Category: Research Funding

  • Research funding requires research capacity

    Research funding requires research capacity

    This year marks 100 years since the Leverhulme Trust was established. It’s a moment for us to reflect on the extraordinary research the Trust has supported over that period – but also to look forward.

    That’s why the Leverhulme Trust Board has decided to commit an additional £100 million to UK university research over the next few years, on top of our usual £120m annual spend.

    Investing in the future

    This is not a nostalgic gesture. It is a deliberate investment in a university sector that continues to deliver world-class research, even as it faces immense financial pressure. The UK’s research base is one of the country’s greatest assets. However, it is under strain, despite the welcome increase in funding for research and development in the recent spending review.

    Universities are grappling with rising costs and uncertainty around international student income. In this context, the Trust’s centenary investment is a celebration of the sector’s excellence and, we hope, a timely contribution to sustaining that excellence.

    We are directing this funding where we believe it can make the greatest difference: into blue skies research and supporting the next generation of researchers. These are areas where funding has become increasingly difficult to secure, and where we can therefore add the most value. We are, however, not changing our usual approach, which is to leave academics, who are at the forefront of their fields, to determine the questions that are most important and pressing.

    Blue sky bedrock

    Blue skies research – curiosity-driven, often interdisciplinary, and sometimes high-risk – is the core mission of the Trust. This kind of research is also the bedrock on which much social, technological and economic progress rests. It is easy to identify vitally important blue skies research retrospectively. Much harder to prove its value in advance.

    Our award to Kostya Novoselov early in his career looks prescient – he went on to win the Nobel for his work on graphene. But predicting which of the novel projects we fund will pay off in the long term is very tricky. While the Trust’s support for Chris Stringer’s work with the Natural History Museum completely changed our understanding of early human life in Britain, it’s hard to put a value on that.

    The need to demonstrate likely impact, combined with research funding streams that are more focused on specific economic priorities, has made it harder for some disciplines to pursue discovery research. The value of quality research (QR) funding in England, which was once the major source for discovery research, has also declined by 15 per cent since 2010.

    Yet, it is blue skies research that often leads to the most profound breakthroughs. Charity funding that is patient and takes risks can therefore make a real contribution here.

    Investment at every stage

    To that end, the Trust will use £50m to establish new research centres, each receiving up to £10 million to tackle big questions over a decade. This research centre model has proven to be highly effective, not only in addressing critical issues, but also in building research capacity. Previous Leverhulme Centres have contributed to areas such as climate change, wildfires, the origins of life, ethical AI, and demographic modelling, to name but a few.

    We are also investing in the next generation of researchers. We will commit an additional £20m to doctoral training, doubling our usual spend, to support approximately 200 PhD students. This is another area under financial pressure, particularly in some arts and humanities fields.

    This investment is not just about producing future academics. We know that not all PhD graduates will stay in academia. Nor should they. One of the strengths of the UK’s research system is its ability to develop talent that contributes across a range of sectors. I recently spoke with a Leverhulme-funded doctoral student whose work explores the ethics of algorithmic decision-making. Their research is deeply theoretical, but its implications are hugely practical. Whether they end up in academia, government, or industry, their skills will be vital in tackling the AI-related challenges ahead.

    And funding academics at the beginning of their career is only part of the story. Our centenary awards will support mid-career researchers in building their first research team, a challenging transition given the increasing teaching demands in some institutions. We will also provide funding to support aspiring scholars from underrepresented groups, as well as provide mentoring and networking opportunities. We want to ensure that talented individuals from all backgrounds can access research careers and thrive within them.

    Charity funding as part of a research ecosystem

    Charities like the Leverhulme Trust have long played a significant role in supporting UK research, contributing about £2 billion per annum in total. But charity funding is not designed to support the basic infrastructure of universities. This means that any grant we award to a university also requires a contribution from the institution itself because, like most charities, we do not cover overhead costs, which is undoubtedly a challenge for universities.

    As the Nurse Review highlighted, both domestic student teaching and university research are cross-subsidised from other income streams. Further, while the UK’s research system is one of the most productive and internationally connected in the world, it is also one of the most financially exposed and the model of relying on the cross-subsidy of research with income from international students has come under immense pressure.

