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.

University says former head of payments “betrayed the trust of his colleagues”

The University of Brighton has said an employee who was convicted of embezzling more than £2 million “abused his position” at the institution.

David Hall, 64, of Shepherds Way in Ringmer, was the former head of payments and income at the university and was convicted of fraud after embezzling £2.4m from the institution over a period of 30 years, Sussex Police said in a statement.

The police said on 24 February that Hall had stolen the money “through fraudulent entries in the university’s accounts” and that “a complex string of financial cover-ups” had been discovered “through forensic scrutiny”.

A University of Brighton spokesperson said Hall had “abused his position and betrayed the trust of his colleagues for his own personal gain”.

They added: “As soon as the university uncovered Hall’s deception, we acted swiftly and decisively to report this matter to the police. We have supported the police at every stage of their investigation, commissioning independent forensic investigations, which have enabled charges to be brought and the courts to secure a conviction.”

Hall pleaded guilty on 16 February to charges of fraud by abuse of position, theft by an employee and false accounting, said the police. He is expected to be sentenced on 16 March.

Sussex Police investigator Rose Horan said: “Year after year, the hole in the university’s finances became larger and more difficult for Hall to conceal. After an audit uncovered the scale of Hall’s embezzlement, the University of Brighton was quick to report the fraud to Sussex Police and their support throughout the investigation has been invaluable in bringing David Hall to justice.”

The post University of Brighton employee embezzled £2.4m 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.

Need for “new leadership” cited, as institution faces an expected budget deficit of £45 million

University of East Anglia vice-chancellor David Richardson has resigned amid growing concern over the university’s finances.

Richardson stepped down on 27 February, telling staff that the university needed “new leadership”.

“I have been conscious of the need for a new vision for UEA since we began to emerge from Covid in 2021 and have deliberated whether I am the person to lead that vision or whether a new vision needs a new leader,” he wrote.

“After 15 years on the executive team and nine years as vice-chancellor, I have concluded now that the time has come for me to step away so that UEA can develop a new long-term vision to take it forward beyond its 60th anniversary with new leadership.”

Richardson’s resignation comes after the university posted a deficit of about £13.9 million in 2022, having had a surplus of more than £4.6m in 2021.

The university did not mention finances in its public statement on the resignation, which praised Richardson for being “at the heart of UEA’s success and world-leading achievements for 32 years”.

Deficit set to grow

Last week, the university told staff in an update it provided to Research Professional News that it was expecting a deficit of £30m for 2023-24, rising to £45m in three years’ time. The university said this was “due in part to lower-than-expected student-application numbers following the Ucas student-application deadline at the end of January”.

Staff were warned that they could be facing compulsory redundancies to cope with the financial pressure, although the university has said this would be a “last resort after all other options have been considered”. It said it would know more about how many roles were at risk and in which areas by the end of April.

Earlier this month, the University and College Union’s UEA branch passed a motion of no confidence in its institution’s leadership.

Student shortfall

In its annual accounts, the university suggested that the ballooning deficit was due to a “shortfall” in student recruitment, which had an impact on other income from accommodation, and “uncertainty in the energy markets and rising inflation”, which had “significantly” increased costs.

But the BBC reported that Labour MP for Norwich Clive Lewis warned that the lower level of student applications “blows a hole in the idea [that] this is just external issues that have caused this”.

According to the BBC, he said on 24 February: “It’s quite clear that there are questions for management now about how they handled this and why we are in a situation where we are at UEA, when other comparable institutions are not facing the same crisis.” 

Deputy vice-chancellor Christine Bovis-Cnossen will take over the leadership of UEA while it searches for a replacement for Richardson.

The post UEA vice-chancellor resigns as financial deficit grows 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.

Maddalaine Ansell argues that the UK needs to look after its international alumni

International students bring new ideas and knowledge to UK campuses, broaden the university experience for domestic students, help to sustain and enrich UK universities and have a positive impact on local communities and economies. Most importantly, when they graduate from students to alumni, they take their trust in the UK—and a sense of being connected to it—back to their own countries.

But all relationships require effort, and it is not enough to presume that a good experience of the UK will generate warm feelings towards it—or to see alumni primarily as a source of philanthropy. The UK has recognised that it needs to look after its alumni in a more systematic way.

In the 2021 update to its International Education Strategy, the government announced that the British Council would be exploring options for attracting and supporting a global UK alumni network.

Last year, we at the British Council launched Alumni UK—a global network for people from around the world who have studied in the UK as an overseas student. Over 15,000 people have now enrolled and our target is to get to 150,000 by 2025. Next month, we will hold Alumni UK Live, an online festival giving graduates who have studied in the UK access to professional development opportunities and the chance to connect to other international alumni.

The aim is to offer alumni a worldwide professional network through which they can continue learning, develop employability skills, make connections and share their experience and expertise, as well as to keep UK alumni connected to the UK—recognising that they are of incalculable value.

Basis of trust

The British Council’s 2018 report The Value of Trust summarised the many studies that had looked at why trust is the bedrock of all strong relationships, how it is earned and why it matters. It concluded that trust is what allows us to believe in the reliability of others and brings the possibility of cooperation to satisfy mutual interests.

Economically, high-trust relationships have lower transaction costs and stimulate investment, production and trade, which in turn lead to economic growth.

In terms of connectedness, Universities UK International’s 2019 report International Graduate Outcomes found that 77 per cent of international graduates said they would be more likely to do business with the UK as a result of studying there; 81 per cent intended to build professional links with organisations in the UK; more than 80 per cent would recommend studying in the UK; and 88 per cent would visit as tourists.

World-leading

The UK therefore benefits hugely from so many alumni ending up in positions of power or influence. The Higher Education Policy Institute’s 2022 Soft Power Index found that 55 current world leaders had been educated in the UK—more than any other country except the US. This is partly due to the prestige of flagship scholarship programmes such as Chevening and Commonwealth Scholarships, which attract extraordinarily talented young people to study at UK universities.

Alumni who become world leaders are only the tip of the iceberg. Many others, including some of those on Great Scholarships funded jointly by the British Council and universities, or through Women in Stem Scholarships, become diplomats, government officials, scientists and business and community leaders.

This is important because many of the most pressing challenges facing the world today require cooperation not only at the government-to-government level but beyond. Civil society, including universities, businesses and community groups, needs to tackle poverty, pandemics, climate change and the management of scarce resources.

Sustainable development

In hitting the International Education Strategy’s target of 600,000 overseas students studying in the UK each year, the higher education sector has educated a huge number of people with whom the UK can cooperate to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

The Study UK Alumni Awards give many examples of the exceptional contribution UK alumni have made to science and sustainability in their own countries, including tackling pollution in Jamaica and ghost fishing in Nigeria, where abandoned fishing gear continues to trap wildlife. UK alumni also helped to guide public health policy during the Covid-19 pandemic in Pakistan.

