading their own articles.

The growing reluctance of academics to be peer reviewers, which is unpaid, has been a long-standing issue in academia. The paper found that peer review does not work to stop gaming tactics as academics are “unwilling to act as policemen to root out misconduct”.

“The peer review beloved of academic publishers and the academic establishment is an elaborate ritual, created and exploited by the very same academic publishers and academic establishment for their own gain,” Macdonald said.

The post Peer review ‘presiding over collapse’ of medical scholarship appeared first on Research Professional News.

Are universities offering the right kind of support to students with disabilities?

Support, legislation and funding have all improved for students with disabilities as awareness grows both of their needs and of the benefits brought by diversity. But a report published yesterday suggests a dearth of evidence on which kinds of help are proving effective.

The report, produced by Taso, the Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education, in conjunction with the University of Lincoln, reviewed the evidence on what works to reduce equality gaps for disabled students—and found there wasn’t much.

This matters because the number of these students is growing and because they continue to experience disadvantages compared with their peers without disabilities. Some 332,300 UK higher education students reported having a disability of some kind in 2019-20—more than 17 per cent of all home students and an increase of 106,000, or 47 per cent, since 2014-15.

This was largely driven by the growth in students reporting a mental health condition—up more than 180 per cent over this period. But people with disabilities remain underrepresented among university entrants and often do less well in every area of university life, from negotiating the transition to university to continuation, attainment, progression and levels of employability and employment.

Evidence base

The Taso report identified a lack of consistency in collecting, reporting and analysing data on students with disabilities, a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of training or adjustments made to support these students and a lack of disabled role models among academics, particularly senior staff. What evidence does exist often comes from the US, where the cultural and legislative background for supporting people with disabilities can be very different.

It is always surprising how easily institutions focused on high-quality research can reject basic research principles under the pressure to demonstrate they are taking action. But then perhaps the progress already made in supporting students with disabilities would not have been achieved had every step waited for evaluation.

At least now it seems that awareness is growing of the need not only to be seen to be doing something to support these students but to be doing something that is actually useful.

Taso is trying to improve the evidence base through two projects involving the University of Cambridge as an independent evaluator. One, at the London School of Economics and Political Science, targets careers appointments that are open to disabled students or graduates who feel they would benefit.

The other, at the University of Central Lancashire, trains students to mentor and support other Uclan students to help them adjust to university life.

The independent evaluator SQW will also work with the University of Brighton and the University of Exeter on further evaluation projects. The outcomes of this work will be published this summer.

Writing for Research Professional News earlier this week, Pete Quinn described the work he is doing with Disabled Students UK and the University of Oxford’s Interdisciplinary Bioscience Doctoral Training Partnership to survey disabled PhD students in the life sciences across the UK, looking at challenges as well as examples of good practice across every stage of doctoral training.

The British Academy has also just introduced a £100,000 fund to provide additional support to help researchers with particular needs, including caring responsibilities or a disability, apply for funding, while another project is looking at the barriers that disabled scientists face and how labs can be made more accessible.

Meanwhile, an All-Party Parliamentary Group looking into the impact of the cost of living crisis on students has made a particular appeal to disabled students to report how they have been affected.

All these actions are part of a wider drive to improve working culture and diversity among researchers and university communities more generally, as well as to address concerns about the particular needs of those with disabilities.

Pandemic fallout

Covid-19 also helped focus minds. While more students with disabilities deferred their university place during Covid, remote working proved a boon for some. Attainment improved among these students, which meant that although they continued to perform less well than their peers, the gap more than halved between 2016-17 and 2020-21.

A report from the Disabled Students’ Commission last April warned universities to be wary about removing support for disabled students put in place during the pandemic, especially as these students now know what is feasible in terms of help.

And if universities learned anything during the pandemic, it was that dealing with difficulties can stimulate innovation and rapid progress—an argument for the benefits that students with disabilities might bring.

One problem is that students’ needs vary significantly depending on their disability. Speaking at a panel to launch the Taso report, Geoff Layer, chair of the Disabled Students’ Commission and former vice-chancellor of the University of Wolverhampton, questioned why students with a range of disabilities were offered a generic period of extra time in exams.

Why not give them a range of options about how they would like to be assessed so that they can choose the assessment in which they are most able to demonstrate their abilities? That would also help institutions gain a deeper understanding of what different disabilities mean.

He also urged recognition of how students with disabilities are affected in different ways depending on the type of course or subject they are studying or their own background. International students, for example, might have a different culture of seeking support or particular problems obtaining medical evidence of a disability.

Access all areas

Another issue is that these students do not just need support academically. They are likely to have problems with access to accommodation, freshers’ week events, extracurricular activities and other ways of belonging that will significantly affect their university experience.

Omar Khan, director of Taso, said that the current focus was on whole-of-institution approaches to tackling inequalities but that the effectiveness of these approaches needed to be properly evaluated and scrutinised.

He pointed out that the Office for Students was interested in looking at how far access and participation plans commit to addressing disability inequalities and evaluating them, and he suggested that there was scope to do more here in terms of enabling students to reach their potential through more inclusive curricula rather than making reasonable adjustments for individuals.

But working towards improving inequalities as a whole institution should not ignore the immediate and medium-term needs of particular students and groups of students, he said.

Amelia McLoughlan, network director at Disabled Students UK and a speaker at the Taso panel, said it was all about proper preparation and anticipating potential needs in advance. Having wheelchair access or a British Sign Language interpreter in place would enable universities to normalise students’ disabilities from day one, reducing stigma.

Dealing with stigma

This is another major problem. One of the difficulties in gathering data that the report identified was students’ reluctance to disclose a disability, especially if they were unsure about how disclosing it would help them.

