Volume 2

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.

    490/520 (page 482)
    Figure 3 OVERALL VALUE OF TOTAL, GOOD* AND ACCEPTED FUNDING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY RNID SINCE 2005 £25 £20 HE Total Applications cs valeeolgl & C=] Good & Applications* £10 Funded £5 £0 * Good applications are defined as receiving an average peer review score of four or higher on a scale of 0-6 during our external peer review process, where four is defined as “good, with some original and timely research that will be conducted in a scientifically robust way. Outcomes will be of some interest to the field.” Memorandum by the Royal Society of Chemistry SUMMARY 1. The RSC would like to highlight the following points: — The key objectives of publicly-funded science and technology research are to produce high-quality, innovative research which contributes to the advancement of fundamental knowledge and facilitates the comprehensive training of scientists and engineers. — The RSC believes that the appointment of Chief Scientific Advisers should be extended to all departments to ensure evidence based policy-making throughout Government. — Funding of blue-skies research must be maintained even where the short-term economic benefit of research is not obvious. The breadth of science and technology research will be compromised if too much emphasis is given to short-term goal orientated projects at the expense of blue-skies research. — The RSC recommends that funds within the science budget should be ring-fenced specifically for curiosity-driven research and that this should not be adversely affected by economic conditions. — The RSC advocates collaboration within the EU in order to remain competitive in the international arena. INTRODUCTION 2. The RSC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee inquiry into Setting science and technology research funding priorities. 3. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public. 4. This document represents the views of the RSC. The RSC’s Royal Charter obliges it to serve the public interest by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and we are happy for this submission to be put into the public domain. Our response focuses on five key areas.