UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee Report on the Work of Research Councils in the UK

March 24, 2005

London, 23 Mar 2005

This Report completes our scrutiny of the Research Councils, which we have carried out over the course of this Parliament.

We have found that the failure of OST to establish clear objectives for RCUK on its establishment in 2002 hampered its efforts to achieve a profile and a place in the policy-making framework that might have been expected. We welcome the reforms that have been made to the structure of RCUK in response to the OST's 2004 review of the organisation but we do not believe that they have gone far enough. The distinction between the roles of the Director General of the Research Councils (DGRC), on behalf of Government, and that of the Research Councils, which remain outside Government, has still not been clearly made. We have recommended a slight change in existing arrangements to make the distinction clearer. We have also criticised Government for being reluctant to allow Research Councils to express their views independently.

We have found that RCUK has performed a valuable service in promoting best practice across the Research Councils and the harmonisation of administrative procedures. However, we have not been persuaded that it is doing enough to exert influence on behalf of the Research Councils across Government. We have argued that the appointment of an independent, high profile figurehead for the organisation would be likely to increase its visibility and influence and that OST should review the existing position after a further two years.

In the longer term, we would like to see RCUK assuming complete independence in determining scientific priorities. Government should fund the science it needs directly rather than seeking to influence the Research Councils' priorities. We have argued for a system in which the value of R&D is firmly entrenched right across Government and the Research Councils are left to pursue long term scientific goals rather than those of the Government of the day. We believe that this would be a better model for the successful stewardship of the UK research base and the use of science by Government.


Full text

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Previous Item Back to Titles Print Item

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs

AcoRD Officer

University Of Leeds

Marketing and Communication Manager

Heriot-watt University

Professor of Emergency Medicine

University Of Central Lancashire

PhD Position, Department of Geoscience and Petroleum

Norwegian University Of Science & Technology -ntnu