Industry is likely to be given more say over how much government money
will go to individual physicists, chemists, mathematicians and engineers
in Britain鈥檚 universities. The change is part of a major upheaval in the
process for deciding which research to fund. The plan is designed to bring
the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in line with
the government鈥檚 drive to make research more relevant to industry.
In the Science and Engineering Research Council, which the EPSRC partly
replaced in April, scientists set the agenda by putting research ideas to
hundreds of peer review committees made up of other researchers. The council
then shared its budget between the projects the committees approved.
By contrast, the EPSRC will shape its priorities at the top, through
two high-powered committees. One, consisting of 10 leading academics, will
identify the most promising emerging research areas. On the other, a panel
of 10 industrialists will decide which technologies industry needs most.
Between them, the two committees will decide the areas of research on which
the council鈥檚 budget should be spent.
Advertisement
In the past, researchers working in the physical sciences sent 2000
applications a year to peer review committees. Of these, only 20 per cent
received funding. Richard Brook, the chief executive of the EPSRC, says
he is keen to cut out the wasted effort, speed up the review process and
give researchers more say in it.
Under the council鈥檚 proposals, three referees will screen applications
to sift out 鈥榥o-hopers鈥�. Applicants will be allowed to choose one of these
referees, and the council would choose the other two from 鈥榗olleges鈥� of
researchers nominated by all those working in that field. If two referees
approve the application, it will proceed to the final stage of peer review.
Here, a group of several referees from a college will judge a batch
of applications and rank them by quality. The chairman of the group will
then finalise grant allocations alongside a 鈥榩rogramme manager鈥� appointed
by the council. Programme managers will have their budget set from above,
so ensuring that the grants reflect the council鈥檚 priorities.
鈥榃e want a system that has the confidence of people who use it,鈥� says
Brook. 鈥業t鈥檚 not dogma being rammed down their throats.鈥�
University vice-chancellors, who received the proposals this week, will
have a chance to comment on the plans in the autumn. 鈥楾his could create
quite a stir,鈥� says Michael Powell of the Committee of Vice Chancellors
and Principals. 鈥業t sounds like the programme managers will have an awful
lot of power.鈥�
