2 Basic research
12. In 2004 the Government published the Science
and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014, in which it
set the UK an ambitious goal to increase gross investment in research
and development (GERD) as a proportion of GDP[11]
from 1.69% in 2004 to 2.5% by 2014. In 2008 the UK spent 1.88%
of GDP on GERD,[12] showing
a relatively small increase since the framework's goal was set.
Research funding
13. As we have noted, bioengineering includes many
disciplines, so it is difficult to define the boundaries of bioengineering
research and therefore to compile definitive figures on funding.
We can, however, examine some indicative figures from different
funding sources.
PRIVATE AND CHARITY SECTOR
14. A significant amount of bioengineering research
is funded by the private and charity sectors. According to the
2009 R&D Scoreboard, an investigation of the performance of
the top UK and global corporate investors in R&D during calendar
year 2008, the 130 UK pharmaceuticals and biotechnology sector
firms among the most active 850 companies in the UK invested £9.6
billion in R&D making the sector by far the largest investor
in R&D.[13] The R&D
Scoreboard includes R&D funded by UK companies, but not all
of this is carried out in the UK. In contrast, the Business Enterprise
R&D (BERD) data generated by the Office for National Statistics
(ONS) focuses on R&D activity within the UK, independent of
the source of funding, and excludes R&D carried out by UK
companies in other countries.[14]
Its 2008 figures show that the "pharmaceuticals, medical
chemicals and botanical products" sector contributed £4.3
billion, or 27.2% of the total R&D investment in the UK.[15]
15. The charity sector is an important funding source
for medical research, raising funds in a number of ways, for example
through fundraising or investment portfolios. The Association
of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) reported in 2008 that its
117 members had contributed over £5 billion to medical research
over the preceding six years,[16]
with over £935 million spent in 2008-09.[17]
These figures include the contributions of the Wellcome Trust
and Cancer Research UK, two of the world's largest charitable
bodies funding medical research. The Wellcome Trust alone spends
an estimated £600 million on biomedical research every year,
although this tends to focus more on translational research.[18]
PUBLIC SECTOR
16. The Government's Science, Engineering and Technology
(SET) statistics indicate the state of science funding in the
UK. These show that the Science Budget has grown significantly
in ten years from £1.2 billion in 1997-98 to around £3.5
billion in 2008-09.[19]
There are, however, signs that this growth may be coming to a
halt. In December 2009, the Government announced in its 2010 Pre-budget
report that it would seek to make £600 million of savings
by cutting the higher education, science and research budgets.[20]
How the axe will fall across these areas has not yet been clarified,[21]
and our concerns on this issue led to us conduct a separate inquiry
into funding cuts, on which we plan to report before the end of
the session.[22]
17. Funding for basic research mainly flows through
the Research Councils. As noted above, under the Haldane Principle
the Government sets an over-arching strategy, while researchers
themselves establish detailed priorities and apportion funding
on the basis of peer review. In 2007-08, the Research Councils
invested in the order of £110 million in bioengineering research.[23]
Of the seven Research Councils, the Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC)
and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
are the primary funders of bioengineering in the UK.
