Councils.pdf. 1 HESA Finance Data 2013/14: the 24 Russell Group universities won 1.2 billion in research grants

Transcription

1 Russell Grup respnse t the Nurse Review f Research Cuncils 1. Summary As an essential part f the dual supprt system, the Research Cuncils are vital fr supprting excellent research in the UK, playing a key rle in sustaining the UK s psitin as a glbal leader in science and research. A majr rerganisatin f the Research Cuncils culd be an expensive distractin. Hwever, ptins shuld be kept pen fr cnsidering sme future restructuring and there are a number f areas in which the Research Cuncils culd imprve t becme mre efficient and effective. Any prpsals t amend the number f Research Cuncils must be supprted by rbust evidence and a cmplete cst-benefit analysis quantifying the predicted csts against any expected savings in efficiency r therwise. A full cnsultatin with universities and the research cmmunity abut any prpsals fr significant change is essential. Lng-term curisity-driven research prduces the biggest ecnmic pay-ffs in the lng run and cmprehensive research universities lie at the heart f this success. The current balance f research funding between basic and mre applied areas is abut right respnsive mde grants prvided by the Research Cuncils are f particular imprtance. The challenge is t ensure that future funding is bth sustainable and enhances UK cmpetitiveness. Applying funding criteria t the Research Cuncils in a way that undermines excellence wuld weaken the UK s internatinal ecnmic cmpetitiveness. Shuld any future mve be made t bring bdies such as the Meterlgical Office and Natinal Physical Labratry under the Research Cuncils then this must be undertaken with a cncmitant transfer f funding. At that pint, universities shuld be able t bid fr research grants, prjects and ther supprt n ffer t thse bdies. Research Cuncils shuld be encuraged t tap int ther streams f funding themselves, fr example in supprt f innvatin and prf f cncept activities with Innvate UK. 2. Cntext 2.1 The purpse f the Russell Grup is t prvide strategic directin, plicy develpment and cmmunicatins fr 24 majr research-intensive universities in the UK; we aim t ensure that plicy develpment in a wide range f issues relating t higher educatin is underpinned by a rbust evidence base and a cmmitment t civic respnsibility, imprving life chances, raising aspiratins and cntributing t ecnmic prsperity and innvatin. The Russell Grup f Universities

2 2.2 Russell Grup universities are fund in all fur natins and in every majr city f the UK; they make a very significant cntributin t the UK ecnmy and grwth in their regins, natinally and internatinally. 2.3 We welcme the pprtunity t prvide evidence t the Nurse Review. Russell Grup universities are majr recipients f Research Cuncil funding, winning arund three quarters f all Research Cuncil funding allcated t UK HEIs in 2013/14. 1 In the same year, Research Cuncil funding made up arund a third f Russell Grup universities cllective research grant and cntract incme (varying between 20% and 50% fr individual institutins). 2 As an essential part f the dual supprt system, the Research Cuncils are vital fr supprting excellent research in the UK, playing a key rle in sustaining the UK s psitin as a glbal leader in science and research. 2.4 This review is taking place within nly a year f the publicatin f the Triennial Review f the Research Cuncils. Given the shrt amunt f time since the recmmendatins f the Triennial Review were published, it wuld be prudent t allw the Research Cuncils sufficient time t address the prpsed recmmendatins f that review in full. 2.5 The Russell Grup submitted evidence t the Triennial Review which is available nline and can be cnsidered alngside this respnse. 3 In ur respnse we stressed that any significant disruptin t established funding structures fr research [at the time f writing] culd have serius and wide-ranging cnsequences and shuld be avided. We emphasised that the fcus needed t be firmly n excellent research and strengthening ur internatinal cmpetitiveness and that a majr rerganisatin culd be an expensive distractin. Hwever, we nted that ptins shuld be kept pen fr cnsidering sme future restructuring and suggested a number f areas in which the Research Cuncils culd imprve, including identifying areas where cmmn appraches between Cuncils wuld be helpful (making them mre efficient and effective) and explring hw the rle f RCUK might be strengthened. A summary f prpsals in ur Triennial Review respnse n hw Research Cuncils culd wrk mre effectively can be fund in Annex A. 2.6 The Nurse Review call fr evidence dcument ntes that the aim f the review is t lk at verall questins relating t UK research funding, and build n the findings f the recent mre fcused Triennial Review. The Nurse Review shuld avid duplicating the wrk f the Triennial Review. As the Research Cuncils are ne imprtant element in a diverse research ecsystem in the UK, the review shuld als keep in mind the wider cntext f the UK s research landscape when cnsidering verall questins relating t UK research funding. 2.7 This respnse may be supplemented by additinal input in due curse as we lk mre clsely at the wider research landscape issues ahead f the Spending Review. 1 HESA Finance Data 2013/14: the 24 Russell Grup universities wn 1.2 billin in research grants and cntracts frm the seven Research Cuncils, 76% f the ttal amunt allcated t UK HEIs reprting t HESA. 2 HESA Finance Data 2013/ Cuncils.pdf 2

