BBSRC Hints at Demand Management

Prof Douglas Kell, CEO of the BBSRC, has sent out a letter detailing changes in light of its Delivery Plan and its move to the Shared Services Centre. Whilst not explicitly introducing demand management systems (as the ESRC has stated it will), it is moving to limit neuroscience applications and has hinted that there may be some form of 'triage' in the futre.

SSC: Delays, and Future Deadlines
There will be some delays to grant applications submitted on 11 Jan, as a result of the BBSRC's move to the SSC. In addition, the next two deadlines will be later: 25 May 2011, and 25 Oct 2011.

Changes to Committee Structure
The new quadripartite 'clover leaf' system of grant committees will remain, although Committee C will expand, from 25 May, to take over responsibility for genetics and development.

Changes to Grading of Proposals
From 11 Jan the BBSRC will move to grading proposals on a 1-6 scale, in line with the other Research Councils. It notes, ominously: 'Enabling referees to score grants means that, if necessary, it will be possible in future to operate a triage of grant proposals based on referee scores, in order to eliminate lower-scoring applications before the committee meeting and reduce the burden at meetings.' Whilst I understand that having a grading system would allow triage to happen, should we read anything in to the fact that the BBSRC will sharing the same grading system as that used by the other Councils? Does this hint at the Research Councils introducing a kind of 'Shared Triage Centre'?

In addition they will be grading the 'Pathways to Impact' section, and this will have an effect on the overall grading.

Limiting Allowance for Errors
It will also limit the allowance it makes for errors in applications that have been rushed to be submitted. Apparently there are too many of these. If errors are picked up the BBSRC won't allow applicants to amend and resubmit to the same deadline, but will have to wait until the next.

Use of JeS for Referees
It sounds like they're getting strict on referees, too. 'Individuals with a poor track record of responding to such requests [to referee proposals] are unlikely to be invited to join Committees and other bodies involved in developing and delivering BBSRC science,' it states. In addition, they will be corresponding with all potential referees through the JeS system. So make sure your profile is up to date.

RCUK to Concentrate on Large Grants

This week's Times Higher is reporting on how the Research Councils are aiming to 'concentrate cash'. You can see their point: last time round they went for 'salami slicing', spreading the pain so that everyone got a couple of groats and a rotten potato, which they had to eke out whilst shelving their big projects.

Wellcome has already gone down the route of selecting the few, of course, and STFC have said they're going to do something similar. There are noises about EPSRC following suit, and rumours from the BBSRC about limiting the number of proposals each university can submit. Meanwhile the ESRC are talking about ditching their Small Grants scheme for all but earliest of early career researchers.

However, concentrating funding on the few is not without its detractors: as THE reports, some 'have pointed out that the efficiency of research groups tends to drop when they grow beyond a certain size.' So big doesn't necessarily mean good.

There's also the question of maintaining morale, especially for young academics. If there's nothing for small project or pilot studies, it will be easy for them to become disillusioned. Worse still, if the Councils concentrate on what they think are the current strategic priorities, there'll be no fostering of future (as yet unrecognised) priorities.

The comments that follow the THE piece are illuminating. Almost all make the point that some of the best research comes from small grants, which give investigators the opportunity to explore risky and tentative avenues, whilst larger grants tend to stick to more incremental developments of understanding.

Let's hope the Councils take these thoughts on board and don't slavishly try to follow what the government wants.

BBSRC Mock Panel to be Held at Kent

Alf Game and Helen Meade from the BBSRC are coming over to Kent next Wednesday (30 June) to run a mock peer review. This is something that the EPSRC runs regularly, but it's new territory for the BBSRC. A mock panel is an opportunity to experience what it is like in a real peer review panel. Participants are given a range of previously submitted applications to assess, and have to introduce, discuss and prioritise them. At the end you will find out which of the applications were successful in reality. It’s a really useful exercise to help understand the issues and restrictions the real panel operates under.
Numbers are restricted, and places are given on a first come first served basis. Lunch will be available from 12pm, and Alf will kick off the meeting with a brief overview off the committee process before getting down to the business of reviewing applications. If you would like to take part please drop me a line.

BBSRC Seeks Nominations for its Strategy Panels

The BBSRC are looking for people for their Strategy Panels, Pool of Experts: Peer Review and Training Awards Committee. The Panels play leading roles in the development and implementation of the Council's policies and priorities. The Pool of Experts: Peer Review and Training Awards Committee play key roles in delivering BBSRC's Mission by carrying out peer review of research grant proposals, the awarding of studentships and fellowships and assessing final reports on funded proposals. Appointments will commence in January 2011 for one year initially, with anticipated extension for a further two years.Further details, including role of the Panels, Pool of Experts: Peer Review and the Training Awards Committee, Person Specification and Expression of Interest Form can be found here.

BBSRC Deadline Changed

The BBSRC has pulled forward its next deadline, from 14 July to the 23 June 2010. No indication has been given as to the reason for this, and when I called to ask the BBSRC there was no clear explanation on hand for it.

Applications without Impact Get Funded

An interesting article in this week's Times Higher: apparently applicants who refuse to complete an impact statement are not necessarily less likely to secure funding. Zoe Corbyn writes that, using figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, she's uncovered a "modest revolt" against impact statements at some of the councils. Whilst she admits that it's only a 'snapshot of researchers' behaviour', it does demonstrate that researchers who refuse to complete the statements are still winning funding.

Interestingly, the THE analysis shows that the BBSRC and ESRC applicants were most compliantwith the Impact demands (all provided the requested information), whilst EPSRC and AHRC applicants were least so (7% and 4% respectively didn't). Despite this non-compliance, however, 12 AHRC applications and 3 EPSRC without statements got funded.

The article was accompanied with a 'word cloud' of commonly used words found in the impact statements, reproduced above.

BBSRC Announces Five Year Plan

The BBSRC launched 'The Age of Bioscience' yesterday, which outlined its priorities for the next five years. It intends to focus on three areas: food security; bioenergy and industrial biotechnology; and the basic bioscience underpinning health.
Underpining these strategic priorities are three further themes: knowledge exchange, innovation and skills, exploiting new ways of working and partnerships.
More detail on these themes is available via the link above.

Become a Research Council Member

A call's been announced for the annual round of appointments to the Research Councils. This round usually commences in October and takes place in two parts. BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC and STFC first, followed by AHRC, NERC and ESRC slightly later. This round may be supplemented by competitions for individual or groups of posts as necessary.
All appointments are initially for a period of up to four years, and members are eligible for re-appointment for a further period of up to four years. Members of Council are part-time and are expected to spend some 20 days each year on Council business. An annual honorarium of £6,740 is paid to council members and £8,970 is paid to members who chair boards.
I'd encourage all senior staff to consider applying; as I've said before, involvement with the Councils is incredibly valuable not only for raising your profile (and that of the University), but also for gaining an insight into the way the Councils work. More details of the call, specification, and forms are available here.