It matters that these friends are spread around as many countries as possible. The latest statistics suggest that the UK is doing very well at attracting students from China, India and Nigeria and is making good progress, from a lower base, in Indonesia, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia—testament to Steve Smith, the UK’s international education champion, as well as the Study UK campaign and the tireless work of international teams in universities around the world. Applications from non-EU international students as of January 2023 have increased by 21,050 (29 per cent) since 2020, to 94,410.

But the UK is doing less well in terms of applications from EU countries, which have dropped by more than 52 per cent since 2020, to 20,500. As these countries are its nearest neighbours, trading partners and allies, the UK needs to maintain strong links with them and must redouble its efforts here. Attracting students through marketing, scholarships, bursaries and strategic institutional partnerships that facilitate exchange of students and early career researchers is a highly effective way to do this, and so is maintaining connections with alumni.

Alumni are appreciating assets for the UK. It should invest in them.

Maddalaine Ansell is director of education at the British Council.

The post Friends for life appeared first on Research Professional News.

On conflict’s anniversary, universities say partnerships with Ukrainian institutions “will last for years to come”

Universities and learned societies have pledged to continue their support for Ukraine, one year on from Russia’s invasion.

On the anniversary of the conflict, vice-chancellors’ group Universities UK said it was “immensely proud” of its twinning scheme with Ukrainian institutions and the “impact it has had on Ukrainian universities devastated by war”.

More than 100 partnerships have been established through the government-supported scheme, which helps UK universities partner with Ukrainian institutions to share resources.

To date, this support has included donated ambulances, help to equip bomb shelters, as well as the provision of study placements, English classes and mental health support.

“One year since the invasion, partnerships are continuing to grow stronger and have been a beacon of light for many Ukrainian students and staff,” Jamie Arrowsmith, director of the international arm of UUK, told Research Professional News.

UUK set up the scheme in partnership with Cormack Consultancy Group and it received a funding boost of £5 million from Research England in November 2022.

Arrowsmith said the extra funding would contribute towards the establishment of new national research centres, as well as helping to rebuild those destroyed during the war.

“The strong bonds that have grown between institutions give us hope that these partnerships will last for years to come, and that with continued investment and support, Ukraine can, and will, emerge stronger from the war,” he added.

Support from learned societies

Learned societies have also pledged to continue their support for Ukrainian academics.

Last year, the British Academy helped to set up a £13.3m government-backed fellowship programme for those fleeing the war, in partnership with the Council for At-Risk Academics.

The scheme gives Ukrainian academics and their dependants support to continue their research in the UK for up to two years. The funding covers their salary, research expenses and living costs.

The academy said it was “extremely proud” to have helped support more than 140 researchers and 190 dependants through the scheme so far with placements across 40 universities.

“The breadth of research expertise across the cohort is incredibly rich and we are pleased to play a part in ensuring the prosperity and continuation of Ukrainian research,” said Hetan Shah, the British Academy’s chief executive.

Meanwhile, the Royal Society of Chemistry said it would “continue to reach out to members of our community in Ukraine” and would continue to make available support through its Chemists’ Community Fund, which offers financial support to struggling members.

In addition, the society confirmed that it would continue to pause its engagement with institutes in Russia, for example, preventing access to RSC journal content and books, and stopping all sales and marketing activities.

More widely, the UK government has suspended publicly funded research and innovation collaborations with Russian universities and companies that are of strategic benefit to the Russian state.

The post UK R&D sector pledges to continue support for Ukraine appeared first on Research Professional News.

Ivory Tower: We check in with the UK’s leading University Media Relations team.

An office, somewhere in SW1…

McCall [on the phone]: Well, if he won’t let you do it, have you thought about Plan C, minister?… I don’t know… Two weeks in Ibiza for all post-docs?… You could tie it in with the mobility scheme… Call it Turing All-in… I’m sorry minister, I’m only trying to help… How is the new office, by the way?… Exactly the same as the old office, I see. Have they changed the plate on the door?… No, still the science minister, I see. So, remind me, what was the point of creating a new ministry for science?… No, me neither. Anyway, we are very grateful to have won the contract for media relations for the department, and we are working on the launch event as we speak… Oh yes, glitz and glamour minister, definitely… Well, you know that open deck bus of national treasures they wheeled out for the Queen’s platinum jubilee. Yes, well, most of them have said no, but we’ve got Brian Cox… no the other one… yes, I agree the other one would be better… look I’ve got to jump on a Zoom call with Sydney in a minute… no, Sydney, Australia, minister. Sorry, who did you say? Sidney who?… I don’t know who that is, minister… A TikTok star? No, I don’t think we’ve reached that stage of event planning yet, minister. I’ll keep you informed and brief you in a couple of days. Got to go, bye. [puts phone down] Although God knows we are scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to science policy.

Janet: Do you need me to set up the laptop for a Zoom, Mr McCall?

McCall: No, I just said that to get him off the phone. He’s becoming obsessed about the media launch for the new science ministry.

Janet: You mean, you lied to a client?

McCall: I was merely managing expectations. Don’t they teach you anything on that degree apprenticeship course?

Janet: I’m currently on a deep dive placement at the industry coal face.

McCall: What are you doing?

Janet: I was about to make Mr Juniper a cup of tea, would you like one?

McCall: Yes, please, and then let’s look at the invite list for this wretched science ministry launch.

Janet: Will do.

Juniper: Is everything alright, Oliver? You sound like a man out of love with his art.

McCall: I’ve really had enough of this government, Alexander, when are we getting a new one?

Juniper: Probably not until the end of next year. These are austere times, Oliver, you’ll just have to make do with the government you’ve got. See, if you can’t spin it out a bit longer.

McCall: I can’t believe Michelle Donelan is back.

Juniper: At least we don’t have to look at Grant Shapps anymore.

McCall: You could have fun pretending to forget his name. Sunak is just determined to make everything so bland and beige. I’m surprised he hasn’t brought back Greg Clark.

Juniper: Thank goodness for the DUP.

McCall: Quite, but they are blocking our Horizon Europe association field trip to Brussels.

Janet: Here’s a tea for you, Mr Juniper, and one for you Mr McCall, and here’s the list.

Juniper: This is entirely white.

Janet: I was trying to use up the milk before it goes off.

Juniper: No, this is a blank piece of paper.

Janet: Turn it over.

Juniper: Brian Cox? Anyone else?

McCall: That’s as far as we’ve got. You see, this government stinks so much of decay that no one in their right mind would want to be seen standing next to a minister at a gala event.

Juniper: Not even the vice-chancellors?

Janet: No, of course they are all coming.

McCall: Try and stop them.

Janet: And the science policy people, too. This is the celebrity list that will get us a photo on the front page of the broadsheets.