    We therefore need to find additional ways to sustain the research capacity that underpins so much of the UK’s economic, social, and cultural life. This is not just about protecting and preserving what we have; it is about shaping what comes next. Research is not a luxury. It is a necessity, especially in a world facing complex challenges, from climate change to economic and technological disruptions.

    To maintain the UK’s position as a global research leader, we need a funding system that provides long-term stability.

    We hope our investment will not only help to sustain the intellectual ambition that defines the UK’s research community but also prompt a wider conversation – one about how we value research, how we fund it, and how we ensure that its benefits are shared as widely as possible.

    Source link

  • The spending review is a critical moment for UK science and innovation

    The spending review is a critical moment for UK science and innovation

    A series of key government announcements over the coming weeks will set the direction of travel for research and innovation for years to come. Next week’s spending review will set the financial parameters for the remainder of this Parliament – and we shouldn’t expect this outcome to maintain the status quo, given this is the first zero-based review under a Labour government for 17 years.

    Accompanying this will be the industrial strategy white paper, which is likely to have a focus on driving innovation and increasing the diffusion and adoption of technologies across the economy – in which the UK’s universities will need to be key delivery partners. We can also expect more detail on the proposals in the immigration white paper, with implications for international student and staff flows to the UK.

    The outcome for higher education and research remains hard to call, but the government has sent early signals that it recognises the value of investment in R&D as crucial to transforming the UK’s economy. In a volatile fiscal environment, DSIT’s R&D budget saw a real-terms increase of 8.5 per cent for 2025–26 with protection for “core research” activity within this.

    Looking ahead to the spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the fiscal envelope set by the Chancellor for capital spending – which is how R&D is classified – at the spring statement is significantly frontloaded. There is scope for increases in the early years of the spending review period and then real-terms declines from 2027–28. With such significant constraints on the public finances, it’s more essential than ever that the UK’s R&D funding system maximises efficiency and impact, making the best possible use of available resources.

    International comparisons

    Last month, the Russell Group published a report commissioned from PwC and funded by Wellcome which considered the experiences of countries with very different R&D funding systems, to understand what the UK might learn from our competitors.

    Alongside the UK, the report examined four countries: Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea, scoring them across five assessment criteria associated with a strong R&D system: strategic alignment to government priorities; autonomy, stability and sustainability; efficiency; and leveraging external investment. It also scored the countries on two measures of output: research excellence and innovation excellence.

    The analysis can help to inform government decisions about how to strike a balance between these criteria. For example, on the face of it there’s a trade-off between prioritising institutional autonomy and ensuring strategic alignment to government priorities. But PwC found that providing universities with more freedom in how they allocate their research funding – for example, through flexible funding streams like Quality-Related (QR) funding – means they can also take strategic long-term decisions, which create advantage for the UK in key research fields for the future.

    Over the years, QR funding and its equivalents in the devolved nations have enabled universities to make investments which have led to innovations and discoveries such as graphene, genomics, opto-electronics, cosmology research, and new tests and treatments for everything from bowel disease to diabetes, dementia and cancer.

    Conversely, aligning too closely to changing political priorities can stifle impact and leave the system vulnerable. PwC found that, at its extreme, a disproportionate reliance on mission-led or priority-driven project grant funding inhibits the ability of institutions to invest outside of government’s immediate priority areas, resulting in less long-term strategic investment.

    With a stretching economic growth mission to deliver, policymakers will be reaching for interventions which encourage private investment into the economy. The PwC report found long-term, stable government incentives are crucial in leveraging industry investment in R&D, alongside supporting a culture of industry-university collaboration. This has worked well in Germany and South Korea with a mix of incentives including tax credits, grants and loans to strengthen innovation capabilities.

    Getting the balance right

    The UK currently lags behind global competitors on the proportion of R&D funded by the business sector, at just over 58 per cent compared to the OECD average of 65 per cent. However, when considering R&D financed by business but performed by higher education institutions, the UK performs fifth highest in the OECD – well above the average.

