Response and comments to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee's Research Council Scrutiny Session - Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

Our comments address the specific issues highlighted by the Committee, together with the priorities in the 5 year plan 2003-2008 and is in response to the scrutiny session on 1 December 2003. Further information here

Prepared by Dr Nick Walton and Catherine Reynolds
Institute of Food Research

17 November 2003

Introduction

The Institute of Food Research (IFR) is publicly funded to carry out independent research in food safety; diet and health; and food materials science. The IFR is one of eight Institutes sponsored by the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council to provide continuum research and receives Core Strategic Grant, together with Infrastructure and Major Capital Funding from the BBSRC (2003/4 value ~ £9.4M). IFR's mission is to be a recognised world leader in our chosen areas of science (Food Safety; Diet and Health; Food Materials and Ingredients) and to exploit and/or apply the output of our research for the benefit of our stakeholders - the science community, the UK Government and its agencies, regulatory authorities, the European Commission, industry and consumer organisations. The Institute is situated on the Norwich Research Park, and is a contributor to 'NRP Science'.

Institute 'success' depends on the production of science outputs of high quality, judged by international standards, which have been generated by means of research conducted to high standards of scientific process, with science subject to formal review by the BBSRC in the regular Institute Assessment Exercise (IAE). It is also judged implicitly by IFR's ability to gain external funding and by its publication record in high-impact, refereed journals.

Context of response

IFR is responding to the enquiry both as a BBSRC-sponsored Institute receiving Core Strategic Grant, and as an organisation in which staff may apply for competitive grants from BBSRC.

• Administration of grant awards

In common with other BBSRC-sponsored Institutes, IFR is permitted to bid for BBSRC responsive-mode grant funding, up to an annual financial limit (the "cap"). Both successful and unsuccessful applications count against it. This can discourage external collaborations, particularly with universities, which are not subject to the "cap" rule. We would therefore recommend that the "cap" mechanism is reviewed, in order to increase flexibility and to encourage external collaboration.

Whilst we would wish to praise the BBSRC Committees for their scrupulous refereeing and assessment of grants, we would support a review of grant-refereeing procedures to introduce greater openness, to safeguard objectivity and to consider more feedback to applicants (including scores). This review could include a re-consideration of reviewer anonymity.

The "lead time" for grant applications, from submission to decision and staff appointment, is substantial. We would encourage BBSRC to work towards a shorter cycle for receiving and processing applications, and an increased frequency of committee meetings. EPSRC have trialled an incentive system to stimulate rapid refereeing; this could be considered by BBSRC. Alternatively, payment for review work might be a possibility. Additionally, a pre-screening process for outline proposals could be considered. Any measure which emphasises the importance of review as part of the grant cycle is to be encouraged.

In our view, special initiatives (for example, to provide platform technologies) should have distinct application and assessment procedures, rather than "hybrid" processes grafted onto the RG1A responsive-mode application form and procedure.

It is increasingly difficult for Institutes, in common with many other academic scientific establishments, to attract the very best young graduates into research. We would strongly support the introduction of 4-year PhD studentships as the norm, with increased stipends and funding for consumables and travel that approximates to the actual cost. This would also harmonise with best practice elsewhere in Europe. At present, the bench costs of studentships are heavily subsidised within the Institute by funds from other sources.

• Technology transfer

Technology transfer activities are rightly focused at Institute level, close to the scientific output. Nevertheless, we would recommend a strengthening of BBSRC activity centrally, to provide a reservoir of complementary expertise and coordination across the BBSRC portfolio.

IFR has responded to the Baker Report and, in 2000 (in collaboration with PBL) won a Department of Trade and Industry Capacity Building Grant award to provide funding for a dedicated post in IP management. This has enabled us to build relationships with our commercial customers in which each can have the confidence of best practice in IP protection and technology transfer. The recent grant from BBSRC to review IFR's current patent portfolio has been helpful, as had financial support for developing business opportunities centred on the National Collection of Yeast Cultures.

The Food & Health Network provides a clear route by which IFR's science can be communicated to, and used by, the industry. Membership is open to all food-related companies. As well as providing workshops and seminars on topics identified by the membership, the Network offers the opportunity for companies to work with IFR scientists on generic issues within Expertise Clusters.

Development of entrepreneurial skills amongst a group of our younger scientists has been greatly aided through their participation in the 2003 Biotechnology YES competition, and training provided free-of-charge from local companies.

• Public awareness

The BBSRC requires Institute scientists to demonstrate the communication of science outputs, and enter into dialogue with the public, but does not specifically fund it. The IFR has a 40 year track record in this area, with CSG funding top-sliced to fund professionally-qualified science communicators, backed up by a small network of highly-committed scientists, to resource and support wide-ranging activity for stakeholders at local, national and international level. Although this policy is an effective use of resources, it is a 'non-research overhead' that also requires time and energy from already overstretched scientific staff. In addition, excellence in this type of activity is not universally encouraged, recognised or rewarded at the individual post-doctoral and senior post-doctoral level.