Juniper: Have we actually asked Brian Cox?

Janet: Which one?

Juniper: Either of them.

McCall: One said he would rather pluck his liver out with a knitting needle. The other hasn’t returned our call, so I’m banking that as a maybe.

Juniper: Where is this event?

Janet: The Science Museum.

Juniper: Ten out of ten for imagination, zero out of ten for levelling-up.

McCall: I am not getting on a train to Middlesbrough to drink a glass of lukewarm white wine and listen to a speech by the science minister.

Juniper: Isn’t there a science museum in Halifax?

McCall: I can see the headlines now: Minister’s Shock End in Happy Valley.

Janet: Might make it easier for one of the Brian Coxes to get there if he works in Manchester.

McCall: I can assure you that it is quicker to get a train from Manchester to London than it is to Halifax. Or it used to be…

Janet: We’d have to ship all the celebrities up north.

Juniper: Don’t they have celebrities up there?

Janet: Channel Four News has moved to Leeds.

McCall: So, that’s Cathy Newman, plus one, any others?

Juniper: I don’t think she’s personally moved to Leeds, it’s just the studio.

McCall: OK, so, that’s Cathy Newman’s cameraman plus one, any others?

Janet: Ant and Dec?

McCall: Shouldn’t they have some vague familiarity with science?

Juniper: Well, if you are going to draw that line, some people might query Michelle Donelan.

McCall: If only we still had dear old David Bellamy, he ticked every box: a bloke off the telly, had something to do with Durham, didn’t believe in climate change.

Juniper: Janet, have you still got that Scientists for Brexit list?

Janet: It was more of a post-it note.

Juniper: Can you remember who was on it?

Janet: They’ve all gone, I’m afraid.

McCall: They are all dead?

Janet: No, they’ve all moved to Europe.

McCall: This is hopeless. Northern science launch? Pigs might fly.

Janet: Higgs?

McCall: No, pigs, do try to keep up Janet.

Janet: No, Peter Higgs.

Juniper: Is he one of those TikTok stars?

Janet: No, Peter Higgs is a Nobel Prize winner, as in the Higgs-Boson particle. I listened to a podcast about it the other day. I think he’s from Newcastle or somewhere.

McCall: Brilliant, Janet! I can see the headline now, “Minister and Nobel Winner in Happy Valley Sunlit Uplands”. They’ll love that. You look for Higgs’ email, I’ll phone the minister [picks up the phone, dials] George, how are you?… Good, good, look we’ve made a bit of progress here and think we’ve found you a science super star to launch you as a science superpower…

Juniper: Well done, Janet, excellent work. Have you managed to find an email address?

Janet: Oh dear, Mr Juniper.

Juniper: What’s up? What have you found?

McCall [still on phone]: Yes, I think we should book an entire train load of ministers, scientists and celebs to Halifax, leaving from Euston, we’ll call it the Innovation Nation Express…

Janet: I don’t think Peter Higgs will be suitable after all.

Juniper: Why not? He’s not been cancelled, has he?

Janet: Worse than that Mr Juniper, he was heavily involved with the university lecturers’ trade union at the University of Edinburgh. It says here, he thinks he caused so much trouble that the university wanted to sack him, had it not been for the chance he might win a Nobel Prize.

Juniper: Probably not an ideal candidate to sit next to Rishi Sunak at dinner. Better show, Oliver.

McCall [on phone]: We could deck the place out in fun science stuff. What’s that thing when you roll down a hill in a giant plastic ball? Zorbing? Do you think Rishi would want to do that?… You think he looks enough like a hamster already? Interesting… hold on minister, my colleague is just alerting me to some breaking news [covers the mouthpiece] what is it Alexander, this had better be important?

Juniper: Read this.

McCall: Peter Higgs bla, bla bla… Nobel Prize bla, bla, bla… apologies, minister, I’ll be with you in just one minute… University of Edinburgh bla, bla, bla… trade union firebrand! Ah, I see… hello, minister, are you still there? Yes, it looks as if Sydney is back online now. I’ll have to go, I’m afraid. I think my colleagues have had a really productive redesign of your launch event. Nobel Prizes are so old hat, no media appeal in that. Have you thought about TikTok stars? Influencing young people through digital… Yes, we could still have the train from Euston, full of ministers and TikTokers… and vice-chancellors… Yes, if you really want to, we can call it Freeman’s Highway. Ok got to go now, Sydney and all that, bye.

Juniper: That was a close one.

Janet: I think I’ll make another cup of tea and look out the West Coast line timetable and that post-it note of TikTokers for Brexit.

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday, it should be shared among friends like a tip off about a fresh consignment of tomatoes in Lidl. Want to book a seat on the Innovation Nation Express? Want to say hello? Email [email protected]

The post Stars in their eyes appeared first on Research Professional News.

But unions are unhappy with employers’ decision to implement an early pay rise

Pay talks between UK higher education unions and employers will continue into next week, although the unions are “disappointed” that a pay uplift is going ahead before the talks are complete.

Discussions over pay and working conditions will continue between the five unions involved in the pay dispute—the University and College Union, Unite, Unison, GMB and the Educational Institute of Scotland—and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (Ucea), which represents employers, through mediator Acas next week.

Talks have already taken place over several weeks, as staff and employers seek agreement on workload, contracts and equality pay gaps. Strike action by the UCU was called off this week and next week to allow talks with employers to take place in a constructive fashion.

An “impasse” over the pay offer of between 5 and 8 per cent was reached in earlier talks. Nonetheless, universities will be giving staff part of the uplift in their March pay packets to help them through the cost of living crisis.

In a joint statement on 24 February, the unions said they were “disappointed that Ucea has moved to instruct its members to impose the first element of the 2023-24 pay proposal”.

“This is despite nothing yet having been agreed on pay. The unions will continue to make that clear in negotiations,” they said.

However, they added that “some progress has been made towards establishing agreed terms of reference for negotiations on the review of the national HE pay spine”.

Ucea’s chief executive, Raj Jethwa, said that it had “respected” a request from the unions not to implement an uplift until the beginning of March, adding: “The trade unions have also agreed that an impasse had been reached in respect of the pay uplift.”

He continued: “While we very much regret this, the intention in bringing forward the 2023-24 pay round was to provide support at this time to staff facing cost of living pressures.”

The post UK higher education pay talks to continue next week 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.

Experts say rise was to be expected as universities diversified their international student intake

Higher education experts have said that a rise in the number of dependants that international students have brought to the UK was “inevitable”, as universities sought to diversify their student populations.

Data published by the Home Office show that the number of dependants, such as family members, that international students bring to the UK increased from 16,047 in 2019 to 135,788 in 2022, rising from 6 per cent of all sponsored study-related visas to 22 per cent.

