2. Why do funders define and fund R4D differently?
How does policy influences research funding?
‘There is no stable entity called science which is governed, worried about, applauded,
condemned, invested in, much less understood. Each small part of 'science' is governed by
many institutions, and many policies.’
– David Edgerton
3. H1: Adjust to expectations & experience
Funder
• Sets policy context • Competes for funds
• Provides resources • Conducts research
• Designs programs
• Assess performance • Reports progress
• Provides incentives
• Monitors progress
Home
Researchers
Government
4. Performance Regime
Host society Home government
Foreign policy Science policy
Self-governed Market-oriented
Funder autonomy Government sets priorities
Core grants Targeted funding
Peer review Selection criteria
Peer recognition Performance assessment
5. Context
Government
Performance Regime
• Position
• Fit with policy
R4D Funders
Adaptive Researchers
Organization • Incentives
• Programs • VALUE of research
• Patterns
Mechanism Outcome
6. 1. Maintain Base
• Home institutes on tropical areas
Regime
• Post-war science funding boost
• Former colonies becoming independent
Independence
1940 1970
Tropical area Budget aid to Specialists abroad
problems research centres Project aid
Adaptation
• Core funding to home institutes seen as global leaders
• Funding and expatriates to strength host institutes
• International work of government labs
7. 2. Foster Competition
• ‘Consumer-contractor’ principle
Regime
• Labs converted to ‘executive agencies’
• Research expected to show benefits
1970 1995
People: Scientific Outcomes:
establishments R&D programmes
Adaptation
• Intelligent consumer, proxy for developing countries
• Transition from core to competitive funding
• Thematic silos (agriculture, health)
8. 3. Consolidate Funding
• Public service agreements and spending reviews
Regime
• International Development Act
• Parliament critical of DFID use of science
1995 2005
Public good, Upstream
Funding untied
Adaptation
• MDG agenda – untied, host-owned, demand-led
• DFID as audience, deliver on development
• Work with Research Councils
9. 4. Provide Evidence
• UKCDS
Regime
• Coalition Reviews
• Increased scrutiny with austerity budget
2005 2012
Consortia:
Shift to wholesale
Adaptation
• Research Consortia
• Systematic reviews
• Informing DFID operations
10. Grant Portfolio
LocationNatural Resources International Limited £ 124,891,880
2004-10 Medical Research Council (MRC) % Grants
# Grants
Number and size of grants in time period £ Grants£ 108,155,000
% Value
Home Natural Resources Institute 285 60% £528,000,000
£ year 46%
86,869,180 Grant
Time Period # Years # Grants Grants/year £ per £ per
Away 188 40% £614,000,000 54%
International AIDS Vaccine522
2004-2010 7 Initiative 75 £ 78,000,000
£273,900,000 £3,672,989
1997-04
University of Sussex - IDS £ 58,214,540
1997-2003
Home 7 1701
1263 243 83% £416,722,245
£183,700,000 £755,967
77%
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine £ 58,066,250
Away
1990-1996 7 1582263 226 17% £126,758,462
£98,300,000 23%
£434,956
1990-96 PriceWaterhouseCoopers £ 50,000,000
Home University of Oxford 1369 £ 45,637,544
93% £339,613,076 96%
Away University of Edinburgh - RIU 106 7% £ 39,950,000
£12,938,373 4%
Medicines for Malaria Venture £ 39,000,000
• UK science base and universities
• Larger grants over time
• Rise in international recipients
11. Implications
• Responsive to targeted funding
Regime
• Layering of granting ideas within DFID
• RAE and excellence as publication
UK advantage core support to people and centres
Intelligent consumer competitive projects for outcomes
Development agenda focus on public goods and use
Platform technology product development partnerships
Clinical approach provide evidence for donor
12. Key Messages
How does policy influences research funding?
Regime
• Science policy (Rothschild, impact, evidence)
• Prime Minister’s agenda with delay (Thatcher, Blair)
Adaptation
• Retain funding, outsource performance
• Individual shapes R4D vision