Our activity is tested internally against its ability to add value for stakeholders, and includes Open Days, annual reviews of science, newsletters, media activity, articles for lay readership magazines and websites, coordination of conferences and public events, and contributions to national events. At local level, IFR strongly supports the added value provided by Norwich Research Park Science and the innovative Teacher-Scientist network and is resourcing several bids by local schools for technology, science and sport specialist status. Activity also includes participatory events for children and adults, and hosting events on-site for stakeholders. We also underpin others' activity with speakers and presenters - for instance, Science Museum Antenna exhibits, Westminster Diet and Health Fora, the Science Media Centre and the Parliamentary All Party Group on Cancer. Although expenses can be claimed, time is given gratis. IFR recognises the tension between this activity and the challenge to Institutes to increase the proportion of externally-funded work, which means that we monitor non-research activity very closely.

Our communications staff are encouraged to network amongst professionals within UK and internationally, promoting the concepts of dialogue and communication as 'best practice' to scientific audiences in the UK and internationally. We would encourage the BBSRC to provide funding to support this type of activity, as a legitimate aspect of research.

• Specific allocations in spending review period

The proportion of grant applications that can receive support is now declining again, following an improvement in the late 1990s. Modern biology is high-technology-based, with rising costs to match. UK scientific competitiveness must not be undermined by a decreasing ability to fund α-rated proposals.

• Pursuit of strategic objectives in the 5 year plan 2003-2008

Objective 1 Excellent science - prioritise and deliver world-class science in the non-clinical biosciences - integrative biology, sustainable agriculture, the healthy organism and bioscience for industry

Institute strategy is mapped closely against that of the BBSRC, to deliver world-class science in line with their ten-year vision 'Towards predictive biology' and strategic plan 2003-2008, launched in January 2003. IFR research is fully in line with the BBSRC vision of integrative biology, which informs work on the healthy organism, bioscience for industry and sustainable agriculture.

The enduring tension for Institutes, and particularly for scientists, is that they are charged with undertaking α-rated science, in parallel with getting funds from external sources, particularly industry, but judged in the Institute Assessment Exercise primarily from an academic viewpoint. There is a risk of under-rating specialist or emerging interdisciplinary areas - very much a feature of Institute work - when these areas are under-recognised in the scientific community at large.

Additionally for Institutes there is an issue that discourages multi-disciplinary and multi-organisational collaboration, with respect to the reduced output performance indicator 'marks' awarded by BBSRC for refereed publications when a number of Principal Investigators are cited.

Recognising the importance of quality assurance standards, the IFR has invested heavily in measures to support ISO9001 registration and welcomes the financial support that has been forthcoming from BBSRC to assist Institutes in this activity. All research organisations bidding for funding need to be able to demonstrate compliance with an equivalent process, in line with the BBSRC/FSA/DEFRA concordat on QA.

In order to undertake their science, Institutes have to comply with a variety of legislation. For example, all research involving human subjects carried out by IFR staff, either within the Institute or in collaboration with scientists or clinicians at other locations, must be conducted in a manner which safeguards the welfare of both the volunteers and the researchers. Similarly, all establishments designated under the 1986 Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act must have in place an approved ethical review process. The Institute has recently been reviewed by the Health & Safety Executive in respect of compliance with genetic manipulation regulations. Staffing resources to support, guide and advise on these issues are limited at BBSRC's Swindon office.

The IFR monitors carefully scientific authorship and publications to minimise the risk of unfair treatment of individuals, or the publication of misleading results.

Objective 2 Tools and technology - develop the basic tools, resources and new technologies to further understanding of the biosciences

IFR has benefited substantially from BBSRC funding to invest in DNA microarray technology and (jointly with the John Innes Centre, and with the help of industrial support) in proteomics. The microarray facility has been used, for example, to provide a comprehensive picture of gene expression in Salmonella during infection, a "world first" in the field that has been achieved in collaboration with the Karolinska Insitute in Sweden.

Nevertheless, we are concerned that overall the level of investment in post-genomic technologies and bioinformatics in BBSRC institutes is inadequate. The recent £2m BBSRC initiative to provide a UK Metabolomics Facility for plant and microbial science was "too little, too late" and substantial additional investment is urgently needed, including on Norwich Research Park as a major European centre in the biosciences, to ensure truly international competitiveness across plants, microbes and human studies. We welcome the recent one-off allocation from BBSRC of £0.25m (per Institute) to strengthen bioinformatics research across the BBSRC-sponsored Institutes; however, funding for "support" functions in bioinformatics and computing is not adequate and does not take full account of the very real difficulties faced by BBSRC Institutes in staff recruitment and retention in this area.