The rise comes as the government explores ways to curb the number of international students coming to the UK, which could include restrictions on students bringing dependants or reducing the two-year post-study work visa to six months.

Universities have repeatedly called on ministers to avoid restrictions, saying that limiting the number of international students would be “economic self-harm”. Universities rely on international students’ fees to top up funding for research and for teaching home students.

Iain Mansfield, formerly a special adviser in the Department for Education, said on Twitter that the rise “fundamentally changes the debate on student migration, for good or ill”.

Limits on dependants

According to the Times newspaper, ministers are considering imposing limits on which courses allow students to bring dependants to those that are considered “high value to the economy”, such as maths or science, or restricting the option to bring dependants to higher levels of study.

But Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think tank, stressed that “the rules are quite strict” already. Only postgraduate students can bring dependants, and “they have to prove they have very substantial financial resources to look after them”.

He pointed out that universities “have been told for years to diversify their international student intake away from China”, which makes up the largest proportion of international students coming to the UK, and that universities “have done what they were told to do very successfully, particularly when it comes to recruiting Indian and Nigerian students”.

“While the big jump in the number of dependants is notable and bound to set alarm bells ringing in some places, people need to drill below the surface,” Hillman said. “If we were serious about diversifying our international students, then the rise in dependants was inevitable because of the different circumstances of different people in different countries.”

He added that he would “advise against” any new restrictions on taught master’s courses because “if courses cease to be viable, home students won’t be able to do them either”.

Increase from India and Nigeria

Simon Marginson, director of the Centre for Global Higher Education, said that although the Home Office figures “are a shock”, they are likely down to a “spectacular increase in students from certain nationalities”, such as India and Nigeria.

He also highlighted the fact that international demand for UK higher education is supply driven, and controlled by the number of visas the Home Office grants and universities’ requests for visas.

Marginson said that “while it is possible that restrictions on dependants could diminish demand, and might affect the country pattern of demand…it is hardly going to drive demand below the level of the desired supply”.

But he warned that restricting the ability to bring dependants to so-called high-value courses “would be arbitrary and foolish”, as there are “no issues of costs to the public purse” with international students’ subject choices, unlike for home students, who take out public loans.

“This kind of action would just be an anti-university culture-war policy, ie, the sole purpose would be to build public political support for the government…by bringing on conflict with universities that could be portrayed as elite and focused on foreigners rather than citizens,” he said.

The Home Office has been contacted for comment.

The post Growth in students bringing dependants to UK ‘inevitable’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

New Pirbright Institute building to aid vaccine research against backdrop of H5N1 bird flu threat

A new UK facility providing “mission critical” infrastructure for the study of infectious diseases in poultry was launched yesterday.

The Biggs Avian Research Building was opened at the Pirbright Institute in Surrey, a research centre for infectious diseases in animals, as part of a £350 million capital investment from government through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

Bryan Charleston, director of the Pirbright Institute, said the facility would enable researchers “to study important diseases of poultry to develop measures to prevent disease and improve welfare and productivity”.

The new facility comes against a backdrop of growing concern over a global outbreak of H5N1 bird flu. The disease has been spreading in domestic and wild birds, and while it very rarely infects humans, concerns have been raised that a mutation could enable the virus to spread more easily in mammals.

Melanie Welham, executive chair of BBSRC, said that the UK “is a world leader in its scientific response to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza”.

“It is mission-critical that staff at the Pirbright Institute have the right infrastructure and facilities needed to deliver world-class research outcomes,” she added.

The Biggs Avian Research Building, which has a lighting system to simulate dawn-to-dusk cycles, will be used in ongoing vaccine research programmes at Pirbright, including work towards the goal of producing universal flu vaccines. 

The post ‘Mission critical’ research facility for poultry diseases opened appeared first on Research Professional News.

Survey finds 91 per cent of students are worried about increasing prices

Almost a third of students in England have taken on more debt to cope with the high cost of living, a survey by the Office for National Statistics has found.

Figures released by the ONS today show that 30 per cent of students have taken on new debt because of the cost of living crisis, up from 25 per cent in November 2022. Of those reporting that they had taken on more debt, 71 per cent said that it was because their loan “was not enough to support their living costs”.

The survey revealed that a total of 78 per cent said they were concerned that high living costs would affect their studies, and 35 per cent said they were less likely to continue to further study as a result.

Nearly all students (91 per cent) said that they were worried about the rising cost of living. Although inflation has hit 11 per cent this academic year, the government is increasing the maintenance loan for students in England by just 2.8 per cent in 2023-24.

‘A never-ending battle’

The survey was commissioned by vice-chancellors’ body Universities UK, whose president, Steve West, said that efforts to reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis on students felt like “a never-ending battle”, and that the “stress of the current situation [is] impacting [on] their mental health”.

“While universities are going the extra mile to support those who need it, the reality is that the student maintenance package in England is at its lowest value in seven years and students are also eligible for much lower maintenance loans than when the system was designed,” he said.

“With inflation still in double digits, it’s imperative that the maintenance support package is looked at more closely—the recently announced uplift for next year will not recover the real-terms cut students are seeing.”

Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, agreed that “additional help was urgently needed from the government” for students and that the survey showed “the concerning impact that growing financial pressures are having on university students across the country”.

The ONS survey included responses from 1,964 UK students between 30 January to 13 February.

Impact on wellbeing

A separate survey carried out by polling firm Alterline and published by mental health charity Student Minds on 23 February found that 83 per cent of students are very or quite concerned about the increasing cost of living.

A total of 60 per cent of students said that the crisis had affected their wellbeing, while 39 per cent said they were very concerned about paying their energy bills and 76 per cent had either taken on part-time employment or were expecting to as a result of rising prices.

Overall, the survey of 1,037 students found that around a quarter of students say they have a diagnosed mental health issue, and 59 per cent say that managing their money is a cause of stress at university—up from 46 per cent in the past two years.

The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.

The post Rising number of students taking on debt during cost of living crisis appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, Funding Insight profiles UK Research and Innovation’s Policy Fellowships, which are open to researchers in a variety of disciplines. We feature an overview of the global ‘big beast’ of biomedical research funding, the US National Institutes of Health, alongside an interview with the agency’s grants chief. And we round off with a profile of the Swiss grant-giving foundation that specialises in healthy ageing, ophthalmology and themes related to daylight.

This week in Funding Insight

After a pilot round in 2021 (profiled in Funding Insight), UKRI’s Policy Fellowships have returned with a wider scope. A greater number of government departments—and the What Works Network—have put themselves forward to host fellows, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have joined the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which piloted the scheme, as partners for the call.

Fellowships are worth £170,000 (for those working with government departments) or £210,000 (for those engaging with the What Works Network), funded at 80 per cent of that full economic cost by UKRI. The fellowships run for 18 months. The deadline for applications is 20 April.

