Volume 1

Setting priorities for publicly funded research : 3rd report of session 2009-10. / Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee
Date:
2010
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Setting priorities for publicly funded research : 3rd report of session 2009-10. / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/58 (page 14)
    Overview of Government expenditure on research and development All Government departments’ research and development spending should be driven by the need to support policy objectives. It is likely that, in a number of departments, that expenditure, like those objectives, will vary from year to year (Q 100). Only the Department of Health’s research and development spending is ring fenced (p 23). There is often a tension between the short-term focus of a Government, and especially of a particular Minister, and the long-term nature of much research. That tension is increased when budgets are under pressure, and can make departmental research and development budgets particularly vulnerable at a time of reductions in expenditure (QQ 278, 282, 79, 563, 327, 102, 103, 104). According to the evidence we received, within the Government there is no overview of total public spending on research and development across key policy sectors, or discussion of national research priorities. Nick Dusic, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, for example, told us that although the Treasury decided research allocations to the various funding mechanisms, it had no overview of all public spending to support research—that is, not only Government departments but the research councils and other mechanisms (Q 327). Lord Drayson said that “no individual” is “the locus for an overview of all of the lines of [research] investment” (Q 560). Professor Beddington confirmed that data were collected at departmental level and that they did not include the calculation of figures for specific subject areas across all Government spending (p 314). Professor Andrew Stirling, Research Director at SPRU, University of Sussex, also made the point that in the UK, in contrast to the United States, for example, “aggregated information” on how much is spent on particular aspects of research and development within key sectors was not readily available; as a result, it was difficult to identify the reasons why resources were distributed as they were (QQ 441, 442, 443). He suggested that the Government Office for Science, which provides administrative support to the GCSA, should publish on a regular basis detailed figures aggregated across all public research investment in key sectors of the economy such as energy, food, transport, security and public health (p 287). We agree. Such aggregation would require Government departments and the other organisations involved to agree definitions for the categories to be reported. Aggregated information on public research spending is important not only for reasons of accountability. Much research in key policy sectors is essential to maintain national capacity. If that capacity is lost or jeopardised because a particular aspect is not given sufficient priority, and is therefore subject to a reduction in funding, Government policy may suffer. We recommend that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser should e publish annually figures on all public spending to support research, including aggregated figures for categories the definitions of which have been agreed among Government departments and with relevant organisations; and e make appropriate recommendations to the Prime Minister. We further recommend that the Government Office for Science should have the appropriate resources to support that task.