3 3. The UK research landscape 3.1 The UK punches abve its weight when it cmes t excellence in research and higher educatin: with less than 1% f the wrld s ppulatin and just 4% f the wrld s researchers, the UK earns 12% f internatinal citatins and 16% f the mst cited papers f which nearly three-quarters are prduced by Russell Grup researchers. 4 An internatinal cmparisn f natinal HE systems fund that the UK s HE sectr ranks secnd ut f 50 cuntries fr utput, but 21 st fr resurce inputs In rder t maintain the UK s psitin as a wrld-leading scientific natin we need firstly t ensure that there is sufficient investment in research and HE. Supprt fr basic research is especially imprtant given its distance frm market. Many institutins are relying increasingly n ther surces f incme t fund these kinds f activities, particularly EU research grants (which nw make up 13% f Russell grup universities cllective research grant incme). But with decreasing success rates in Hrizn 2020, a likely cut t the Hrizn 2020 budget t fund a new Eurpean Fund fr Strategic Investments and uncertainty regarding the UK s future psitin in Eurpe, stable, secure and sufficient natinal funding is all the mre imprtant. Increasing the budget fr the Research Cuncils within an verall larger UK science budget wuld strengthen the UK s glbal psitin, bst the ecnmy and help us t remain internatinally cmpetitive. 3.3 The cnsultatin paper asks abut hw the Research Cuncils can help t catalyse partnerships and cllabratin. They already d this very successfully by being at the heart f the dual supprt system. 3.4 Sustainable public funding fr research allcated via a dual supprt mdel is essential fr maintaining the breadth and quality f research in the UK. It prvides a sund basis n which universities can frge research cllabratins and partnerships with ther universities in and utside f the UK and with businesses, charities and ther partners. 3.5 Lng-term curisity-driven research prduces the biggest ecnmic pay-ffs in the lng run and cmprehensive research universities lie at the heart f this success. The cmbinatin f stable cre funding thrugh the Funding Cuncils, and cmpetitively awarded grants frm the Research Cuncils ensures the diversity and breadth f research in the UK. The challenge is t ensure that future funding is bth sustainable and enhances UK cmpetitiveness. 3.6 One f the real strengths f the UK system is the supprt fr the Haldane Principle and the ability f the Research Cuncils t shape their respective prtflis as they see apprpriate supprted by effective gvernance structures invlving leading researchers, universities, business and ther key stakehlders. 3.7 Further vert alignment with central Gvernment bjectives wuld nt prvide the necessary lng-term stability r flexibility fr the research base and culd undermine the brad base f schlarship that underpins the UK s success. The mre Research Cuncils are cnstrained t fcus n perceived current needs in Gvernment, the less likely they will be able t sustain the UK s leading edge in the lng-run. Taken t its extreme, this culd deprive the UK f investment in up-cming areas f knwledge and cmpetitive advantage arising frm the research base. Research pririties must be established thrugh apprpriate gvernance prcedures invlving the research cmmunity, ptential user cmmunities and ther key stakehlders as required. The 4 Analysis prvided by Elsevier thrugh its SciVal system, August Universitas21 Ranking f Natinal HE Systems

