UKRI urged to loosen funding rules for new research bodies

Several organisations have urged UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to reform its eligibility rules, which they say prevent newer research bodies competing directly for its funding.

An open letter to UKRI chief executive Ian Chapman says requiring newer organisations to show three years of audited accounts and evidence of research income or expenditure averaging £500,000 annually amounts to a “de facto ban on supporting new organisations”.

“UKRI’s eligibility rules mean that new research organisations can only access taxpayer-funded infrastructure, facilities, and funding calls via university partners if at all, and not independently. This is true even when those new organisations are explicitly backed by government and are home to some of the UK’s best scientists,” says the letter, which was organised by research policy thinktank Science Works. 

The signatories, which include the Royal Academy of Engineering, Convergent Research and 14 other groups, point out that most funding flows to universities. 

“While universities are home to many genuinely world-class research capabilities, not all research is best done in academic settings by researchers responding to academic incentives,” it says. “New research organisations can do things differently and will be a better fit for some types of science and technology.”

The letter commends the national funding agency for removing “arbitrary” requirements for a minimum number of PhDs and streamlining its review of organisational policies but says “significant barriers” remain. 

It calls on the agency to establish a “forward-looking route” to allow newer organisations to show their research capabilities and financial viability. 

“Significant financial support from funders that UKRI already trusts should provide such a route. To that end, UKRI should publish a list of trusted funders, including at a minimum those on the existing list of endorsed funders, and should update it regularly,” it adds. 

The signatories also urged the agency to remove the “artificial distinction” between standard and non-standard eligibility.

“UKRI’s eligibility system classifies certain organisations as ‘non-standard’ based on their corporate structure alone, excluding organisations like social enterprises or charities from almost all support,” it says. “In practice, many highly capable nonacademic organisations cannot access UKRI support directly. Implementing two technical changes would go a long way to fixing this.”

They say if this distinction must be kept, UKRI should at least make calls open to both categories by default. 

The groups stress that reform would allow UKRI to respond more quickly to emerging research models and ensure promising organisations are not excluded simply because they are too new to demonstrate a lengthy institutional track record.

seher.asaf@timeshighereducation.com