    This demonstrates the current system is successfully leveraging private sector collaboration and investment into higher education R&D. We should now be pursuing opportunities to bolster this even further. Schemes such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) deliver a proven return on investment: every £1 invested in HEIF yields £14.8 in economic return at the sector-level. PwC’s report noted that HEIF has helped develop “core knowledge exchange capabilities” within UK HEIs which are crucial to building successful partnerships with industry and spinning out new companies and technologies.

    In a time of global uncertainty, economic instability and rapid technological change, investments in R&D still play a key role in tackling our most complex challenges. In its forthcoming spending review – the Russell Group submission is available here – as well as in the industrial strategy white paper and in developing reforms to the visa system, the government will need to balance a number of competing but interrelated objectives. Coordination across government departments will be crucial to ensure all the incentives are pointing in the right direction and to enable sectors such as higher education to maximise the contribution they can make to delivering the government’s missions.

    Source link

  • How Labor can use its strong majority to support universities – Campus Review

    How Labor can use its strong majority to support universities – Campus Review

    The higher education sector is craving stability and investment after the policy changes, regulation warnings and instability of Labor’s last term.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • From going it alone to sharing university research and innovation services

    From going it alone to sharing university research and innovation services

    Unless you’ve been living under a rock, readers are likely to be very aware of the current financial challenges facing universities across the UK.

    The situation is no different in Scotland where several Scottish universities have reported an adjusted operating deficit position for academic year 2023–24 – although it’s important to note that this position can also reflect the stage of the institution’s investment cycle or actions being taken to restructure as well as reflecting the current year financial performance of an institution.

    These are difficult times for the sector. But a silver lining, if there were one to be found, could be that challenging times present an opportunity to do things differently. Approaches that would have previously been deemed too complicated to undertake can find themselves on the table because they have the potential to drive essential efficiencies and promote sustainability.

    Looming large

    With 18 universities receiving Scottish Funding Council (SFC) core funding for research – “Scottish QR”, the Research Excellence Grant (REG) – the Scottish system is of the size and scale where SFC can regularly have discussions with every vice principal for research. These discussions help us better understand the state of play and the pressures and challenges being faced.

    When we most recently spoke with vice principals, as you’d expect, financial sustainability loomed large. Challenges are having a real impact on how many institutions are considering their R&I activity.

    One of the things we heard is that an increasing number of institutions are exploring sharing back-office services between institutions to create efficiencies.

    This makes sense. Scotland is a small country with a largesse of universities, all of which undertake world-leading research as determined by the REF. We’re also a country of concentrated geography with many of our institutions focused in the same places.

    While these are moves in the right direction for sustainability, there are benefits from things happening sooner rather than later, given that there’s no quick fix for university finances. Here SFC has a role to play, by helping catalyse activity.

    This is the thinking behind the funding opportunity we launched this week – a new R&I Shared Services Collaboration Fund.

    Getting together

    The fund will allow Scottish universities to apply for funding to develop sustainable models and steps to implement sharing services, including but not limited to sharing tech transfer offices (TTOs) and research offices. It will allow:

    • The consolidation of existing distinct functions by replacing them with a single shared function.
    • Institutions with smaller research portfolios to work with larger institutions to gain access to expertise and capability that they don’t currently have.
    • The creation of shared capacity between groups of institutions where limited functions currently exist but new shared capability would drive efficiencies.

    It will kick-start longer-term collaboration by supporting the initial costs of change, enabling institutions to navigate the difficult proof of concept stage and de-risk the exploration of new approaches in a financially constrained environment.

    Our intention is to precipitate and fund a different way of working, investing in change which will enable the change to carry on.

    A total of £3m will be available over academic years 2025–26 and 2026–27 with grants of between £250,000 and £750,000 on offer through open competition. Grants will help to promote system sustainability by supporting increased inter-institutional operational collaboration.

    As well as promoting financial viability, where grants are focused on the sharing of technology transfer office (TTO) services, the fund will increase Scotland’s research commercialisation pipeline by expanding access to key facilities across institutions.