4 prcess shuld be transparent t assure the relevant cmmunities that cmpeting pririties have been given due cnsideratin. 4. Structure and strategy 4.1 The current structure f the seven Cuncils wrks reasnably well and has a track recrd f success. The Triennial Review cncluded that the balance f csts against benefits did nt supprt a change t the current number f Cuncils. It als shwed administratin spending as a prprtin f ttal expenditure acrss the Research Cuncils is 3.71%, making them relatively efficient rganisatins Any prpsals t amend the number f Research Cuncils must be supprted by rbust evidence and a cmplete cst-benefit analysis quantifying the predicted csts against any expected savings in efficiency r therwise. Where csts are identified, these shuld nt be funded thrugh cuts t research grants, which wuld be detrimental t the UK s ability t maintain wrld-class research utput and culd particularly impact the next generatin f yung researchers. 4.3 The creatin f STFC was estimated t have cst arund 5-10 millin 7 ; but whilst the financial impact f majr rganisatinal change is extremely imprtant t cnsider, the ptential reputatinal damage, disruptin t wrk plans, uncertainty and impact n the wider research agenda in the UK must als be cnsidered. 4.4 If this review des find sufficient evidence t supprt a majr rerganisatin we wuld emphasise that, in additin t a full cst-benefit analysis, any majr changes shuld be prepared ver a sufficiently lng timeframe and nt rushed thrugh t avid shrt- t medium-term disruptin. A full cnsultatin with universities and the research cmmunity abut any prpsals fr significant change is essential. 4.5 Nevertheless, there are smaller changes which culd be intrduced t imprve the functining f the Research Cuncils. Funding f emerging research areas and interdisciplinary research can be particularly challenging. Achieving greater cnsistency and standardisatin between the Research Cuncil structures culd make crss-cuncil cllabratins easier. Intrducing psitive incentives fr the Research Cuncils t cllabrate mre culd be helpful; and assessing interdisciplinary research culd be imprved thrugh, fr example, additinal training fr reviewers r having mre multi-disciplinary panels. 4.6 Cnsideratin shuld be given t strengthening the bjectives fr jint wrking, where apprpriate, t reflect the grwing imprtance f interdisciplinary research and the value f internatinal cllabratin in delivering wrld-class research and training. 6 By cmparisn, staff, prgramme supprt and ther perating csts at the Technlgy Strategy Bard amunted t 9% f their ttal expenditure in (Annual Reprt and Accunts In the US arund 4% f NSF funding is spent n administrative and management activities (Natinal Science Fundatin Agency Financial Reprt FY Nevertheless, there may be further pprtunities t increase efficiencies: nly arund 2.3% f the Eurpean Research Cuncil s peratinal budget, fr example, was spent n administratin in 2013 ( rt.pdf#view=fit&pagemde=nne). 7 Triennial Review f the Research Cuncils Final Reprt, Department f Business, Innvatin and Skills (April 2014). 4

5 5. Balance and fcus f funding Remaining internatinally cmpetitive 5.1 One f the key strengths f the Research Cuncils is the independent, expert peer review system which identifies the mst excellent research r the greatest ptential fr research excellence and awards funding accrdingly. It is imprtant the prcess cntinues t be cmpetitive and that internatinal excellence remains the fundamental criterin fr allcating Research Cuncil funding. Hwever, where a high threshld f excellence has been cnfirmed, and where a rbust case can be demnstrated, it is acceptable t cnsider gegraphical issues in the funding balance. 5.2 The Research Cuncils Ryal Charters already identify cntributin t the ecnmic cmpetitiveness f the United Kingdm as a key bjective and there is ample evidence t suggest that this is being achieved. 8 Applying criteria that undermine excellence wuld weaken the UK s internatinal ecnmic cmpetitiveness and wuld be directly cntrary t their stated missins. Universities prvide the research, talent and ideas that can address tmrrw s prblems nt just tday s and if excellent basic research starts t be squeezed ut then this culd leave the UK seriusly challenged in five, ten r 20 years time. 5.3 It is als imprtant t tap int internatinal funding streams and research pprtunities t maximise benefit fr the UK. The Research Cuncils shuld be encuraged t take a strnger lead n engagement with internatinal public research funders including the Eurpean Cmmissin, EIB and ther internatinal funders, with the aim f delivering increased UK access t ther funding streams and prmting internatinal cllabratin. 5.4 T remain internatinally cmpetitive, investment shuld fcus n the UK s wrldleading research-intensive universities and their institutes where there is a critical mass f research excellence. The breadth and depth f activity in such universities prvides the greatest pprtunities fr multidisciplinary research, t make the mst effective use f facilities thrugh cllabratin and equipment sharing initiatives and t train the next generatin in the latest techniques. Our glbal cmpetitrs are increasingly cncentrating funding n their leading universities and are already reaping the rewards. Balancing funding 5.5 A balance has t be struck in ensuring the research base is respnsive t the needs f tday, while ensuring it is sufficiently strategically placed t meet the lnger-term requirements f tmrrw. As such, the current balance f research funding between basic and mre applied areas is abut right, but the verall level f investment shuld rise. Cnsideratin shuld als be given t increasing investments t take research ideas clser t market, fr example thrugh Research Cuncil supprt fr prf f cncept activities, but funding fr this shuld be in additin t and nt at the expense f current respnsive mde funding. 8 A range f ecnmic impacts acrss the Cuncils are detailed in the annual Research Perfrmance and Ecnmic Impact Reprts. Fr example, frm 2006 t 2013, MRC-funded researchers reprted further leveraged funding t a ttal value f 3.2bn; whilst in 2014, EPSRC had nearly 2,800 cmpanies and ther rganisatins engaged in their research and training activities, leveraging an additinal 838 millin. Specific examples f Research Cuncil-funded wrk leading t, fr example, generatin f 22.4 billin in revenue t Gvernment, spin-uts sld fr ver 170 millin, r cst savings f nearly half a billin annually in the UK can be fund here: 5

