Russell Group – Written evidence (LSI0109)

1.       Summary

• We welcome the ambition and vision set out in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy.[1] As the Strategy acknowledges, the key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research.

• Russell Group universities are ready and well placed to support the Government in ensuring life sciences remains a globally competitive sector in the UK by driving world-class research and innovation, fostering collaborative partnerships that encourage and draw in investment from business and others, and providing a pool of high-level graduate and postgraduate skills.

• The commitment of £4.7 billion additional R&D investment over this parliament is very welcome and we want to ensure its impact is maximised for the future. The extraordinary value of fundamental basic research for the long-term innovation pipeline in the life sciences needs to be recognised here by ensuring QR funding is appropriately supported to complement the challenge-focused approach of the new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. In particular we support the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy’s call for enhancing the Charity Research Support Fund.

• Russell Group universities are highly successful in the commercial exploitation of their research, but we recognise the Government’s ambition to boost the UK’s performance in taking ideas from lab to market. HEIF is particularly important in this respect – we would support this fund being boosted and for similar funds to be made available across all parts of the UK

• Universities are central to delivering the range of skills, qualifications and training needed by the life sciences sector. Ensuring adequate support for high-cost subjects such as STEM and medicine is necessary to underpin growth in this high-level skills pipeline.

• The life sciences sector depends on attracting talent and expertise from all over the world – from academics and researchers, to specialists, analysts, technicians and students. The UK needs a light-touch, fair and transparent immigration system which pragmatically supports the Government’s commitment to ensuring the UK is “a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead”.[2]

• We welcome the Government’s desire to secure an ambitious agreement with the EU on science and innovation cooperation; this should include continued UK participation in Horizon 2020 to the end of the programme and access to and influence over future EU research and innovation programmes and infrastructures with a focus on excellence.

2.       Context

2.1       The purpose of The Russell Group is to provide strategic direction, policy development and communications for 24 major research-intensive universities in the UK; we aim to ensure that policy development in a wide range of issues relating to higher education is underpinned by a robust evidence base and a commitment to civic responsibility, improving life chances, raising aspirations and contributing to economic prosperity and innovation.

2.2       We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee’s call for evidence on the Life Sciences and Industrial Strategy.

3.       Research

3.1       Universities act as magnets for the creation of knowledge-intensive industry clusters, attracting business and inward investment into areas to create regions of excellence in research and innovation. These clusters, such as the Cambridge Science Park and Newcastle University’s Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, bring together actors from across the life sciences ecosystem, and will play a key role in delivering the UK Life Sciences Industrial Strategy. 

3.2       As stated in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy, “the key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research”. In turn, the impact of our universities’ research has been underpinned by the dual support system of funding, which has played an essential role in sustaining research of the highest quality.

3.3       It can be hard to predict the exact benefits of individual pieces of research and the role of serendipity in scientific discoveries has been shown throughout history. For example, the development of insulin drugs used to treat millions of diabetic patients worldwide, with drug sales totalling over $6 billion annually, is based on research which took place over decades and collaboration spanning over 16 years between the University of York’s Structural Biology Laboratory and the pharmaceutical company Novo-Nordisk. It is critical there is sustained investment in fundamental, curiosity-driven research to allow this kind of ground-breaking advance to be made. Whilst our analysis shows impacts can be delivered in a relatively short time in some cases, UK research policy should avoid being driven by short-term needs and problems.[3]

3.4       Quality-related ‘QR’ funding allows universities to engage in long-term strategic planning for research and to respond quickly to emerging opportunities, giving them a strategic edge against international competitors. As well as underpinning and leveraging other funding, including from industry and charities, QR is used to support a wide range of activities which keep UK universities at the forefront of global science, including:

• Building interdisciplinary research capacity
• Supporting cutting-edge, curiosity-driven or newly developing research areas
• Attracting and retaining top researchers and supporting staff development
• Developing and improving research infrastructure, facilities and equipment
• Training and developing postgraduates and early career researchers

3.5       As part of the new industrial strategy, and to meet its commitment to ‘balanced funding’ in the HE and Research Act, we encourage Government to allocate a meaningful proportion of the additional £4.7 billion R&D funding to 2020-21 to the QR investment stream. In particular this should be via the business support element and the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF), with appropriate allocations to the funding bodies in the devolved nations as well.