James Canton, deputy director of public policy and engagement for the ESRC, says that applicants should be cognisant of the needs of their prospective host departments to impress the panel.

The National Institutes of Health is in many ways in a league of its own as a public research funding agency. With a budget of $45.1 billion in 2022, it is the largest non-military government research spender in the United States and claims to be the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

This week, Funding Insight publishes two articles about this exceptionally important funder pulled from Research Professional News’ Special Report: Research Funding’s Big Players, published last year as a flipbook. First, we profile the NIH, paying close attention to where its awarded funding—which accounts for 80 per cent of its funding spend—goes. Second, we feature an interview with the man overseeing the NIH’s external grant programmes, Mike Lauer, who reflects on the agency’s history, present and possible future.

Archive selection: Velux Stiftung is a grant-giving foundation that is perhaps less well known than it should be, especially by researchers in fields linked to light, vision and healthy ageing whose interdisciplinary ideas may not easily find favour with national funders. Ophthalmology researchers with ideas for projects in low- and middle-income countries should also be aware of this funder.

The 2023 round of the foundation’s Research Grants is open now, with up to CHF100,000 (€101,000) for applicants to the daylight and healthy ageing stream, and up to CHF400,000 available in the ophthalmology stream. Projects in both can last for up to four years. The deadline for daylight and healthy ageing applicants is 30 April and for ophthalmology it is 7 May.

In this article from April 2021, the foundation’s senior scientific officer, Kirstin Kopp, shone a light on these grant programmes.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Outrage as Treasury claws back £1.6bn in unspent R&D funds—Government urged to reinvest funding originally destined for EU programmes or alternatives back into R&D

Angela McLean appointed chief scientific adviser—Top Ministry of Defence adviser will replace Patrick Vallance as UK’s most senior scientist

Aria and science department ties based on ‘partnership and trust’—Framework agreement sets out funder’s relationship to parent department and UK Research and Innovation

Switzerland’s exclusion from EU research begins to bite—Government shocks sector by cancelling budget for Horizon membership

First minister, next steps—Iain Gillespie looks at what Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation could mean for Scotland’s universities

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people within your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact [email protected].

The post UKRI Policy Fellowships, NIH overview, Velux Stiftung appeared first on Research Professional News.

Use of funding mode will be trialled with European Research Council Advanced Grants

The European Research Council has decided to move ahead with piloting broader use of the lump-sum funding mode, Research Professional News can exclusively reveal.

Last week the ERC’s governing Scientific Council agreed to pilot use of the funding mode for Advanced Grants for senior researchers in 2024, the funder has confirmed.

With lump-sum funding, researchers are asked to provide more details in advance of their plans, but are not required to provide extensive receipts of expenditures.

The EU research and innovation programme, which the ERC is part of, has so far mainly used lump-sum funding for smaller projects. The European Commission wants to use the mode more broadly because it reduces the administrative burden of financial audits and leads to fewer mistakes in financial reporting.

But some in the research sector fear the move could lead researchers to be less ambitious with the aims of proposed projects, and worry that collaborative projects may be more conservative with their choice of partners to increase the prospects of meeting their milestones.

At present, the ERC uses the lump-sum funding mode only for its small Proof of Concept grants, worth €150,000 each. Advanced Grants are worth up to €3.5 million over five years.

The move by the Scientific Council follows a tentative decision it took in June to go ahead with the trial.

Back then, the funder said such a move would be “subject to a number of preconditions, including: safeguarding the autonomy of the principal investigator; and not requiring the provision of any milestones or deliverables”.

The post ERC decides to go ahead with lump-sum funding pilot appeared first on Research Professional News.

How the NIH uses the US government’s billions to shape the world of biomedical research

The National Institutes of Health is in many ways in a league of its own as a public research funding agency. With a budget of $45.1 billion in 2022, it is the largest non-military government research spender in the United States and claims to be the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

Its history begins in 1887 and the establishment of the US Marine Hospital Service, which was originally tasked with checking passengers arriving at ports for disease. Since then, it has grown into a behemoth that has supported over 150 Nobel prizewinners, along the way becoming first the National Institute of Health in 1930 and then expanding to multiple institutes in 1948.

While the NIH conducts its own in-house research, more than 80 per cent of its funding is awarded externally, largely through competitive grants. These are channelled through 27 separate institutes and centres, covering all areas of medical research and public health.

Rising tide

Except for a moderate decline between 2012 and 2013, the NIH’s budget has steadily risen since the turn of the millennium and has increased more rapidly since around 2015. While external grants are awarded across a variety of categories—including career development fellowships, training awards and business R&D contracts—research project grants consistently account for between 50 and 60 per cent of the NIH budget.

However, the picture of inexorable rise looks somewhat different from the perspective of individual researchers who win grants. When inflation is taken into account, there has been little difference in the average size of research grants since 1998.

Big spenders

The NIH does not spread its spending evenly across its various centres. The five top-spending centres together account for over 50 per cent of spending in recent years. Those centres cover cancer; allergies and infectious diseases; heart, lung and blood; general medical sciences; and ageing.

At the other end of the scale, the institutes with the smallest research budgets are the National Library of Medicine, the National Institute of Nursing Research and the John E Fogarty International Center, which focuses on global health.

The majority of centres spend more than 95 per cent of their budgets on research project grants, but there are some exceptions. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences, for instance, spent nearly 7 per cent of its budget on research training grants in 2020, while the Office of the Director reserves around half of its budget for special awards.

Higher education focus

The NIH is a hugely important funder for the expansive US academic community, with medical schools around the country relying on it hugely. In line with this, higher education institutions win the largest share of NIH grants compared with independent research institutes, hospitals, non-profits and companies.

Higher education institutions won nearly three-quarters of research project grants in 2019, the last year for which data are available. They claimed an even higher proportion of career development fellowships and training grants.

Institutions attracting the most NIH funding are located in the research heartlands of the east and west coasts of the US. The north-east cities of Boston and New York—home to world-leading research institutes including Harvard and Columbia—came out top in geographical concentration of funding in 2020. But when it comes to individual institutions, Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University top the leaderboard.

Most NIH awards go to US institutions, with those overseas winning less than 1 per cent of the total grant funding in 2020. Even so, non-US grant funding amounted to more than $290 million and over 600 grants were parcelled out to 66 countries. Top among these were South Africa, Canada, Australia, Germany and the UK.

Win or lose

Since 2016, success rates for research project grants at the NIH have been fairly static, at about 20 per cent, having fallen from nearer 30 per cent around 2000. When the NIH budget dropped between 2012 and 2013, success rates hit their lowest level—about 17 per cent—but they have since improved moderately.