6 5.6 Indeed, public funding is especially vital fr curisity-driven research, which cntributes t the UK s knwledge base and ften underpins future innvatins that transfrm ur lives, reaching areas we may never have thught f. Research, particularly basic research, is a speculative and high-risk endeavur and the time perid between initial investment and ecnmic r scial impact can be lengthy, ften taking decades and requiring n-ging funding t develp and realise initial research ideas. 9 Respnsive mde grants prvided by the Research Cuncils are f particular imprtance t fund curisity-driven basic research, which the private sectr is less inclined t fund due t the distance frm market. Pstgraduates 5.7 Pstgraduate students are essential t a successful knwledge ecnmy and the future academic wrkfrce. Funding prvided thrugh the Research Cuncils is essential t train the next generatin. Pstgraduate funding shuld be fcused in institutins where the cmbinatin f teaching and research excellence creates the ideal learning envirnment. At Russell Grup universities, students wrk with their field s leading experts, have access t first-rate libraries and facilities, are part f a highly mtivated and talented peer grup and ften engage in research prcesses. This is why ver half f all research pstgraduates are at ur universities. 5.8 The Dctral Training Centre mdel is welcme, but imprvements culd be made t make DTC rules and cnditins mre cnsistent between Research Cuncils. Capital 5.9 Capital funding allcated as part f Research Cuncil grants is als extremely valuable. These investments underpin high quality research in pririty areas and ensure universities have the mst up t date equipment t remain cmpetitive helping t finance bth small scale equipment fr individual prjects and mre strategic equipment needed fr a prtfli f research prjects. As with frmula funding, Research Cuncil capital grants can als help t facilitate mre extensive sharing f equipment and in turn help t supprt cllabrative research. Scpe f funding 5.10 The call fr evidence asks whether the funding f Research Cuncils shuld be directed almst exclusively t the university sectr, with ther rganisatins ut f scpe. It shuld be nted that the underlying assumptin in this questin is incrrect because Research Cuncil funding is nt directed exclusively t universities. In fact, 778 millin (27%) f the 2,899 millin Research Cuncil expenditure in 2013 in the UK was allcated utside f the university sectr, nt including an additinal 200 millin which is spent verseas, in mst cases in nn-heis. 10 We wuld argue therefre that the Research Cuncils d nt need t make additinal effrts t bring ther large research rganisatins such as the Meterlgical Office and Natinal Physical Labratry int the scpe f their funding, especially as they have separate gvernment-funded budgets fr their wrk. This des nt, f curse, preclude effective cllabratin between Research Cuncils and these rganisatins, which already takes place. 9 Fr example, in medical research, studies have fund average time lags f between eight and 28 years between research and varius impacts, depending n exactly what is being measured (Rates f return t investment in science and innvatin: A reprt prepared fr the Department f Business, Innvatin and Skills, Frntier Ecnmics (July 2014)) 10 ONS Grss Dmestic Expenditure n Research and Develpment 2013 release (published 20 March 2015). 6