3.6       As stated in the Life Science Industrial Strategy, the CRSF in particular enables a significant amount of vital medical and health research in UK universities, which brings substantial societal and economic benefits. Charities play an integral part in the UK’s life sciences funding landscape, delivering a diverse range of funding across the country, and in particular for higher-risk research that might not attract direct public funding even if the potential returns may be higher. The funding provided through the CRSF allows universities to bid for, and underpin, substantial amounts of research funding from the UK’s third sector organisations that might otherwise go overseas.

3.7       In 2016/17, HEFCE allocated £198 million via the CRSF. However, CRSF funding has remained essentially flat since 2010. This means the real value of the CRSF has been eroded over time: first through the effects of inflation, which means the CRSF now only has a buying power of around 80% of its value in 2010; and second because the amount of research funding available from research charities has increased over time, thus diluting the CRSF contribution per pound of funding won.

3.8       We therefore strongly support the recommendation in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy to enhance to CRSF in order to maintain the competitiveness of the UK research base and tap into available research funding from the UK’s research charities, we recommend the Government consider boosting the CRSF with new money and then protect its value by:

• Ensuring the overall Charity Research Support Fund increases with inflation (noting that the science and research resource budget within which the CRSF sits has itself been given very welcome real-terms protection by the Government), and
• Providing flexibility to allow the CRSF to grow in future in line with charity investment above inflation so long as additional funding is available.

4.       Innovation

4.1       Russell Group universities are highly successful in the commercial exploitation of their research and have a wide range of partnerships with businesses of all sizes, attracting external income of £2.4bn from business annually.[4] However, we recognise the Government’s ambition to boost the UK’s performance in taking ideas from lab to market.

4.2       We welcome the recent £40 million increase to the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), taking the value of the fund to £200 million a year. HEIF is extremely effective at developing knowledge-based interactions between universities and businesses across many areas and several Russell Group universities are targeting work within the life sciences. For example, in its Institutional five-year Knowledge Exchange Strategy, Queen Mary University of London describes how a combination of investment from HEIF and Wellcome Trust supports the work of the Centre of the Cell science education centre based at the university’s Whitechapel Campus. This is the first science education centre in the world to be located within working biomedical research laboratories and the Centre is uniquely positioned to ensure that the research carried out across QMUL’s Life Sciences work is well disseminated, and that the community feels comfortable with their work and empowered to work with their researchers.

4.3       Evidence shows every £1 of HEIF funding results in a return on investment of £9.70 in benefits for the economy and society.[5] On this basis, increasing HEIF funding to £250 million per year could lead to benefits of around £2.4 billion, and lifting the caps on the amounts of funding available to individual universities would allow universities with the most success in this area to do even more. In addition, funding of this nature should be consistently available across the UK, as previously recommended by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.[6]

4.4       In our response to the Industrial Strategy Green Paper we outlined further suggestions which could be considered to support increased commercialisation of research and translation of scientific discoveries into new businesses – these are not specific to the life sciences sector but would be relevant across the breadth of disciplines/sectors:[7]

• Reforming the R&D tax environment, including introducing a targeted VAT exemption for new university buildings used for collaboration with business and simplifying the eligibility criteria for the Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC) so that all research business conducts with universities is automatically eligible for tax relief
• Creating a proof of concept fund available across the research spectrum to help take research ideas through to commercialisation
• Ensuring universities maintain autonomy to manage their own intellectual property (IP)
• Exploring ways to reduce the time and effort required to establish a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) and consider how to raise greater awareness with the SME community
• Optimising access and use of Impact Accelerator Accounts (IAAs) by supporting the creation of a cross-Research Council IAA through UKRI

5.       Skills

5.1       Russell Group universities teach strategically important life sciences subjects at the highest level and with a reputation for quality, drawing on cutting-edge research and links with business, the NHS and many others to create a research-engaged learning environment. Our universities train almost a third of all science and engineering graduates in the UK, including 56% of graduates in mathematical sciences, helping to ensure the UK has the talent pool to meet the needs of employers. They are especially important in providing postgraduate research (PGR) training: for example, 53% of biological sciences PGR students are at Russell Group universities.[8]

5.2       Teaching costs for STEM subjects and medicine are higher than other subjects because of the requirement for expensive laboratories and equipment and for practical hands-on experience in the field and elsewhere to develop the skills that will be valuable to employers and in future researchers. Tuition fee income alone does not cover these costs and in some subjects increased student numbers has led to less funding per student, which will ultimately impact on the quality of provision.

