 |
| 2020: all eyes to the horizon |
_______________________
Last year I predicted that 2019 would bring a comprehensive spending review and the UK leaving the European Union. Well, what can I say? Events, dear boy, events. Still, undeterred by past misses, here is my forward look at 2020, carefully curated with colleagues from the Eastern Arc universities with whom I’ve been working since taking up the director’s role in the autumn.
Overall, I can only agree with the prime minister’s brother (and former science minister) Jo Johnson, who told Research Professional that research was probably “in for another challenging year”. Everything’s relative of course, and researchers should not forget that while research may be headed for a rocky ride, other government departments—and the people who depend on their spending—have shouldered the brunt of austerity cuts over the last decade.
A comprehensive spending review
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I hope that, if I predict this often enough, it will actually happen. In my defence, the comprehensive spending review (CSR) was due in 2019, but was derailed by the rollercoaster politics of the last twelve months. Given it is overdue, and that we now have a new government with a robust parliamentary majority, the CSR is as certain as can be.
And certainty is what it’s all about. For the past 18 months it feels like UK Research and Innovation, along with many other parts of government, has been holding its breath and waiting. Sure, much has been promised, particularly during the election campaign, but will any of it materialise?
During the election campaign, the Conservatives repeatedly reaffirmed their desire to hit the much-vaunted target of 2.4 per cent of GDP for research and development. This sounds positive, but the new government will find itself with plenty of other mouths to feed in the new year. Should the UK leave the EU on 31 January (or before) as is almost certain, there will many calls from other quarters for government funding to ease the transition. Will R&D be able to hold its own among them?
The sunset of Horizon 2020
2020 is the final year of Horizon 2020, and it will be a bumper year for the European Commission’s main vehicle for research and innovation funding. It has been agreed that the programme’s annual budget will increase by 8.8 per cent to just under €13.5 billion. The rise includes €504 million for initiatives addressing climate change—although some MEPs have suggested this is not enough to make a real difference.
The sunrise of Horizon Europe
As one ship sails out, another comes into port. Early in 2020 we should see an agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework, which provides a five to seven-year budget for the EU. There’s a lot of jostling for a piece of this. The proposed budget for Horizon Europe is €94.4bn, but there is no guarantee that that’s what it’s going to get.
Once allocated, the hares can run: the legislation will be hammered out, and a Strategic Plan drafted. Based on this, implementation agreements will be prepared, ready for the launch of the new programme at the beginning of 2021.
But will we be a part…or apart?
Despite Chris Skidmore’s desire for a post-Brexit UK to be part of Horizon Europe, there’s no guarantee that the Commission will allow it.
The UK’s status is subject to negotiation, and we can’t assume anything until those negotiations have concluded. The mood music coming from Brussels is ‘Europe first’; there needs to be a primary benefit for the European Economic Area (EEA) in what the EU spends. Having the UK on board, which has previously been a net beneficiary, won’t necessarily be welcomed by all.
In the meantime, the UK government is still willing to underwrite the UK element of any European grant, even if the outcome of the application isn’t even known at the point at which we leave the EU. Providing this underwrite will be no easy administrative task, and both UKRI and individual universities are in for a difficult few months of sorting out claims while trying, swan-like, to keep up the appearance of serenity.
New internationalists
So if we don’t get to play, what’s the alternative? This was the challenge put to the Smith-Reid Review, and it recommended a series of funds that either replaced existing Horizon 2020 provision (such as the ‘discovery fund’) or suggested more opportunistic new ones (such as the ‘agility fund’).
When—or even if—the recommendations will be adopted is moot, but Smith and Reid were keen for there to be a smooth transition between the withdrawal of European funding and the provision of an alternative. However, one policy wonk I trust told me he would “be surprised if they were implemented in full” and that’s worth keeping in mind.
That’s not to stop others stepping in to provide a bit of post-Brexit certainty. In November, for example, the Leverhulme Trust announced a £100-million international professorships scheme to attract global research talent to the UK, which will be launched in January.
Investing in infrastructure
On the same day that the Smith-Reid Review was published, UKRI announced the findings of its survey of the UK’s research infrastructure. As well as auditing what already exists, the exercise assessed what the UK’s future needs may be.
The report made clear that the government needs to be joined up and ambitious in deciding where resources are allocated. UKRI says the document will be used to “inform our approach” and I can imagine the first steps in line with its recommendations will be taken in the new year. The appointment of James Hetherington as director for e-infrastructure is a clear signal of intent. Hetherington will start in January.
Opening up
In May 2019 cOAlition S, the pan-European consortium of funders pushing forward on open access, published revised guidance on Plan S implementation. Plan S states that outputs from publicly funded research must be made freely available without embargo. The guidance included a delay to the formal start of Plan S until the beginning of January 2021.
So 2020 will see publishers, institutions and repositories gearing up for the change. UKRI will launch a nine-week public consultation on a draft policy, which was delayed because of the general election, and a revised policy will follow.
Being diligent
UKRI has also announced that it would be working with the Association of Research Managers and Administrators to explore how to standardise and streamline due diligence procedures for institutions overseas.
With the growth in the Global Challenges Research Fund, UK universities are increasingly working with overseas partners for whom they need to undertake due diligence checks. If more than one UK partner works with them, the same information may be requested multiple times in different formats. Standardising this makes sense and should save time, money and effort. What form this clearing house and national service takes remains to be seen, but it is potentially a very positive step for anyone applying to the GCRF.
The final countdown
No horizon scan of research funding is complete without at least one mention of the Research Excellence Framework. The submission date for REF 2021 is 27 November 2020, but there will be a number of other milestones this year. Early in 2020 there will be a formal release of the submission systems and technical guidance, an invitation for higher education institutions to make submissions, an invitation to nominate panel members and assessors, and a deadline for staff circumstance requests. The census date for staff is 31 July, and the end of the assessment period.
Reimagining research
In the autumn the director of the Wellcome Trust, Jeremy Farrar, published a blog post bemoaning the current state of research collaboration. “People tell me about instances of destructive hyper-competition, toxic power dynamics and poor leadership behaviour,” he wrote. “We need to cultivate, reward, and encourage the best while challenging what is wrong.”
Wellcome then launched a survey that received 4,500 responses, it will be holding a series of regional events in the Spring and it hopes to publish a series of aspirational goals as a result. It is a positive and necessary step, and it will be interesting to see whether these goals are widely adopted or only ever remain aspirational.
A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in December 2019 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com
No comments:
Post a Comment