    This provides an opportunity to further Scottish government innovation ambitions as outlined in the National Innovation Strategy. University research commercialisation is central to the strategy and ensuring that world-leading research from across all of Scotland’s universities can be successfully commercialised requires access to critical expertise. The UK government’s spin-out review, published in November 2023, also highlights the value of shared technology transfer expertise across universities.

    And it’s not necessarily just about sharing research offices and TTOs – we’re interested in other proposals for sharing R&I services which meet our criteria.

    Small but mighty

    We’re under no illusions that the R&I Shared Services Collaboration Fund will solve or even make a significant dent in the financial challenges currently being faced by universities. No, doing that will require multi-factored activity across many stakeholders.

    But we hope that this funding will go some way to promoting sustainability and making Scotland’s small but mighty research system function in a way that reflects the opportunities of scale and collaboration we have on our doorstep.

    Source link

  • Charles Darwin uni loses $200,000 US research funding – Campus Review

    Charles Darwin uni loses $200,000 US research funding – Campus Review

    A research contract valued at about $200,000 has been lost by Charles Darwin University (CDU) as a result of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Trump cuts research funding to six Aus universities and counting – Campus Review

    Trump cuts research funding to six Aus universities and counting – Campus Review

    At least six Group of Eight (Go8) universities have had research grants terminated by the United States amid an anti-diversity and gender ideology studies crackdown from US President Donald Trump’s office.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What’s driving low levels of full economic cost recovery in research?

    What’s driving low levels of full economic cost recovery in research?

    Media attention has emphasised that the financial issues facing universities continue to worsen. While research is a cornerstone and strength of the sector, it is often regarded as a cost, which leads to scrutiny as part of institutional savings targets. Despite calls to acknowledge the value of research, the focus understandably remains on research costs.

    The focus of universities on the volume and cost of unfunded research, or more accurately, internally funded research, is a question that must be addressed. Institutions are reflecting on and revising internal research allowances as part of their efforts to achieve a more sustainable financial position, as the cross-subsidy from international student fees is no longer as viable as it once was.

    The question of funded research, however, is a different matter. For quite some time, there have been questions about what constitutes the full economic cost (FEC) and how these costs are recovered when projects are funded. Both issues have once again come to the forefront in the current climate, especially as institutions are failing to recover the eligible costs of funded projects.

    As part of the Innovation & Research Caucus, an investment funded by UKRI, we have been investigating why the recovery of UKRI-funded research is often below the stated rates. To put it simply, if the official recovery rate is 80 per cent FEC, why is 80 per cent not being recovered on UKRI-funded projects?

    Understanding under-recovery

    We conducted a series of interviews with chief financial officers, pro vice chancellors for research, and directors of research services across mission groups, the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) group, and various geographic regions. They identified several key reasons why universities are not recovering the funding to which they are entitled.

    Before exploring the causes of under-recovery on UKRI-funded projects, the project aimed to establish the extent to which TRAC data was curated and utilised. Notably, the study found that the data collected for TRAC does not exist within research organisations and would not otherwise be collected in this form if it were not for the TRAC reporting requirement.

    While scrutinising TRAC data was less of a priority when the financial situation was more stable, in many institutions, it is now of interest to the top table and serves as the basis for modelling, projections, and scenario planning. That said, such analysis did not always recognise TRAC’s limitations in terms of how it was compiled and, therefore, its comparability.

    In many of the research organisations consulted, the responsibilities for TRAC, project costing, and project delivery are distinct. Given the growing significance of TRAC data in influencing resource allocation and strategic decision-making, it is essential for research organisations to adopt a more integrated approach to compiling and utilising TRAC data to achieve improved outcomes.

    Drivers of under-recovery

    A wide range of factors explains why the cost recovered at the end of a funding grant is less than anticipated at the point of submission and award. Almost all respondents highlighted three factors as significant in low cost recovery:

    1. Equipment and facilities costs were consistently cited as a factor, including issues associated with allocating and costing overheads and estates. Several institutions highlighted the difficulty in realistically costing equipment and facilities shared between research projects or between research projects and teaching.
    1. Staff under-costing was frequently mentioned, as principal investigators (PIs) underestimated their own and their colleagues’ time commitment to projects. This ineffective practice was driven by a (mis)perception that lower costs will likely improve success rates – despite the emphasis being on value rather than cost within a specific funding envelope.
    2. Inflation has been identified as a factor affecting all cost elements – from staff costs related to pay settlements and promotions to the rising expenses associated with consumables, equipment, and energy. This reveals a growing gap in applications, delivery, and reporting.

