CASH-STRAPPED research councils have had to turn down top-priority research proposals or even terminate leading projects because they have to spend their money on āsecond-rateā projects that simply meet government-imposed criteria, say sources within Britainās research councils. They blame this state of affairs on a system of government-inspired grants designed to promote collaboration between academic researchers and industrialists.
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) introduced ROPAs, or Realising Our Potential Awards, in the wake of the 1993 White Paper on science and technology. They support basic research of the applicantās choice, but only researchers who have recently received Ā£25 000 or more in funds from industry are eligible to apply, ROPAs were designed to encourage more researchers to seek industrial funding. They are essentially a āpat on the backā for the effort, according to one source.
In 1994-95, the pilot year for the scheme, the government assigned Ā£5 million to ROPAs. For the current financial year, the former science minister David Hunt pledged Ā£46.7 million for some 475 ROPA projects. The catch is that most of this money is being skimmed from the research councilsā budgets. āThe government has effectively taken money out of the existing system,ā says Dai Rees, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.
Advertisement
But skimming off money for ROPAs and other government-directed schemes has had a dramatic effect. This year, more than 70 per cent of the MRCās āalpha-ratedā research proposals, which include projects at the cutting edge of science, had to be turned down for lack of funds. Only top-ranked āalpha-plusā projects, those of international importance, were safe ā and next year even these will be at risk, warns Rees. By contrast, the MRC supported 90 per cent of alpha-rated proposals last year, and all of them the year before.
Not even dedicated long-term research can be considered safe, says Rees. āFor the first time ever, we donāt have enough money to honour our ongoing commitments.ā
Tom Blundell, chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), says one of his main concerns is that it is easier to win money for a ROPA than a top-rated research proposal. People who apply for ROPAs have a 50 to 60 per cent chance of succeeding, he says. Those applying for support for work deemed of the highest priority have only a 20 per cent chance.
Some researchers complain that because ROPA applicants must have an industrial link, the awards tend to be unevenly distributed. Researchers doing important research āof no immediate valueā to industry have no chance of winning a ROPA, points out Bryan Clarke, a population geneticist at the University of Nottingham. Most go to researchers who work in areas of interest to chemical or pharmaceuticals companies.
Even companies whose research partners have won ROPAs have been critical. Many are frustrated by the ROPAsā lack of direction. They complain that researchers win ROPAs for projects that have no industrial relevance. āIndustryās whole approach is directed,ā says Brian Richards, chairman of a company called Peptide Therapeutics and a member of the BBSRC council. āROPA would fit better if the objectives were reviewed.ā Nevertheless, he says, industry is āon the whole enthusiasticā.
The OST is preparing a report on the ROPA scheme, due to be published in early October. Ian Taylor, junior minister in charge of science and technology, says āROPAs by and large appear to be very successfulā. Few in the research councils believe the review will tell the whole story.
āROPAs are a poor substitute for properly peer-reviewed grant applications,ā says Clarke. āI do not believe the interests of the nation ā for basic or applied research ā are well-served by the ROPA scheme.ā (see Graph)
