Wellcome launches manifesto for science

Wellcome’s manifesto for science can be summed up in eight words: “Research is always a good investment for government.” Its preferred mechanism for investment is “a consistent, long-term approach to supporting and improving its research landscape.”

An obvious, nonetheless powerful, refreshingly direct statement of fact on the things any government might do to improve UK research. Spend money, do what you say you will, and focus on the whole research landscape.

Wellcome’s manifesto is split into short, medium, and long-term ambitions that broadly cover attracting new talent, more public investment, policy coordination, international partnerships, and long-term goals to radically grow the size of the UK’s research economy.

The most eye-catching short-term goal is to get the government to commit to a ten year funding settlement for R&D. This echoes Labour policy for ten-year funding cycles for “key R&D institutions,” and far exceeds current three year funding commitments. It is entirely sensible to campaign for greater certainty for research funding but it’s not entirely clear how such a long time frame could practically work.

Government spending reviews do not set ten-year budgets and therefore the research budget would either have to be set outwith the usual rules. For example, ARIA is legislated to be funded for a decade. Alternatively, the government would have to make ten-year commitments to key organisations like UKRI and provide assurances they will always provide the money.

The challenge with R&D is that universities and businesses benefit from certainty and governments are generally poor at providing long-term funding. The treasury tightly controls spending departments through multi-year limits (known as resource departmental expenditure limits or RDEL), and keeps close control of capital expenditure (known as capital expenditure limits or CDEL.) To change the way research budgets are allocated is ultimately to change the machinery of government.

Elsewhere, Wellcome is asking a future government to “solidify the UK’s role as a global leader for science and innovation,” through leading the G7 in R&D intensity. Wellcome suggests that restoring Overseas Development Aid funding, long-term research settlements, and commitments to increasing public funding, will grow R&D intensity.

Wellcome is also much more bullish than the sector on the shortcoming of the current funding environment in cautioning against a model that is reliant on the cross-subsidy of international student fees or as they put it:

UK research must be empowered to stand on its own two feet, rather than being at the mercy of geopolitics. Research funding must also account for the total costs of the research taking place. This includes ensuring that charity funding for research is properly supported through the Charity Research Support Fund.

It is a significant ask for any government to not only fund research to a level where it is not reliant on international student fees but also to cover the full economic cost of research. In combination with reducing upfront costs for global researchers, growing international collaborations, and long-term capital investment this entire package is expensive, but that might not be a bad thing.

R&D is one of the UK’s genuine global strengths. As Wellcome notes every £1 of public spending stimulates up to £2.34 of private investment. The UK’s research success has often been in spite of fragmented funding, lack of clarity over strategic priorities, and until recently chronic underinvestment in research. Wellcome’s proposals might be expensive, far-reaching, and upturn how the government works, but it might just take this level of disruption if the UK is going to lead the world in research intensity.