The gap between men and women, in terms of the proportion of grants won, has shrunk considerably since the turn of the millennium. In 2000, men won around 75 per cent of research project grants and women took around 25 per cent, but in the past three years, men have won around 65 per cent of grants, with women taking around 35 per cent. Success rates, too, have improved, and have mostly been fairly even since around 2003, although it is notable that the success rate for women dropped further than that of men when the NIH budget was restricted in 2013.

In other areas, funding is much more even between genders. For instance, women were awarded at least 50 per cent of career development fellowships from 2016 through to 2020.

Diversity gap

When it comes to race and ethnicity, the NIH has made it clear it wants to see the proportion of non-white award-winners rise, but there has been only a small amount of movement in this area in recent years.

In 2016, the proportion of non-white  winners was 23 per cent, rising to 25 per cent in 2020.

Outside non-white winners, by far the largest proportion of grants are won by people of Asian origin: consistently around 20 per cent since 2016. In contrast, only around 2 per cent of research project grant winners have been Black or African American. Hispanic researchers have consistently made up 5 per cent of research project grant winners in recent years.

Looking forward

The NIH occupies a critical position at the centre of US research—and therefore, to a large extent, at the centre of world research. Even small shifts in how much it has to spend and what it chooses to spend it on can have huge consequences for entire disciplines, let alone individual researchers.

As well as a change in leadership, with former director Francis Collins stepping down in late 2021 after 22 years at the helm, another major change on the horizon is that the NIH will be housing the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, a new funder geared to deliver medical breakthroughs.

While lawmakers have set aside an extra $1bn for the agency, known as Arpa-H, in 2022, it remains to be seen whether its creation could put pressure on core NIH funding in the long term.

Originally published as part of Research Professional News’ Special Report: Research Funding’s Big Players in April 2022

The post Focus on NIH: The big beast 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.

Strong UK response raises broader questions about higher education’s humanitarian role, says Jamie Arrowsmith

One year ago, as the world watched in horror as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unfolded, the UK higher education community was vociferous in its response and unanimous in its support for the people of Ukraine.

Statements condemning the invasion were swift and unequivocal, followed by sanctions and advice to end research and education partnerships with Russia. These were necessary but small steps in signalling our condemnation of the war.

However, it was clear that action was also needed—what could universities do to help? Understanding how to respond, and how to target resources to deliver effective support to those affected was initially a challenge.

As a first response, Universities UK International drew together a task group of universities, government departments, funders, sector agencies and third-sector organisations to think through the immediate issues. This allowed the sector to prioritise and assign actions.

This group’s work informed the UK government response, helping to identify visa and immigration issues, and the need for targeted hardship support. The rapid deployment of resources for students and policy changes to support Ukrainian nationals demonstrated that, when working together with a common objective, both the government and the sector can move very quickly indeed.

Twinning programme

This work was vital, but it was reactive. It wasn’t a considered and strategic effort to work out what support the Ukrainian university community wanted from the UK. Thankfully, we were approached by an organisation with strong ties to the region, Cormack Consultancy Group (CCG).

Its founder, Charles Cormack, helped convene a meeting of British and Ukrainian university leaders to discuss how the UK could best support them. The answer from Ukraine was simple: help us stay open.

From this meeting, the UK-Ukraine twinning initiative was born. The idea is simple: universities in the two countries are brought together, supported by CCG, to develop a strategic partnership, consisting of a five-year collaboration with a bespoke agreement.

At an institutional level, the aim is to help ensure universities can continue to operate. At a more strategic level, the ambitions are to maintain the integrity of Ukrainian higher education, help prevent brain drain, and position Ukraine’s universities to emerge from the crisis with the resources, skills and international experience to make a full contribution to the reconstruction.

To date, more than 100 partnerships have been established. Hundreds of Ukrainian students have visited the UK twin on mobility programmes. New research collaborations have been fostered. Practical support, from providing computers and furniture to access to learning resources and academic infrastructure, has helped mitigate some of the damage done to campuses and infrastructure.

In September 2022, the #TwinforHope campaign was launched to share stories from these collaborations. The programme has received funding from the UK foreign office and UK Research and Innovation has provided £5 million for research and innovation activities within the partnerships.

Beyond Ukraine

The programme is testament to the huge amount of work and support from across the sector and the team at CCG. Beyond twinning, the UK government and British Academy launched the Researchers at Risk scheme, Refugee Education UK has developed a platform to make it easier for displaced students from anywhere find information on scholarships in the UK. And longstanding organisations such as the Council for At-Risk Academics continue to provide an invaluable service.

Over the past year, it’s been humbling to support the work of so many committed and inspiring people through the Twinning scheme. And yet it has also highlighted challenges in how the higher education community responds to humanitarian crises.

First, despite the phenomenal support provided by the UK government, universities have struggled to offer help to Ukraine’s international students. While UK visa, immigration and funding policy mean these students cannot be easily supported, this feels unsatisfactory as a response.

Second, the war has raised questions over how universities can respond to other crises. The Twinning scheme is built on very particular circumstances, including clear political and public support, policy change and, of course, funding.

These things matter, but the question of whether universities could do more, as a community, to mobilise that support in response to other crises is absolutely the right one.

UK universities have been clear in their support for Ukraine, and for their peers, colleagues and the students affected by the war. Our Ukrainian partners are equally clear that these collaborations are for the long term. And we, as a university community, need to learn and understand how we can better support universities, students and researchers affected by other humanitarian crises.

Jamie Arrowsmith is the director of Universities UK International

The post Make universities’ help for Ukraine a model for other crises appeared first on Research Professional News.

Velux Stiftung offers project grants in an eclectic range of subjects linked to daylight

Velux Stiftung is a grant-giving foundation that is perhaps less well known than it should be, especially by researchers in fields linked to light, vision and healthy ageing whose interdisciplinary ideas may not easily find favour with national funders. Ophthalmology researchers with ideas for projects in low- and middle-income countries should also be aware of this funder.

The 2023 round of the foundation’s Research Grants schemes is open now, with up to CHF100,000 (€101,000) for applicants to the daylight and healthy ageing stream, and up to CHF400,000 available in the ophthalmology stream. Projects in both can last for up to four years. The deadline for daylight and healthy ageing applicants is 30 April and for ophthalmology 7 May.

In April 2021, the foundation’s senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp shone a light on these grant programmes.

Top tips

• Connecting different fields is strongly encouraged in bids, especially when this isn’t supported by other funders
• Velux Stiftung likes to see the transfer of results from previous research
• Grants applications in ophthalmology should focus on low- and middle-income countries

For researchers with ideas for projects a little different from the norm, Velux Stiftung might provide a welcome ray of light. The Swiss funder, founded by the inventor of Velux windows, awards grants on an annual basis for projects lasting up to four years. It specifically asks applicants to explain why their project is not eligible for funding by other sources.

