Lift “de facto ban” on new research organisations, UKRI told
A group of research funders and organisations have called on UKRI to reform its eligibility process, claiming that there is currently an effective ban on newly-formed research organisations.
The letter is available on the website of think tank Science.Works, and co-signatories include the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Research on Research Institute, and the Independent Science Society.
Under the current system, independent research organisations who wish to become eligible to apply for funding must evidence a track record of attracting funding. UKRI’s application form asks applicants to
“Please provide evidence that your Organisation has generated on average at least £0.5 million research income p.a over 3 years or invested the equivalent amount in Research and Innovation.”
Three years of audited financial accounts are also mandated. The open letter describes this as a “lagging” requirement which inevitably requires newly established organisations to partner with universities in order to access taxpayer-funded infrastructure, facilities, and funding. It also makes the case that “not all research is best done in academic settings by researchers responding to academic incentives,” echoing the Nurse review’s call for greater diversity of research-performing organisations.
The fix, it is suggested, would be for a two-track approach to eligibility, wherein those organisations who cannot evidence three years of research income track record can instead show that they have generated at least £1.5m in funding commitments.
With an eye on UKRI’s financial assurance responsibilities, the letter proposes that at least a portion of this should come from funders on the existing “endorsed funders” list (which is already in use in visa sponsorship contexts). Separately, the current distinction between standard and non-standard eligibility, designed to allow organisations to access certain specific funding opportunities, is described as “not well justified” and artificial.
The letter’s signatories argue that new research organisations will be a better fit for some types of science and technology, and well-placed to attract philanthropic funding especially in areas related to artificial intelligence:
“The opportunity afforded by new organisations like these is already enormous and is set to grow. Hundreds of billions of dollars are coming down the philanthropic pipeline, and Britain can claim more of this dividend if it is visibly open to innovative research organisations, including those which are best placed to capitalise on AI.”