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 鈥渟econd-rate鈥� projects that simply meet government-imposed criteria, say sources within Britain鈥檚 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 applicant鈥檚 choice, but only researchers who have recently received 拢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 鈥減at on the back鈥� for the effort, according to one source.
In 1994-95, the pilot year for the scheme, the government assigned 拢5 million to ROPAs. For the current financial year, the former science minister David Hunt pledged 拢46.7 million for some 475 ROPA projects. The catch is that most of this money is being skimmed from the research councils鈥� budgets. 鈥淭he government has effectively taken money out of the existing system,鈥� 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 MRC鈥檚 鈥渁lpha-rated鈥� research proposals, which include projects at the cutting edge of science, had to be turned down for lack of funds. Only top-ranked 鈥渁lpha-plus鈥� projects, those of international importance, were safe 鈥� 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. 鈥淔or the first time ever, we don鈥檛 have enough money to honour our ongoing commitments.鈥�
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 鈥渙f no immediate value鈥� 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 ROPAs鈥� lack of direction. They complain that researchers win ROPAs for projects that have no industrial relevance. 鈥淚ndustry鈥檚 whole approach is directed,鈥� says Brian Richards, chairman of a company called Peptide Therapeutics and a member of the BBSRC council. 鈥淩OPA would fit better if the objectives were reviewed.鈥� Nevertheless, he says, industry is 鈥渙n the whole enthusiastic鈥�.
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 鈥淩OPAs by and large appear to be very successful鈥�. Few in the research councils believe the review will tell the whole story.
鈥淩OPAs are a poor substitute for properly peer-reviewed grant applications,鈥� says Clarke. 鈥淚 do not believe the interests of the nation 鈥� for basic or applied research 鈥� are well-served by the ROPA scheme.鈥� (see Graph)