7 5.11 The highest quality research is perfrmed in research-intensive universities, where a high prprtin f staff is active in research. The large majrity f research already takes place in Russell Grup universities and by cncentrating funding n excellence and critical mass the UK gets the biggest bang fr its buck Shuld any future mve be made t bring ther bdies under the Research Cuncils (and thus int the science and research resurce ring-fence) then this must be undertaken with a cncmitant transfer f funding. At that pint, universities shuld then als be able t bid fr research grants, prjects and ther supprt n ffer t thse bdies. Innvatin 5.13 We welcme mves by mst f the Research Cuncils t develp Institutinal Impact Acceleratin Accunts (IAAs) that prvide funding fr knwledge exchange activities based n recent research funding histry. This funding is cmplementary t HEIF and universities have substantial autnmy in hw these funds are used. In particular, research-intensive universities are using IAA funding fr prf f cncept wrk, frequently with SMEs The scale f IAA funding varies cnsiderably between Research Cuncils ( 60 millin in the recent EPSRC pilt, but nly 200,000 in ttal frm the BBSRC) as des the funding mechanism: EPSRC, ESRC and STFC n a frmula basis while BBSRC uses cmpetitive bidding, which is bth time cnsuming and resurce-intensive On-ging supprt fr Institutinal Impact Acceleratin Accunts is imprtant. In future we wuld like t see IAAs available acrss the Research Cuncils (e.g. an RCUK crss-cuncil IAA) as this will help t supprt interdisciplinary research thrugh prf f cncept t cmmercialisatin and shuld ptimise access and use f the funds. Funding shuld be distributed using a frmula apprach as this is the mst effective and efficient mechanism We wuld encurage the Research Cuncils t tap int Innvate UK funding in supprt f this type f activity and t learn frm gd practice where this is already happening, prviding a mre jined-up apprach t enable excellent research ideas t be taken clser t market. April

8 Annex A f Russell Grup respnse t the Nurse Review f Research Cuncils Summary f pints raised in Russell Grup respnse t the Triennial Review f Research Cuncils n mre effective ways f wrking Cllabratin The Research Cuncils shuld be encuraged t take a strng lead n engagement with internatinal public research funders including the Eurpean Cmmissin, with the aim f delivering increased UK access t ther funding streams and prmting internatinal cllabratin. Jint wrking shuld extend t ther majr public funders f research in the UK. Missin statements shuld explicitly encurage mutually beneficial jint wrking with ther Gvernment departments and agencies (eg the NHS, MOD, DCMS and the Envirnment Agency) t deliver jined-up research prgrammes with the critical mass t make a real difference. In this area, the Research Cuncils als have relevant best practice t share that culd imprve partnership arrangements. Jint prgrammes culd be used mre extensively t bring external funding and ther resurces int a shared pl t address majr research challenges. Sme prgrammes such as Living With Envirnmental Change already d this effectively, but the scpe fr delivering research fr ther Gvernment departments and agencies thrugh RCUK-crdinated prgrammes culd be widened. Interdisciplinary research Within the Research Cuncil family, greater emphasis shuld be placed n pening up any barriers between disciplines and encuraging multi-disciplinary research alngside the cre disciplines. The develpment f RCUK's crss-cuncil Research Prgrammes that aim t slve big research challenges ver the next 10 t 20 years is very welcme 11. Hwever, in practice, sme f these prgrammes are mre akin t a series f Research Cuncil-specific sub-prgrammes held tgether lsely under a shared umbrella. Fr example, scial sciences appears smetimes t be cnsidered nly as an add n t prgrammes with a natural r physical sciences lead, r is absent frm prgrammes (eg fd security) where it culd make a significant cntributin t advancing ur understanding f a research challenge and delivering better ecnmic and quality f life utcmes. T be effective, much greater integratin f research frm different disciplines is required within these majr crss-cuncil prgrammes and, ptentially, all Research Cuncils shuld be invlved in each prgramme. Missin statements shuld be mdified t encurage genuine multi-disciplinary research with research bjectives and funding t match. 11 The current crss-cuncil Research Prgrammes are: Sustainable energy systems; Living with envirnmental change (LWEC); Glbal uncertainties - security fr all in a changing wrld; Ageing - Lifelng health and wellbeing; Digital ecnmy; Nanscience thrugh engineering t applicatin; and Fd security. 8