    Beyond these top three, the report highlights the implications of the often “hidden” costs associated with supporting and administering UKRI grants, the perennial issues of match funding, and the often inevitable delays in starting and delivering projects – all of which add to the cost and increase the prospect of under-recovery.

    In addition, an array of other contributing factors were also raised. These included the impact of exchange rates, eligibility criteria, the capital intensity of projects, cost recovery for partners, recruitment challenges, lack of contingency, and no cost extensions. While not pinpointing the importance of a single factor, the interplay and cumulative effect were considered to result in under-recovery.

    Addressing under-recovery

    Universities bear the cost of under-recovery, but funders and universities can take several actions to improve under-recovery – some of which are low- or no-cost, could be implemented in the short term, and would make a real difference.

    Funders, such as UKRI, should provide clearer guidance for research organisations on how to cost facilities and equipment, as well as how to include these costs in research bids. Similarly, applicants and reviewers should receive clearer guidance regarding realistic expectations from PIs in leading projects, emphasising that value should be prioritised over cost. Another area that warrants clearer guidance is match funding, specifically for institutions regarding expectations and for reviewers on how match funding should be assessed. We are pleased to see that UKRI is already taking steps to address these points in its funding policies [editor’s note: this link will be live around 9am on Friday morning].

    In the medium term, research funders could also review their approaches to indexation, which could help mitigate the impact of inflation in driving under-recovery, although this is, of course, not without cost. Another area worth exploring by both research organisations and funders is the provision of shared infrastructures and assets, both within and across institutions – again, a longer-term project.

    We are already seeing institutions taking steps to manage and mitigate under-recovery, and there is scope to extend good practice. Perhaps the main challenge to improving cost recovery is better managing the link between project budgets – based on proposal costs – and project delivery costs. Ensuring a joined-up approach from project costing to reporting is important, but more important is developing a deeper understanding across these areas.

    A final point is the need to ensure that academics vying for funding really understand the new realities of cost and recovery. This has not always been the case, and arguably still is not the case. These skills – from clarifying the importance of realistic staff costs to accurately costing the use of facilities to effectively managing project budgets – will help close the cost recovery gap.

    The real FEC of research funding

    The current project has focused on under-recovery in project delivery. The next step is to understand the real cost to research organisations of UKRI grant funding.

    This means understanding the cost of developing, preparing and submitting a UKRI grant application – whether successful or not. It means understanding the costs associated with administering and reporting on a UKRI grant during and beyond the life of a project (think ResearchFish!).

    For more information, please get in touch – or watch this space for further findings.

    The Innovation & Research Caucus report, Understanding low levels of FEC cost recovery on UKRI grants, will be published on the UKRI site later today.

    Source link

  • Trump: Aus research must disclose vaccine, transgender, DEI or China ties

    Trump: Aus research must disclose vaccine, transgender, DEI or China ties

    US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House. Picture: Mandel Ngan



    By: Erin Morley

    in Industry & Research, Research Funding, Research News, Top Stories


    March 17, 2025

    Australian researchers who receive United States funding have been asked to disclose links to China and whether they agree with US President Donald Trump’s “two sexes” executive order.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • The research system won’t become more agile without a deeper conversation on funding

    The research system won’t become more agile without a deeper conversation on funding

    There is a feeling among some policymakers that the UK research system lacks agility. But the key question is agility for who: for researchers, for research institutions, or for the government which funds the research?

    By definition, research explores the unknown. These unknowns range from the unknown solutions to today’s challenges such as affordable healthcare and reversing climate change, to initiating the yet unknown technologies of tomorrow that will feed future economic growth.

    Whose agility?