Objective 3 People - invest in people to provide a motivated scientific community trained in relevant skills to meet national needs

Institutes employ a wide range of skills and disciplines to address biological problems. We would encourage BBSRC to broaden the view of its role as 'providing training in the biosciences' to become more inclusive and not only 'provide training for scientists contributing to the biosciences', thus acknowledging and supporting, for example, physicists, mathematicians and engineers, but also acknowledge the role played by trained and motivated non-science staff in science delivery.

The Institute has a good record in providing training for UK and international young scientists, through the provision of PhD opportunities, funded by BBSRC and other providers, and 'Marie Curie Training Sites' which provides for stays of up to 1 year for non-UK, EU PhD students. Staff (science and support) are encouraged to study for technical and personal development with the Open University, for MBAs and other professional post-graduate qualifications. In addition, in line with our quality policy, staff are provided with appropriate training and coaching for technical operations in the laboratory. There is good staffing and financial support from BBSRC Public Affairs for media training for staff, but in recent years central resourcing for core training has regrettably been reduced, and IFR is increasingly having to use external trainers. This has had a negative impact on the volume of training that can be provided within the financial envelope specified by BBSRC.

Objective 4 Knowledge transfer - promote innovation and knowledge transfer from BBSRC-funded science and training for the economic and social benefit of the UK

See above

Objective 5 Partnerships - seek new and stronger partnerships with a range of other funders and stakeholders, national and international, where there is benefit to the science base. Engage the public in awareness and dialogue about BBSRC science

• The public
  

BBSRC has an active programme for awareness and dialogue centred on its Public Affairs branch, with effective integration with Institutes where appropriate. BBSRC makes it clear to staff and students in Institutes that contributions to this programme are expected, although the quality of 'science and society' activity has not been reviewed on an on-going basis. Review of this area is planned to be examined in the next Institute Assessment Exercise. Although there is a central funding pool for events and activities, fixed deadlines mean that late opportunities cannot easily be addressed.

• Other funders (eg FSA, other Research Councils)
  

Although BBSRC staff from Swindon office maintain strategic relationships with other funding bodies, government agencies and departments this is essentially separate from the relationships developed at Institute level, and many staff do not have a sense of ownership of a place within the 'UK research base in the biosciences'.

IFR welcomes the developing partnerships with other research councils including NERC and EPSRC, and the advent of pan-research council research programmes. We welcome the new initiative between BBSRC and MRC to co-fund work in proteomics, and would strongly encourage the extension of this principle to co-fund more projects that lie at the MRC-BBSRC interface - not only to share costs, but also to strengthen this important area.

Although each Government funding agency has a distinct role to play in provision of research we also welcome the increasing partnerships between BBSRC, DEFRA and FSA in addressing the research issues that cross boundaries - for example biological food safety and diet and health.

• International
  

BBSRC's International Branch has a long history of support for activity world-wide. Although the sums of money at their disposal are comparatively small, they are responsive to requests for support and have provided funding for international collaboration that has immense added value. IFR examples include the Japan Partnering Award, which supports our collaboration with Chiba University, and sponsorship for discussion meetings (for example in the field of nutritional genomics where the outcome is a substantial input into the newly-funded FP6 Network of Excellence on this topic).

Participation in Europe is extremely important to the UK research base. In order to comply with matching funding rules, much of the co-funding has to come from BBSRC. We welcome increased dialogue and efforts to identify European Research priorities and to ensure that participation is properly financed, managed and integrated into ongoing and future national objectives.

Objective 6 Effective organisation - utilise resources effectively and responsibly to maximise funding for science

A key aspect of BBSRC organisation is the responsibility, together with Governing Bodies, for high standards of accountability, propriety and efficient use of resources. In the last year new and helpful statements of responsibility have been agreed with IFR's Governing Body, but further work is needed to confirm those areas which are appropriately reserved by BBSRC-sponsored Institute Governing Bodies, as opposed to devolved to the Director and staff. IFR commends increasingly proactive involvement of Governors in BBSRC planning.

In its strategic plan the BBSRC comments that although the inherited level of administration costs has been reduced by 30%, there is a case for increased expenditure on staffing. The IFR would support this position, recognising that delegation of responsibilities for delivery of administrative procedures from Swindon office has not always necessarily been the most effective way forward. In contrast, at Institute level the BBSRC-as-employer relationship is not always inclusive or clear; for example much of the burden of implementing centrally-negotiated awards (salary, merit pay, individual merit promotions) falls directly on the Core Strategic Grant budget, with negative impact on the amount of leading-edge science that can be done.

After a long period of under-resourcing in respect of estate development and maintenance at its Norwich site prior to consolidation, IFR has been supported by BBSRC with funding for infrastructure investment, although a proportion of the funding is repayable over time. The Institute is completing a ten year infrastructure and maintenance plan as requested by the BBSRC Estates Policy. In addition the Institute is looking longer term at a higher level 30 year site model in order that it can quantify the annual commitment suitable to sustain the Institute's estate.