Third report: A new UK research funding agency

Select Committee

Science, Innovation and Technology Committee HC 778 12 February 2021

Report Status Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations 21 items (12 recs)

Source View on Parliament website

No response data available yet.

Recommendations

12 results

4

Para 57

The Government must, in its response to this Report, clearly define UK ARPA’s purpose.

Recommendation

The Government must, in its response to this Report, clearly define UK ARPA’s purpose. This will, necessarily, be tied to and shaped by a specific client the Government identifies for ARPA.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

6

Para 64

It is clear that the new funding agency should embrace risk—and be prepared for some...

Recommendation

It is clear that the new funding agency should embrace risk—and be prepared for some of its projects to fail. Further, this should be combined with a long-term outlook, with research programmes spanning 10–15 years. Currently, it appears that funding … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

7

Para 72

It is clear that UK ARPA’s proposed budget limits it to pursuing one or two...

Recommendation

It is clear that UK ARPA’s proposed budget limits it to pursuing one or two central missions—any more than this would risk spreading its budget too thin, thus undermining its effectiveness. Given the size of UK ARPA’s proposed budget we … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

8

Para 73

The Government must think carefully about what the new agency’s focus might be before recruiting...

Recommendation

The Government must think carefully about what the new agency’s focus might be before recruiting a director. It should consider the potential areas of focus recommended in the written and oral evidence submitted to this inquiry. It could also consider … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

11

Para 81

We welcome the Government’s commitment to give UK ARPA independence over both operational and strategic...

Recommendation

We welcome the Government’s commitment to give UK ARPA independence over both operational and strategic matters. With that said, there will still be a need for appropriate Government oversight of the organisation’s operations—given that £800 million of public money has … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

12

Para 84

The pool of potential candidates for director should not necessarily be restricted to expert scientists.

Recommendation

The pool of potential candidates for director should not necessarily be restricted to expert scientists. The Government should be open minded on who the new agency’s director might be, should not disregard anyone at this early stage, and should be … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

13

UK ARPA should have a distinct and flexible organisational structure.

Recommendation

UK ARPA should have a distinct and flexible organisational structure. The Government should seek to create an environment characterised by a high degree of autonomy and limited bureaucracy. The Government should explain how it intends to establish and foster this … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

15

Para 92

UK ARPA’s director should play a key role in the recruitment of its personnel.

Recommendation

UK ARPA’s director should play a key role in the recruitment of its personnel. Programme managers should be ambitious ‘disruptors’, from a range of backgrounds, who are impact oriented, focused on the advancement of science and have CEO- like qualities. … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

16

Para 99

We recognise that there could be advantages to establishing the new UK research funding agency...

Recommendation

We recognise that there could be advantages to establishing the new UK research funding agency inside UKRI: it would be quicker; facilitate its communication and collaboration with the existing research and innovation system; and reduce the risk of threatening the … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

18

Para 106

We welcome the multi-year funding settlement for UKRI set out in the November 2020 Spending...

Recommendation

We welcome the multi-year funding settlement for UKRI set out in the November 2020 Spending Review, which not only provides much-needed certainty to UKRI and the wider research community, but it should also help UKRI support public and private sector … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

20

Para 117

The Government should carry out a review, commencing before the end of the next financial...

Recommendation

The Government should carry out a review, commencing before the end of the next financial year (i.e. 2021–2022), to explore how UKRI can operate with fewer bureaucratic constraints and more freedom and flexibility in how it allocates funds, while ensuring … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

21

There is scope for improvements with respect to equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility in the...

Recommendation

There is scope for improvements with respect to equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility in the current research and innovation system, as illustrated by the 2014–15 to 2018–19 data from UKRI. The system benefits from having people with different ideas, different … Read more

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Conclusions (9) Observations and findings — click to expand

1 Conclusion

Para 36

The creation of UKRI has established a more coherent framework for the organisation of Government funding for research and innovation. There are reasons to think that UKRI, following its initial period of being established, could benefit from refreshing its processes and ways of working, specifically to reduce bureaucracy, increase agility …

2 Conclusion

It is strange that more than a year after its inclusion in two successive Queen’s Speeches, the Government has not clearly articulated the need for, or intended remit of, the proposed agency. To date, it seems to be a brand in search of a product. That said, evidence that we …

3 Conclusion

Para 50

Questions about UK ARPA’s remit, organisation and governance would be made much more straightforward if the agency was established to serve a clear ‘client’— most likely a Government department, as is the case with US DARPA, which serves the Department of Defense. Potential candidates could include the Department of Health …

5 Conclusion

Para 60

UK ARPA can play an important role in the research and innovation system by pursuing goal-oriented research, driven by societal need, with the potential to produce lasting, transformational changes. UK ARPA should focus on ‘mission- based’ or ‘challenge-led’ research’, which has the potential to make transformative changes with implications for …

9 Conclusion

Para 74

The Haldane principle should not apply to how UK ARPA’s overall focus is determined. Ministers should play a role in shaping ARPA’s initial focus.

10 Conclusion

Para 77

US DARPA and its ‘clones’ have shown the advantages of having a small, lean organisation with limited bureaucracy. Nevertheless, we think that the ultimate form and structure of the organisation should be shaped by and evolve with its appointed director.

14 Conclusion

Para 87

It is clear that the agency’s director will play a crucial role in defining its culture. The new director must therefore be committed to creating a culture that empowers and emboldens UK ARPA’s employees. Depending on how closely the Government wants UK ARPA to replicate US DARPA, it should consider …

17 Conclusion

The vehicle used to establish UK ARPA (i.e. legislation) must allow for clear lines of communication between it, UKRI and the wider system. This could be established through a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that both parties agree to. It should ensure that UK ARPA has the power—and, where appropriate, the …

19 Conclusion

Para 116

While the Government is thinking about the best way to establish a new UK research funding agency and acting on its pledge to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the UK research and innovation system, it is a good time for it to reflect on the bureaucratic constraints that apply to the …