Charities, excellence & assessment Dr Mark Walport Director The Wellcome Trust

how can research charities meet their mission? how do we pick winners? how do we assess outputs? the future Outline

the RAE has: driven excellence focussed attention on outputs but has had unintended consequence: increased volume of research at expense of physical infrastructure lecturers appointed rather than support staff pressure for short term research results damaged clinical research capacity the work of teams devalued teaching devalued What do universities look like? RAE 1996 RAE 2001 RAE 1992

*Cancer Research UK was formed in 2002, following the merger of ICRF and Cancer Research Campaign (CRC). Figures before 2002 show the combined spending of ICRF and CRC (Source: Cancer Research, Science and Technology Committee) The AMRC line shows the total spend on UK medical and health research by AMRC members charities. The figure for 2005 is an estimate based on AMRC subscription data. Trust funding includes international spend. The Gates Foundation figure only includes grants to institutions in the UK. UK Strength Plurality of funding for biomedical research

universities fit for purpose a funding model to promote this we hope to be able to… fund the best researchers fund the best ideas fund in the best research environments get value for money Charities can meet their missions if…

Picking winners Identifying excellence are you a good scientist? what has been discovered? who has been trained? how have outputs been communicated? what is your question? why is it important? how will you approach the question? what resources do you need?

robust and rigorous more thorough than RAE methods international but can be risk averse Peer review of inputs

Charity Research Support Fund a metric based award mechanism in relation to quality charitable income an explicit volume of QR ring-fenced as partnership fund included in block grant to VCs merits: directly rewards success rigorous peer review responsive to change between RAEs enables universities to support infrastructure for research in manner that best suits university

adoption of true/realistic measures/indicators: - recognition of the incremental & unpredictability of research - challenge of identifying impact from basic research avoiding perverse incentives - weighing papers - citation/impact factors managerial vs professional targets - quantitative vs qualitative indicators focus on national indicators for an increasingly global pursuit attribution - multiple funding partners, international collaboration Assessing outputs The issues

leadership of Professor Ian Donald s remarkable collaboration between engineers and clinicians resistance from doctors who had spent years training their hands to see demonstration, refinement and results led to huge change in clinical practice Witness Seminars – obstetric ultrasound

PubMed 1000 project

Funds awarded vs. papers produced for the top 15 institutions & trend line

Importance rating by nature of research base = 573 original research papers

For the record 3Useful step Forward 5Major addition to knowledge 7Landmark paper Importance assessments of original research papers vs JIFs (log scale)

very strong biomedical research base in UK reward excellence drive innovation build on successful work of UK CRC get the Health Research Fund right ensure post-RAE metrics reward national strength in biomedical research Biomedical research in the UK: The future