Velux Stiftung awards grants in three specific areas: ophthalmology, daylight research and healthy ageing.

The funder recently held a strategic review that led to some important changes in its grants programme. Senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp tells us more.

How long has Velux Stiftung had a research grants programme?

Velux Stiftung was founded in 1980 and it’s been giving out grants ever since. From the early 2000s it really took off. The Danish engineer Villum Kann Rasmussen had the idea that people needed to have more light and air within built environments. With his Velux roof windows, he made a fortune and founded several foundations.

Tell me a bit more about the three funding areas.

First, there is daylight research, as we call it, which brings together many different disciplines, including chronobiology, psychiatry and architecture—considering the built environments where we spend 90 per cent of our time—but also topics in daylight and nature as well as daylight technology. Second, there is healthy ageing, where we also try to focus on this interdisciplinary approach. The third area is ophthalmology.

Are you open to applications from any country?

We give out international grants but I should point out that as a charitable Swiss foundation, we are tax exempt and that requires us to spend 50 per cent of our money in Switzerland. So 50 per cent of our funding is open to international research grants. Broadly, we receive more applications from within Europe, but we have also been getting applications from overseas.

How many grants do you award each year and what are your success rates?

In the past five years, it’s been around 20, with an average success rate of 23 per cent. It does vary. In 2019, we had over 100 applications, so the funding rate was below 20 per cent, but usually it’s around 20 to 25 per cent.

Is there a total budget?

In the past couple of years we gave out around CHF7 million in total, but it depends on the financial markets.

Do you tend to fund more projects in any one of the three main areas?

No, it’s actually quite variable. When you look at our funding history, in some years there is more money going to healthy ageing and in other years there is more into daylight research. There is no fixed quota, and it’s not split into equal parts for the three different funding areas—it really depends where the best ideas come in.

Are all three areas distinct or do you like to see some crossover?

We are genuinely quite fond of interdisciplinary approaches. This might be within one of these areas but reaching out to another discipline which is not in our funding portfolio, but it also might be an interdisciplinary project at the intersection of the three areas we fund, and these projects are of particular interest.

You ask for applications not to be eligible for funding by other sources. How should applicants show this?

Not all national funding agencies have programmes for proof-of-concept studies, for example. So that’s something where you could demonstrate that you’re not eligible for funding. Another example would be interdisciplinary projects that fall between categories. And some funding agencies continuously fund a certain research stream but once you start to reach out and want to try something new or apply your work to a different field, it becomes more difficult to find funding.

Can people apply with proposals that have been turned down by their national funders?

Well, you need to be within our funding areas and your research question should be relevant but also neglected in that nobody else wants to fund it. And then scientific quality is important, of course. It’s not like if you have fallen through your national funding agency’s selection procedure then we will cover you—that’s not the case.

Could you give an example of a project that would be the right fit for Velux Stiftung?

It could be that you have a great idea and a great research partner, but this partner is in a country that is not supported by other funding sources. We’re also interested in how much applicants are invested in transferring research results. Obviously, if you’re doing basic research, the next level might not be developing a product, but you might want to go on and see who else is interested and who you could collaborate with. I think that this kind of transfer step is very important.

Velux Stiftung has recently had a strategic review—has this changed your funding priorities in any way?

When we did a bit of background research on where funding for ophthalmology went in general, we saw that there was a lot of funding for diseases that were common in high-income countries but that the majority of visual impairment was actually in low-income and middle-income countries and was due to diseases for which solutions existed. Often these solutions work well in high-income countries but are not adapted to the local situation in low-income and middle-income countries. As we are a rather small foundation, we wanted to know where we could make a difference, so the focus is now set on ophthalmology research in the context of low-income and middle-income countries where there is less funding available.

And are there any other changes to your funding programmes on the horizon?

As a sneak peek I can tell you that the foundation is actually looking at starting a funding programme in forestry and climate change. But we’re still at the very beginning and at the moment we are considering what we should focus on. We’re trying to set it up this year so by next year there should be some more details.

The post From the archive: Cross-cutting projects shine for Swiss funder 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.

OfS outlines proposals that would require personal relationships between staff and students to be disclosed

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.

An OfS consultation on the introduction of a condition of registration relating to harassment and sexual misconduct, launched on 23 February, includes plans that would mean any student relationship with a staff member with whom they also have an educational relationship would need to be declared. Any employee failing to do so would be liable for dismissal. 

An alternative proposal, also outlined in the consultation document, would introduce a ban on all staff-student relationships, but the OfS says that its preferred option is the introduction of a register. 

Power imbalance

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.”

Patchy progress

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 any existing NDAs would be deemed unenforceable, meaning those who have been silenced previously will be free to tell their stories.

“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.”

The consultation runs until 4 May.

The post Universities may need to keep list of staff-student relationships appeared first on Research Professional News.

UKRI Policy Fellowships give researchers from multiple disciplines access to the corridors of power

Top tips

• Don’t treat this like a regular research grant—it’s more like a job application.
• A good application will demonstrate the relevance of the researcher’s interests to policymaking in an accessible manner.
• Don’t go into great detail outlining a research project; demonstrating an interest in the policy area is more important.
• The scheme is open to researchers who work outside the remit of the sponsoring councils if they show how their input would be relevant within those disciplines.

After a pilot round launched in 2021 (profiled in Funding Insight), UK Research and Innovation’s Policy Fellowships have returned with a greater scope. A greater number of government departments—and the What Works Network—have put themselves forward to host fellows, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have joined the Economic and Social Research Council, which piloted the scheme, as partners for the call.

Fellowships are worth £170,000 (for those working with government departments) or £210,000 (for those engaging with the What Works Network), funded at 80 per cent of that full economic cost by UKRI. The fellowships run for 18 months. The deadline for applications is 20 April.

James Canton, deputy director of public policy and engagement for the ESRC, says that applicants should be cognisant of the needs of their prospective host departments to impress the panel.

What’s the background to this call?

UKRI has seen a big increase in demand from policymakers for evidence and expertise from a range of scientific disciplines, at national, devolved and local levels. There is also an increased focus in research communities on policy engagement, knowledge exchange and impact. At the same time, as a country we are investing a significant amount in our R&D system and we could do more to make the most of that asset.

The ESRC launched its original policy fellowship pilot call in 2021 to inform decision-making on the most pressing policy problems, through collaboration between policy makers and academics, and to increase policymakers’ access to research. 

It also supports the career development of academics by giving them direct experience of engaging with policymakers and the policy environment. Our pilot call saw 24 early and mid-career academics placed in government departments across Whitehall and the devolved administrations.

How successful was the pilot?

It was a real success and we’ve had fantastic feedback from government hosts as well as the fellows. Since then it’s become clear to us that there is a demand for other disciplines as well, which is why we’re partnering with BBSRC and AHRC as co-funders this time. 