“Do you really want to share the information and open up a whole Pandora’s Box of the number of times you have to share that information with an institution?” said Layer. “Because it can be a nightmare. And you’re talking about some of our most vulnerable students, putting them through great difficulties in terms of sharing information.”

A pilot scheme is investigating disability passports, which would allow information about a student’s disability to travel with them from university into the workplace, and these could be extended to run from school into university, although that would not help anyone who developed a disability during their time in higher education.

Another aspect of stigma is the reluctance of staff to disclose a disability. This is a particular problem because plenty of evidence shows that being able to identify with people in leadership positions is a key driver of student success.

McLoughlan said she had come across staff unwilling to declare a disability because of fears it could harm their job or career prospects.

David Ruebain, pro vice-chancellor for culture, equality and inclusion at the University of Sussex, offered a different perspective here. He said that when he worked at the Equality Challenge Unit, he came across a surprising number of vice-chancellors, principals and pro vice-chancellors with disabilities. Most had developed these through the ageing process.

“Any of us who live long enough are going to become disabled—or the vast majority are,” he said. It’s a thought that might help concentrate minds in the search to establish what works in terms of offering support.

And finally…

Scotland may be a smaller country than its southern neighbour but its new leader is likely to be drawn from a pool of candidates with a wider range of educational backgrounds.

Whereas Rishi Sunak (philosophy, politics and economics, Oxford) succeeded Liz Truss (philosophy, politics and economics, Oxford) following the downfall of Boris Johnson (classics, Oxford) as UK prime minister, only one of those tipped to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as Scottish first minister shares her alma mater of the University of Glasgow—and he has recently faced calls to resign. That is health secretary Humza Yousaf, who has been criticised over his handling of the NHS.

Of the other predicted runners and riders, Kate Forbes, the Scottish National Party’s finance secretary, went to Cambridge, where she studied history; Angus Robertson, cabinet secretary for the constitution, external affairs and culture, studied politics and international relations at Aberdeen; and Keith Brown, depute leader of the SNP, studied politics at Dundee. John Swinney, deputy first minister, who studied politics at the University of Edinburgh, last night ruled himself out of the contest.

On Research Professional News today

The reputation of UK higher education is at risk thanks to changes to England’s Designated Quality Body role, a report has concluded, as it warned that a review of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 was “overdue”, and a survey has found that the extent to which UK undergraduate students are engaging with their courses has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Chris Parr reports.

Fiona McIntyre tells us that a lack of awareness among employers and low levels of support from policymakers are stifling the potential of the two-year post-study work visa for international graduates.

Robin Bisson brings us news that an initiative to coordinate investment in clean technologies has been launched by UK prime minister Rishi Sunak and US philanthropist Bill Gates, and the head of a Dutch company that plays a leading role in global microchip manufacturing has warned that increasing geopolitical tension could threaten innovation.

The Royal Society of Chemistry has launched two gold open-access journals that will be free of charge for researchers to publish in until 2025, and heads of Swiss universities and research institutes have backed a campaign against sexual harassment in academia. Rachel Magee covers the news.

Andrew Silver reports that the European Commission has referred four EU member states to the bloc’s top court, saying they have “failed” to implement rules on opening up public sector data.

In the news

The BBC reports that the University of Sheffield is to open a national 6G research facility.

ITV News reports that 90,000 students are to sue their universities over Covid disruption, and a University of East Anglia centre invites visitors to pay ‘if and what they can’.

In The Telegraph, Oxford scholars have reportedly said that medieval classics may be racist and misogynist.

In The Times, a first humanist head chaplain has been appointed at a British university, cleared professor Steven Greer fears for academic freedom, a gag clause stops the Science Museum criticising an oil sponsor, and comment pieces look at ‘how to solve the campus free speech crisis’ and how universities can do more for social mobility.

Mail Online says that Oxford academics have issued trigger warnings over Chaucer.

The Express says that a ‘woke row’ has exploded after a university reportedly branded the phrase ‘Christian name’ offensive.

The day ahead

The Office for National Statistics publishes experimental data on regional R&D.

The Higher Education Policy Institute has a blogpost on how to prioritise community engagement within higher education.

The Chartered Association of Business Schools publishes an analysis of the latest Graduate Outcomes data.

The British Academy has opened a scheme to fund applicants’ additional needs.

The Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education announces new partners to build an evidence base in an efficacy pilot.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Chris Parr and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Words on what works appeared first on Research Professional News.

Publishing in two new Royal Society of Chemistry journals will be free until 2025

The Royal Society of Chemistry has launched two new gold open-access journals that will be free of charge for researchers to publish until 2025.

The journals will centre on applied interfacial and polymer research respectively, which RSC said makes them its first publications to focus solely on applied science breakthroughs.

RSC said the decision to make the publications gold open-access is part of its commitment to make all its fully owned journals open access by 2027.

The gold open-access model has been criticised for shifting the burden of paying for scholarly publishing from readers to researchers as academics or their institutions must pay article processing charges. But RSC has said it will cover the article processing charges for the new journals until mid-2025.

Emily Pentzer, an associate professor of materials science and engineering at Texas A&M University in the US, has been named editor-in-chief of RSC Applied Polymers.

Pentzer said she is looking forward to supporting the launch and sustained growth of the journal and “enhance the scientific community by providing the premier home for publications that leverage polymers for a diverse range of applications”.

The editor-in-chief of RSC Applied Interfaces is set to be Federico Rosei, director of the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Énergie, Matériaux et Télécommunications in Varennes, Canada.

“I am excited to step into this new role, that of shaping a journal and the community around it, and doing so from the start as founding editor-in-chief,” Rosei said.

The post UK chemistry society launches two gold open-access journals appeared first on Research Professional News.