18. The Government told us that it aimed "to
maintain the UK as a world leader in stem cell research and development".[24]
It pointed out that funding for stem cell research had doubled
"from about £30 million in 2005-06 to more than £60
million in 2007-08".[25]
The Research Councils contributed more than two thirds of
this funding in the past year (£47 million),[26]
and according to Pfizer Ltd, 59% of this Research Council funding
(approximately £28 million) was for basic research.[27]
The Government also has its eye on emerging technologies too and
told us that it "wants to develop and exploit the UK's capability
in Synthetic Biology".[28]
The Research Councils explained that they are developing a "solid
programme" in synthetic biology, with expenditure in 2007-08
of around £20 million.[29]
19. The importance placed on funding for GM crops
was tougher to analyse. The Government's position was reasonably
clear: they stated that "the need to improve global food
security to feed an estimated population of nine billion people
by 2050 is a major challenge. The potential contribution that
GM can make as part of a "tool kit" should be considered".[30]
The Government said that the total UK public spend on food and
farming research, provided by the BBSRC, the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for International
Development (DfID), was about £350 million a year. Departmental
expenditure tends to support research that is aligned with specific
policy aims (see paragraph 60), while Research Council funding
mainly focuses on basic plant and crop science.[31]
The BBSRC's spend in the area of plant and crop science,
which is wider than bioengineering, was £66.4 million in
2007-08.[32] As a tool,
genetic modification (GM) has a relatively long history of use
in bioengineering research.[33]
RCUK informed us that expenditure on GM research by the Research
Councils in 2007-08 was around £140 million.[34]
This covered animals, humans and other organisms as well as plants.[35]
However, narrowing down to GM crop research, the Government told
us that "at present the amount of public funding specifically
for GM crop-related research is relatively limited." This
"limited" amount was not quantified.[36]
20. The Government's acknowledgement that GM crop
research funding is "relatively limited" contrasts with
its position that GM should be considered as part of a "tool
kit" to improve global food security, a significant international
challenge. We return to the assessment of GM crops when we examine
regulations in Chapter 4.
21. Bioengineering is an important component of
the UK research base and basic research is relatively well funded.
We detected, however, some tension between government priorities
and funding support in the area of GM crop research. This may
be a healthy manifestation of the Haldane Principle or a situation
peculiar to GM crops, but we invite the Government to consider
whether its overall strategy on the differential levels of funding
in key strategic areas is a cause for concern.
Research excellence
22. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
(BIS) surveys the international comparative performance of the
UK research base. The most recent report, published in September
2009, concluded that:
The UK exhibits strong relative international
performance in terms of sustainable achievement and productivity
and continues to support a more consistent performance than most
countries across fields of research. It is strong overall in the
natural sciences and, on indicators where it has been second to
the USA, it has maintained a close trail of moved into first place
over the last few years.[37]
23. An example of where the UK has overtaken the
USA is in its average citation impact,[38]
which is greater than the USA's in the clinical, health and biological
sciences. Overall, the BIS report shows that the UK generally
excels in bibliometrics such as citation impact and share of world
research papers.[39]
Imperial College told us that "the UK is second only to the
US in terms of publications relating to bioengineering",[40]
as illustrated by Figure 2.
Figure 2: Bioengineering and biomedical engineering
peer reviewed research publications (from Web of Science, search
terms: bioeng* OR biomedical eng* OR medical eng*)[41]
24. The Government pointed out that the UK is considered
to be a global leader in stem cell research,[42]
and according to the UK National Stem Cell Network, research capacity
is strong and growing.[43]
We asked Professor Sir Martin Evans, who won the 2007 Nobel prize
for his work on embryonic stem cells, whether he thought the UK's
stem cell research base was healthy and he replied:
I think intellectually it is pretty good. Obviously,
we had something of a start here but it was a start at a low level.
There is now worldwide an enormous amount of activity and interest
and a huge amount of money has been put in elsewhere, for instance,
in California, but I think we are in reasonably good shape.[44]
25. Similarly, the Royal Academy of Engineering,
in their written submission, stated that "the UK currently
holds a strong position in synthetic biology research".[45]
Professor Richard Kitney, Co-Director of the Centre for Synthetic
Biology and Innovation at Imperial College, was of a similar view,
stating that "as far as the academic research side of synthetic
biology is concerned we are number two in the world at the moment,
the US being the leader".[46]
26. The National Institute of Agricultural Botany
(NIAB) told us that:
The UK has a traditionally strong plant science
base in both universities and research institutes, particularly
in the field of basic plant genetics in which the UK remains a
world-leading authority.[47]
Professor Mike Ferguson, Dean of Research at the
College of Life Sciences in the University of Dundee, concurred
with this view, stating that:
The UK has an excellent and vibrant research
base in basic plant science despite limited research funding,
with many laboratories routinely using (and improving) GM techniques
and making fundamental discoveries that could be applied to crop
improvement.[48]
27. The majority view is that the UK has an overall
excellent bioengineering research base. We identified two threats
to this position: funding cuts and international competition.