    The UK government’s Plan for change: milestones for mission-led government repeatedly mentions the UK’s outstanding research base. It is also clear that government has high expectations of how our research system can demonstrate agility to pivot towards addressing major societal needs. But addressing any of these missions requires time, and hence a disciplined balance of agility and commitment to a long-term research agenda.

    At a more operational level, for our national funders such as UKRI, legitimate concerns over the precarity of research careers, and the recognition that hard problems take time to solve, means that a large fraction of their annual budget is committed for three or more years into the future.

    The extent of these multi-year commitments seemingly restricts the agility of the research system. However, looking more closely, embedded within these commitments are the commitments made to individual researchers to support them and their teams to pursue thematic programmes while empowering their own agility to rapidly pivot their research in response to new ideas of their own or the discoveries of others. It is precisely these longer-term funding commitments typified by support for research fellowships or the quality-related funding driven by REF that allows the UK’s researchers themselves to be agile.

    It is widely accepted the UK’s research system is highly productive in basic curiosity-driven research. This productivity, we would argue, is a direct result of the researcher-led agility that our current funding system allows. However, we also recognise that government can and should identify areas of research in support of our industrial or other national needs – some on shorter time horizons.

    The key is the balance between this academically-led and government directed agility – we can and do need to do both. Reaching this balance requires greater transparency from the funding agencies and an intellectually safe discussion between government and the research sector. We urge UKRI and DSIT to articulate this balance, around which we can all then work.

    Speed and success

    Related to these questions of agility are current problems in the funding system which if left unchecked will undermine our research productivity. The costs of research have far outstripped inflation and available research funding has not kept pace – for example, the fall in the number of doctoral training centres funded by EPSRC from 2014 to 2019 and to 2024.

    These financial pressures have driven hyper competition in the sector. Success rates have plummeted, with many researchers’ experience being of ten per cent success rates or less – particularly in the schemes supporting academically-led, curiosity-driven research.

    Perhaps even worse are the lengthening times taken to receive a funding decision; a decision on a three-year long application often takes more than one year to receive – hardly a route to agility of any kind.

    Irrespective of these budget-constrained success rates, we urge our national funders to reduce significantly the time it takes to reach their decisions on whether to fund or not. Suggestions have been made to move to lottery funding, thereby reducing decision times and eliminating potential biases within an ultra-low success rate environment. But a lottery would not solve the issue of low success rates, and hence fails to provide the continuity of funding for people and the security of careers upon which their agility depends.

    Beyond long decision times, low success rates drive many other unwanted behaviours: for example, conservatism in selection, or a tendency for the applicant to oversell.

    The danger of system failure

    The reality is that the public purse alone is insufficient to fund the research volume the UK requires. Hence a question for the research sector, funders and government alike is how we can maximise the gearing of taxpayers’ investments by securing industrial and philanthropic co-investment to drive economic growth and public benefit.

    It should also be recognised that universities in the UK increasingly cross-subsidise the whole research system via non-publicly funded teaching, and that this aspect of the system is already highly geared. Leaving aside several successful schemes which already do this, such as EPSRC prosperity partnerships, we believe that a co-investment culture would also require system agility and prompt decisions.

    We all feel that the research system lacks agility, but we each see this problem from our own perspectives. The government bemoans the forward commitment of our funders – but also needs to restrict the number of new initiatives to those that it has the resources to fund, perhaps refocussing an agreed fraction of the challenges each year. Funders think that they are empowering the agility of their researchers – but also need to realise that their lengthy decision times are harming productivity. Individual researchers should welcome the agility with which they are empowered – but must accept also the responsibility to never stop thinking as to how their expertise can be applied to benefit the economy and society.

    These are the interconnected problems of agility, of balance between government priorities and curiosity-driven research, of success rates, of decision times. The system we have is in danger of failing us all – we need to talk.

    Source link

  • Tesla chair to lead research and development review

    Tesla chair to lead research and development review

    Robyn Denholm has been chair of Tesla since 2018. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/Courier Mail



    By: Erin Morley

    in Industry & Research, Research Funding, Research News, Top Stories


    December 4, 2024

    A Strategic Examination of Research and Development review is to evaluate how to maximise Australia’s existing research and development (R&D) spend, and convince industry to adopt innovation.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link