This week: €14m for agricultural research, Ordinance Survey archive launches and student union welcomes legislation

In depth: Ireland’s new competitive research funding agency, Taighde Éireann, will launch on 1 August, initially led by interim chief executive Celine Fitzgerald, according to the Irish government. The announcement follows confirmation of Philip Nolan being removed from the role.

Full story: Research Ireland launch date and interim head announced

Also this week from Research Professional News

Early career researcher projects in Ireland receive €14.6m—Research selected for investment will address both “challenges and opportunities”

Here is the rest of the Ireland news this week…

Agricultural research centre gets €14m

University College Dublin has announced a major investment in new agricultural research and education facilities at UCD Lyons Farm. UCD is providing €8 million, with FBD Holdings and FBD Trust CLG pledging a philanthropic contribution of €6m in support of the facility, bringing the combined investment in UCD Lyons Farm to €14m. Construction of the new centre is due to commence in 2025. 

Ordnance Survey archive launched

A new digital archive gathering historic Ordnance Survey maps, memoirs, name-books and letters in one archive so that researchers and members of the public can easily access the material has been announced. A Digital Archive of Ireland’s Ordnance Survey is a new digital resource developed as part of collaborative research project ‘OS200: Digitally Remapping Ireland’s Ordnance Survey Heritage’, which has been funded by the Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council as part of a cross-border collaboration.

Student union welcomes new legislation

New legislation to stop student accommodation providers from offering only 51-week leases, which was recently passed through the Oireachtas, has been welcomed by the Union of Students in Ireland (USI). USI had brought the issue to the attention of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science in January, after several students informed the union they were being offered only 51-week leases instead of the usual term-time leases for the next academic year.

The post Ireland news roundup: 16-29 July appeared first on Research Professional News.

Research selected for investment will address both “challenges and opportunities”

A total of €14.6 million in funding for 25 projects to support early career researchers has been announced under a collaborative initiative between Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and the Irish Research Council (IRC) to encourage a cohesive research ecosystem in Ireland.

“This funding will help facilitate a defined journey from post-doctoral research to independent research,” said minister for research Patrick O’Donovan. “Bridging this gap is a challenging but critical milestone, and the research selected for investment will address key challenges and opportunities, ranging from new therapies for Parkinson’s to the development of sustainable supercapacitors.”

The awards are aimed at enabling postdoctoral researchers to develop their career pathway and transition to become independent research leaders. The funding, covering a four-year period, will also provide additional support for a postgraduate student who will be primarily supervised by the awardee.

Commenting on the awards, Ruth Freeman, director of Science for Society at SFI, said the foundation is delighted to work in partnership with colleagues at the IRC to deliver the SFI-IRC Pathway Programme. 

“This provides targeted support to early career researchers who will use the funding to pursue independent research at the frontiers of knowledge,” said Freeman. “Investment in these projects will generate novel discoveries and insights across diverse research topics—from environmental sustainability to disease treatment and prevention, to wireless network security.”

The 25 research projects will be funded through 13 research bodies.

The post Early career researcher projects in Ireland receive €14.6m appeared first on Research Professional News.

New competitive funding agency represents “step-change in how research is funded”, says research minister

Ireland’s new competitive research funding agency, Taighde Éireann, will launch on 1 August, initially led by interim chief executive Celine Fitzgerald, according to the Irish government. The announcement follows confirmation of Philip Nolan being removed from the role.

The new agency will combine the activities and functions of the Irish Research Council (IRC) and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and will capitalise on the recognised strengths of these two agencies in driving world-class research and innovation in Ireland.

The establishment of Taighde Éireann (Research Ireland) is also the keystone of Impact 2030: Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy, and the new agency will be central to realising the ambitions set out in the strategy.

‘Vital support’

“The establishment of our new research agency represents a step-change in how research and innovation will be funded, maximising the impact of national competitive research and innovation funding,” said minister for research Patrick O’Donovan.

“This new agency will be a vital support in building the successful future of research and innovation in Ireland, engaging national challenges like the green and digital transitions, and boosting our international standing as research innovators in emerging fields, and the opportunities ahead.”

According to the government, the establishment of Taighde Éireann as the new research and innovation funding agency is set against an ambitious programme of reform in the tertiary sector. This comprises the establishment of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science itself, including the development of a unified tertiary system, its remit for the national research and innovation system, and other key policy developments.