5.3       To secure the financial sustainability of high-cost and strategically important subjects, funding bodies across the UK should make a long-term commitment to boost and then maintain funding levels per student, helping underpin growth in this high-level skills pipeline – this will help ensure the higher education sector is able to meet the STEM skill needs of employers.

5.4       The ability to retain and attract leading international experts to undertake teaching and research will be essential in training the next generation of UK graduates; ensuring universities are able to do this easily and flexibly is especially important. Further details are provided in the section below on Brexit.

5.5       Postgraduate research students are vital to the life sciences and to maintaining and enhancing the country’s strengths in research and innovation. We welcome the Government’s recognition of this by providing £90 million to fund an additional 1,000 PhD places in areas aligned with the industrial strategy. In addition to this new PhD funding, investment could be boosted in the next generation of research and innovation leaders by allowing a portion of the Apprenticeship Levy to be invested in the training and career development of postgraduate researchers. The most efficient and effective way of targeting investment would be to use the tools and channels the Government already has at its disposal via the Research and Funding Councils (and in future by UKRI). The Apprenticeship Levy should also be used to boost support for the development of new degree apprenticeships, as the small competitive pot of funding currently available is inadequate to maximise the potential in this area.

6.       Brexit

6.1       Research and innovation are global pursuits and are most effective when ideas and people are mobile across borders. The free movement of talent, the networks, collaborations, critical mass of research activity and funding we gain from EU membership contributes to the competitiveness of our leading universities and the UK economy as a whole.

6.2       EU staff and students make an essential contribution to the sustainability of bioscience teaching and research. Overall, there are 24,860 members of staff from other EU countries working at Russell Group universities, accounting for 22% of our academic workforce. Within disciplines related to the life sciences, however, EU staff make a particularly significant contribution, accounting for 31% of mathematics academics, 26% of academic staff in biosciences and a quarter of chemistry academics. EU nationals play a crucial role in the research and teaching of these economically important subjects, helping to deliver skilled graduates to the UK workforce in skills shortage areas essential for economic growth.

6.3       Across the Russell Group there are 61,000 students of other EU nationalities at our universities. EU-domiciled students make up 6% of our undergraduates, 9% of postgraduate taught students and 16% of postgraduate research students. As with staff, there are higher than average proportions of EU students in subjects related to or important to the life sciences (see Table 1).

Table 1: First-year EU-domiciled students at Russell Group universities by discipline and level of study

6.4       Maintaining a pipeline of highly-skilled graduates (especially postgraduates) in the UK in these key subjects is crucial to supporting innovation and growth in the life sciences. EU students not only contribute directly by taking up skilled jobs after graduation, but also allow the UK to develop our own pipeline of talent by ensuring courses are financially sustainable and can be offered to home students.

6.5       In the lead up to Brexit and beyond universities can play an essential role in boosting jobs and growth and driving productivity through delivering cutting-edge research and innovation. To maximise their impact, universities will need to able to continue to attract and retain talented EU staff and students and a strong relationship between the UK and the EU on higher education and research must be maintained.

6.6       We agree with the concerns raised in the Life Science Industrial Strategy that the potential disruption associated with Brexit could lead to some loss of talent from the sector. We therefore strongly support the recommendation to ensure we can bring high-level talent into the country, including through specific programmes such as the Rutherford Fund. We also welcome the proposal to reduce barriers to recruiting non-UK nationals through simplifying the Tier 2 visa process. In evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into immigration earlier this year we identified a series of broad principles which we would want to see in a future immigration system, which would support the recruitment of international talent into the life sciences sector and the UK research base more widely.[9]

6.7       EU funding for life sciences research is also critical. The Strategy highlights the importance of the UK continuing its involvement in the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) in particular – Russell Group universities are some of the most active academic partners in the IMI and it is an important programme to bring together academia and industry.

6.8       However, the Horizon 2020 programme has significant value for the life sciences beyond that, including through:

(a)        The societal challenge collaborative projects on health, where 44% of projects include a Russell Group university

(b)        The European Research Council, which has a specific category of grants for life sciences researchers at different stages of their careers

(c)         Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, where a quarter of the funding coming to the UK has been allocated to life sciences (more than any other area).[10]

6.9       We support the Government’s desire to reach an ambitious agreement with the EU on science and innovation cooperation. To this end, we urge the Government to negotiate the UK’s continued participation in the Horizon 2020 programme from the date of EU exit to the end of the programme and to prioritise negotiating the UK’s full access to and influence over future EU research and innovation programmes and infrastructures with a focus on excellence.

22 September 2017