We have already noted the threat of £600 million cuts at
paragraph 16. The Council for Science and Technology (CST), in
its report A vision for UK research, published in March
2010, pointed out that "the UK's leading position in research—currently
second only to the United States [...] is under threat from major
investments being made by existing and emerging economic powers."[49]
The CST linked this threat to cuts and recommended that:
The first step is for Government to continue
to prioritise research funding against other competing financial
pressures, against the background of public expenditure constraints.
Prioritisation must not compromise the need for the UK to maintain
a broad research base—the need to ensure capacity. At the
project level, funding should be determined solely by the excellence
of the research proposal itself.[50]
28. The CST's belief in the need to ensure research
capacity chimed with concerns that the UK will lose the benefit
of the strong investments made in the science base over the past
decade. For example, Sir Martin Evans told us:
I think we have done very well over the last
few years, particularly the last decade, and if we suddenly cut
that we will lose all that benefit. The trouble is that in science
you cannot just turn it on and off like a tap. You lose the people
and you lose the facilities. That does not mean, of course, that
science should not take its share of the burden, but I think we
should also look to trying to use the benefits of the science
we have and the science base we have for economic benefit and
not look at it merely as a pit to spend money in but also as a
cash cow to get money out of.[51]
Conclusions
29. The UK is a world leader in basic research
in bioengineering. But there is no room for complacency, particularly
when faced with the dual threats of funding cuts and increasing
international competition. Excellence in research is an investment
for the UK's future, and it requires a long-term, sustained commitment
to funding from the Government. Funding cuts to bioengineering,
and indeed most areas of science and engineering, would risk throwing
away the investment the Government has already made over the past
10 years. It would be foolhardy to take away that support now
and lose out on the future benefits of past investment. We are
concerned that the UK would not maintain an internationally competitive
position in bioengineering if funding for basic research was cut,
even in the short-term.
11 Gross Domestic Product Back
12
OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2009/2 Back
13
"The 2009 R&D Scoreboard", Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills, March 2010 Back
14
"How is the Scoreboard compiled?", Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills, www.bis.gov.uk Back
15
"UK Business Enterprise Research and Development 2008",
Office for National Statistics Statistical Bulletin, 11
December 2009, www.statistics.gov.uk Back
16
"A very public benefit: 21 years of charity support for medical
and health research and innovation", Association of Medical
Research Charities, December 2008 Back
17
"About us", Association of Medical Research Charities,
May 2009, www.amrc.org.uk Back
18
Ev 174, para 1 Back
19
"SET Statistics", Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills, www.dius.gov.uk Back
20
"Securing the recovery: growth and opportunity: Pre-budget
report", HM Treasury, December 2009 Back
21
Science and Technology Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2009-10,
The impact of funding cuts on science and scientific research,
HC 335 Back
22
"The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research:
terms of reference", Science and Technology Committee Press
Notice 11 of Session 2009-10, 13 January 2010 Back
23
Ev 9, para 5 Back
24
Ev 56, para 2.4 Back
25
Ev 57, para 2.15 Back
26
Q 3 Back
27
Ev 118 Back
28
Ev 56, para 2.2 Back
29
Ev 12, para 20 Back
30
Ev 55, para 2.6 Back
31
Ev 78 Back
32
Ev 55, para 2.19 Back
33
Ev 15, para 33 Back
34
Ev 14, para 32 Back
35
Ev 15, Annex 1 Back
36
Ev 78 Back
37
"International comparative performance of the UK research
base", Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, September
2009 Back
38
Citation impact is the ratio of citations per paper. Back
39
"International comparative performance of the UK research
base", Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, September
2009 Back
40
Ev 8, para 2.1 Back
41
Ev 8 Back
42
Ev 55, para 2.24 Back
43
Ev 116, para 2.1 Back
44
Q 2 Back
45
Ev 153, para 2 Back
46
Q 40 Back
47
Ev 104, para 5 Back
48
Ev 91 Back
49
Council for Science and Technology, A vision for UK research,
March 2010 Back
50
Council for Science and Technology, A vision for UK research,
March 2010, page 5 Back
51
Q 48 Back
|