In fact, we can only see this demand increasing further with civil service modernisation and reform. The government’s chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance has talked about the need to increase scientific literacy in government and there are now government targets for secondments into and out of government.

What do the fellowships involve?

Researchers will work closely with policy and analytics teams to co-produce and collaborate in creating research projects that respond to pressing matters and global challenges. 

They will work on policy areas as broad as—and this is not exhaustive—fiscal sustainability, economic growth and productivity, online regulation, climate change and net zero, education policy, urban transport, the social security system, crime and justice, the impact of future technologies, cultural placemaking, the creative industries, natural science and agronomy. Please do look at the call for the full list.

How are they structured?

The fellowships last 18 months and start with an inception phase of up to three months. Those first few months are about building a relationship with the host and starting to co-design the projects so that when they get to their main placement phase they can really hit the ground running and have a research project ready to go.

During the main placement—which lasts 12 months—they will be delivering research projects they’ve co-designed but also thinking about how they can build the capability of the policy team and create connections between academia and policy.

The final three months of the fellowship is what we call the knowledge exchange phase, which is about maximising impact and sharing learnings from the fellowships. During this phase, they will no longer be embedded in the department and can focus on conferences, publications, and sharing learnings about what collaborating with policy is like. This is a crucial part of the scheme for us, in terms of sharing learnings from the fellowships with the academic community more broadly.

What has changed since the pilot?

Yes, we engaged with both fellows and hosts throughout the pilot to look at how we can develop the programme. We’ve expanded the number of disciplines and the number of host departments, including some exciting new opportunities working with the HM Treasury and Competition and Markets Authority, among others. 

The amount of research areas of interest has also expanded so there are, for example, more opportunities for economists compared with the 2021 scheme.

Has the structure of the scheme changed?

Yes. We’ve increased the time available in the inception phase for the fellow and host to collaborate on the co-design on the main fellowship. And we’ve made it easier for fellows to access additional funding to support their research, training or capability building. We will also be strengthening our ‘cohort offer’, which includes bespoke training, mentoring and networking opportunities.

Who are the host organisations in this round?

There are 22 government hosts in this round, including the Cabinet Office, the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Number 10 Data Science Team and all of the devolved governments. There are also opportunities to work in the five What Works Network centres.

How many fellowships are you awarding this time around?

A total of 49 fellowships are available. All fellows will become part of a cohort to build longer-term networks across research and policy.

What’s the eligibility criteria?

Applicants must be researchers in a relevant discipline who hold a PhD. We’ve also added a clause that says that if someone can demonstrate that they can generate interdisciplinary insights through combining those disciplines with other recognised academic disciplines then we will consider their application. 

For example, you might be a computer scientist with expertise in coding or computational modelling. If you can show you can apply those skills to economic, social science or biotechnological questions then you will be eligible.

What career stage is this scheme relevant to?

Policy fellowships with a UK or devolved government host are aimed at early to mid-career academics while fellowships with a What Works Network centre host are open to all career stages. We’re particularly keen to encourage early career researchers to look at the guidance we’ve included about how they can strengthen their application. For example, they can bring in mentorship from their academic institution.

What tips do you have for applicants?

It is not just about demonstrating the depth of your academic expertise, but you also need to demonstrate that you can listen, understand and respond effectively to the particular questions and challenges that policymakers face. 

During the interview the hosts will be asking themselves, “Is this someone we can work with? Is this someone we can trust?” Collaboration and engagement are key principles of this programme. Also, show you’re passionate and enthusiastic about applying your experience to that policy area.

What did winning applicants to the pilot scheme do well?

They made their depth of expertise relevant to policy questions accessible to people working in a policymaking environment. Winning applicants tended to be good communicators, who are also willing to listen and learn.

What common mistakes were there in applications?

The main mistake was thinking that this is a regular grant where you must put forward a research project with detailed methodology. That’s not what we are looking for. It’s much more like a regular job application. Yes, you need to demonstrate your academic rigour and you can show that you’ve thought about what a potential project might look like, but we don’t want to see pages of planning for a project but nothing on your interest in the policy area and the softer skills like communication.

How are the applications assessed?

Applications will be assessed and shortlisted by a panel of academic and non-academic experts. A shortlist of applicants will be invited to attend an interview with representatives of the host department.

What have previous fellows gone on to do?

Two examples come to mind—both of whom are still in their placements. One of our 10 Downing Street Data Science fellows, Robin Lovelace, from the University of Leeds, has in the last few months been appointed as interim director of data and analysis at Active Travel England, an arm’s-length body in the Department for Transport. He came in as a mid-career researcher and this shows how his skills were highly valued in the civil service.

Another I would pick out is Rowena Hill, who is a fellow in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. She had a lot of impact within the department and the fellowship was an important part of her being appointed as a professor at Nottingham Trent University.

The post Opportunity profile: Political positioning 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.

Economic and Social Research Council gets long-term boss after two years without permanent leader

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.

ESRC’s former executive chair, Jennifer Rubin, stepped down in January 2021, and the funder has been led by interim executive chair Alison Park ever since.

A replacement for Rubin was found at the beginning of 2022. But Kwasi Kwarteng, who was business secretary at the time, controversially vetoed the appointment of Jonathan Michie, president of Kellogg College at the University of Oxford. The minister later defended his action as a “finely balanced call”.

ESRC, which sits under national funder UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), confirmed on 22 February that a permanent replacement has been found in Westlake, who will take up the role in the late spring.

‘Help social science thrive’

Westlake said: “I firmly believe that rigorous, engaged social science holds the answer to our most pressing challenges—and can change the world for the better.

“I look forward to working with the research community, with users of research and with the public to help social science thrive and make its benefits felt widely.”

Westlake was an adviser to three successive UK science ministers—Jo Johnson, Sam Gyimah and Chris Skidmore—under Theresa May’s premiership from 2017 to 2019 and is currently chief executive of the Royal Statistical Society (RSS).

At RSS, Westlake led the Covid-19 taskforce and its Alliance for Useful Evidence project, which created a network to promote the smarter use of evidence in social policy and practice.

He is the former director of policy and research at innovation foundation Nesta and has co-authored two economics books.

‘Impressive track record’

UKRI chief executive Ottoline Leyser said Westlake “will bring a wealth of experience to the role, combined with an impressive track record of ensuring high-quality social and data science is placed at the heart of decision-making. His leadership of and broad engagement with the research, innovation, business and policy-making communities across the UK will be a huge asset in realising UK Research and Innovation’s mission.”

The news comes after the Natural Environment Research Council announced this month that its executive chair Duncan Wingham is stepping down. The Medical Research Council is also currently without a long-term executive chair after Fiona Watt stepped down last year.

The post Stian Westlake to become ESRC executive chair appeared first on Research Professional News.