9 There are csts frm having mre than ne Research Cuncil in interdisciplinary wrk and wrk mtivated by scietal gals rather than disciplinary imperatives are mre difficult t encurage and fund. But these prblems wuld nt g away with a single NSF-like bdy, where the same prblems are likely t arise at the bundaries f directrates, divisins, and prgrammes. It wuld be better t address the prblem f hw t supprt interdisciplinary and gal-riented research explicitly by making crss- Cuncil prgrammes wrk better and intrducing psitive incentives fr the Research Cuncils t cllabrate mre. Interactin and crdinatin Each f the individual Research Cuncils prduces its wn impact, research highlights and ther publicatins aimed at its wn cmmunities and external audiences. There is nw sme crdinatin f effrt thrugh RCUK e.g. with cllective initiatives and guidance material n reaching ut t the public but this shuld g further. Fr example, thse cnsuming news d nt necessarily align their interests with Research Cuncil structural bundaries, s a single media bureau fr the Research Cuncils culd be mre effective if manned with apprpriate experts. This culd als help t highlight the imprtance f interdisciplinary research alngside cre disciplines. RCUK can crdinate and wrk t create partnerships acrss the Research Cuncils, in particular: fr the develpment f jint prgrammes; where it is sensible t have shared functins; t prvide a cllective vice; and where cmmn appraches t plicy wuld reduce bureaucracy and make the interface with academia mre efficient. Building n the shared services centre fr back-ffice functins, we welcme the RCUK s wrk t integrate further public engagement, HR, Health and Safety, finance and estates functins as indicated in the RCUK delivery plan Cnsideratin shuld als be given t creating: A single media bureau fr the Research Cuncils A jint audit cmmittee, taking n the audit functins fr each f the individual Research Cuncils A jint infrastructure cmmittee t ensure the mst effective use f capital funding acrss the Cuncils remit including maintenance and upgrade investments. Where the Research Cuncils prvide funding and ther resurces t supprt the develpment f best practice, it is sensible t deliver these thrugh standard crss- Cuncil appraches verseen by RCUK. These measures typically need t wrk acrss institutins rather than being restricted by discipline within an institutin because ne r mre public research funder des nt supprt an bjective. Examples f areas where a mre jined-up apprach acrss the Research Cuncils wuld be valuable include initiatives n equality and diversity 13, develpment f research leaders, and schemes t accelerate research impact and cllabratin with industry This culd include, fr example, evaluating gender balance f applicants and f successful prpsals acrss all Cuncils and/r intrducing uncnscius bias training fr all panel members, amngst ther measures 9

10 One f the bstacles standing in the way f the efficient peratin f the Research Cuncils is the ever-increasing cmplexity and diversity f regulatins surrunding its applicatin and award prcedures. Time spent n streamlining and simplifying these prcesses as far as pssible wuld be cnstructive. On pstgraduate training, each Research Cuncil has slightly different requirements n the length f awards, hw research activity shuld be reprted and even n plicies that clearly shuld be cmmn, such as maternity, paternity and adptin leave. In many cases, the bjective is the same, but the wrding f requirements is different enugh t add an extra level f cmplexity in hw studentships are managed. A single shared specificatin dcument fr all studentships shuld be a pririty as an utcme f this Triennial Review. Again, this needs t be designed in a way that prvides flexibility t universities t deliver a range f ptins t accmmdate different career paths and ther specific needs. Similarly, the Research Cuncils shuld take cmmn appraches n: Data sharing and pen data requirements Reprting research utcmes which is currently dne thrugh tw main systems in the UK: ROS and Researchfish, depending n the funder Using tw-stage grant applicatin prcesses t reduce wasted effrt when large numbers f applicatins are likely Demand management in general Managing cmpetitins fr large centres, grants and ther prgrammes when the prcess f preparing a bid can be a substantial cst Prvisin f translatin/impact funding. This shuld nt rule ut variatin between the Research Cuncils as sme appraches may be mre suited t ne discipline than anther. Hwever, it shuld be pssible t develp a mre cherent, and simple, menu f initiative types and prcesses that can be picked-up and used by different Cuncils as apprpriate. Individual Research Cuncils shuld als be encuraged t try ut new appraches but in a managed way, allwing their effectiveness t be evaluated s that successful initiatives can be adpted widely, while the least successful are terminated quickly. RCUK shuld prvide a strng cllective vice fr the Research Cuncils: T add weight internatinally where a crdinated and cherent UK vice fr research culd help in securing funding fr UK pririties, develp partnership pprtunities fr training and research and helping t increase the ptential fr internatinal cllabratin in Eurpe and elsewhere T ensure initiatives such as infrastructure sharing between Research Cuncil Institutes and universities are taken frward by all Research Cuncils acting in-step. 10