On Monday the Nurse review on the UK’s research, development and innovation landscape was published. The report is substantial: 163 pages, including annexes, which is almost three times the length of the R&D Roadmap – although only half the length of the Levelling Up White Paper. Clearly Nurse didn’t need to go back to Jericho to make his point.
Nurse was tasked with doing three things: explore the features and characteristics in the existing ecosystem; identify areas for improvement; and futureproof the landscape for all ‘research performing organisations’ (RPOs).
Most of the review concentrates on the first of these; it’s a significant piece of work. It gives a balanced and thoughtful overview recognising the ‘complexity, confusion, and sometimes incoherence’ of the landscape (p33). The review sets out 29 recommendations, all of which are unsurprising and sensible, if a little repetitive. They fall into eight broad categories, though could perhaps be summed up in three words: ‘stability’, ‘clarity’, and ‘investment’.
- Provide more comprehensive ‘end-to-end’ funding. Recommendations 1, 4, 6, 10, 18, 19 all focus on or feature this. It’s ironic, as the terms of the review explicitly exclude looking at the ‘mechanisms for funding research.’ The review recognises the fractured, piecemeal nature of the current funding arrangement, as well as giving a very good summary of the vicious cycle that results from the underfunding of research in universities (p41-43).
- Simplify the bureaucracy of research within universities and institutes, and also less heavy-handed auditing by government (Recommendation 2, 8, 27). No surprise here, and fits with both the Grant and Tickell reviews highlighting the problems of bureaucracy. Following Tickell, the Government promised its response, but we’re still waiting on that.
- Clarify the role of institutes and PSREs, their visibility, purpose, and interactivity, and allow them more freedom, though they should be rigorously reviewed and shut down if no longer fit for purpose, or new ones opened up to respond to specific needs (Recommendation 3, 5, 7, 9). The review gives significant time to considering public sector research establishments (PSREs, such as the Met Office and Kew Gardens). It makes a strong case that their research potential is not fully recognised, and they need to be better integrated and supported. A similar case is made for galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (Recommendation 11).
- Clearer support for industrial investment and translational research organisations, better signposting to and coherence with the rest of the landscape (Recommendation 12, 13, 14). This should also make clear the benefit of businesses and other organisations investing in research.
- Active support for applied and policy-related research (Recommendation 15, 16). It’s good to see that Nurse recognises the value of ‘societal benefit as well as economic growth’. He suggests government departments should use research more for this. In addition, he suggests RPOs should collaborate with local communities ‘to bring about more equitable regional economic growth based on local expertise and demands and driven by community benefit as well as academic criteria’. RPOs should not only engage with communities but also act as an ‘information nexus’ to link local industries with research capabilities ‘wherever they are in the UK’.
- Protect and encourage international collaboration (Recommendation 20, 21). No surprise here: he states that the UK needs to associate with Horizon Europe and support wider collaboration, including hosting new intergovernmental multinationally funded institutes and international research infrastructures.
- Map the landscape and develop a clear long-term vision, to make it easier for all parts of it to understand their integration, accountability and opportunity. This should be ‘from Cabinet level downwards’. (Recommendation 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Better support for individuals within the system, including clinicians, those in government managing research, and others in the ecosystem, including ECRs and technicians (Recommendation 17, 28, 29).
Nurse is clear that the recommendations are integrated, and implementation should be ‘as a whole’; it’s ‘a blueprint that can bring about the changes needed to ensure a revolution in the UK RDI endeavour’ (p21). ‘It will require increased investment, reduced policy volatility, a clear focus on optimising and implementing change, good data collection, and a long-lasting, consistent, systematic approach to policy development and safeguarding of the RDI landscape’ (p5).
That’s quite a change, although he does suggest it should be ‘evolutionary’ (p26). In recommending such a root-and-branch overhaul, Nurse takes a sideswipe at recent government RDI strategy: ‘further piecemeal changes of the type attempted in recent decades will not be enough’ (p5).
Instead, the Government needs to step up to the plate and assume ‘an explicit role as a strategist, convener, facilitator and when required as an investor. This must all be coupled with a long-term commitment to RDI that should lie at the heart of this and future Governments. RDI is generally not political, and cross-party agreement for policy would help the long-term stability requested by both RPOs and business’ (p105).
It’s surprising, then, that on the day the review was published the Government published a new S&T Framework, which followed at least five other frameworks, strategies and frameworks in the past six years. The language in the Framework was, as ever, bullish and vague.
Despite this, the Government has promised a considered response to the review with clear next steps – which, of course, may run counter to the Framework, although its 10 points are broadly in step with Nurse. We can only assume that the Plan which will build on the Framework will take the Nurse recommendations into account.
After all, the recommendation of the first Nurse Review (2015) did lead to the establishment of UKRI. However, the Government only has a little under two years before the next election. If the Plan or any policy recommendations require legislation, that doesn’t leave much time.
With this in mind, there is a danger of the recommendations getting kicked into the long grass with further reviews, say, of UKRI funding and the fEC model to support ‘end-to-end’ funding. Nurse is clearly aware of this danger and the wider difficulty of whole system change (and resultant ‘cherry-picking’). As such, he recommends some quick wins at the end of the review, including:
- Universities identifying ‘pockets of research excellence’ for a pilot programme offering end-to-end funding. This could ‘trial the effects of improved administrative, infrastructural and researcher career support on research output and value for money’ (p136)
- A number of universities in disadvantaged areas of the UK with existing strong links to the local communities being funded and assisted to run pilot projects assessing how best to develop as an ‘information nexus, helping local industries link to research capabilities wherever they are in the UK.’
Will all this work lead to anything? Well, I’m not sure. With the election just around the corner and the Government increasingly keen on the ‘science superpower’ narrative, the recognition that not all is well will be unwelcome. But we’ll see; I have been wrong before – many, many times.