An ongoing programme of stakeholder consultation has been taking place since the development of Impact 2030: Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy, and has been integral to the development of the planning for the new agency. 

Praise for interim leader

The government also announced the roles of interim chief executive Celine Fitzgerald and board chairperson Michael Brogan.

“The CEO role will be a temporary appointment, pending the recruitment of a new CEO on a permanent basis,” said minister O’Donovan. “Ms Fitzgerald has an outstanding track record of leadership in both the public and private sectors, and I am confident that she is ideally equipped to lead Taighde Éireann into its first months in operation.”

“In addition, Michael Horgan, chairperson of the new agency’s board, will bring significant governance and leadership experience to drive the new agency forward, achieving its strategic goals and enabling Taighde Éireann to fulfil the ambitions set out in Impact 2030.”

The minister also assured there will be no interruption to ongoing services and funding programmes while the new agency is being set up, for anyone who is currently participating in IRC and SFI Programmes. 

“There are positive changes ahead,” O’Donovan said, “and they’ll be implemented in a carefully planned way, so that our researchers can be confident in this new agency and focus on the important work at hand.”

The post Research Ireland launch date and interim head announced appeared first on Research Professional News.

“Significant attention has not yet been given” to AI impact, warns Committee on Research Integrity

Better standards and policies on the use of generative artificial intelligence in research are required to show it is trustworthy and protect the UK’s research system, according to the UK Committee on Research Integrity. 

In its second annual statement, the committee—which is overseen by the national funding agency UK Research and Innovation—says that while funders, publishers, research organisations and discipline-specific bodies are responding to the opportunities and challenges generative AI poses, “significant attention has not yet been given to the impact of this technology on research integrity”.

Existing policies and practices in the research sector around generative AI are not always consistent or easy to navigate and have gaps, it argues, suggesting that the research sector would benefit from the kind of investment available to develop AI safeguards in other parts of the economy.

Ethical considerations

“Researchers need the awareness and skills to understand and be accountable for the potential ‘black box’ that they are introducing into their research through the use of generative AI,” the report says.

It adds that ethical use of AI tools might also involve environmental considerations, given the large amounts of energy use that it involves.

The committee was set up in 2022 by UKRI on the recommendation of an inquiry into research integrity held by the Commons Science and Technology Committee in 2018. The idea was that it would champion research integrity in the UK, working closely with organisations such as the UK Research Integrity Office and the Concordat to Support Research Integrity Signatories Group to share good practice.

Its annual statement highlights the dangers of bias in AI and states that use of AI in developing research ideas, writing research funding proposals and in peer review of research papers is problematic if it is not carried out transparently.

While questions have been raised for some time about whether a regulator is needed for AI in the UK, the committee says this remains “an evolving issue” and that it has been watching closely developments in the US and EU.

Recent AI policies and reports

In the US, the National Academy of Medicine recently published a draft code of conduct on the use of AI in health, healthcare and biomedical science, while the European Commission has issued Guidelines on the Responsible Use of Generative AI in Research.

A Royal Society report in May 2024 called for a “balanced approach” to AI, taking account of the opportunities and risks it offers.

Meanwhile, publishers have been developing tools and guidelines on promoting ethical use of AI in research publishing.

Annual statements

As well as paying greater attention to AI, the UK Committee on Research Integrity wants all research-performing organisations, including higher education institutions, to publish annual statements on research integrity, including information about allegations of research misconduct and a summary of the outcomes of investigations.

It recommends greater consideration to the impact of social media on misconduct investigations, warning that it could compromise anonymity and, in some cases, the integrity of the investigation process.

In addition, it wants changes to promotion practices to reward those that make positive contributions to research culture.

It will publish a full report making recommendations on AI and other issues in 2025.

James Parry, chief innovation officer of the UK Research Integrity Office, said: “AI opens up new opportunities for research, but also raises questions on its safe, rigorous and ethical use. UKRIO will build upon its existing work on AI and research integrity in 2024/25 as one of its key workstreams, helping the research community address the complex challenges that it is facing.”

The post UK research integrity body wants more focus on AI appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: ANU to repay staff, university provost appointed and actions to repair landscapes outlined

In depth: Research and industry groups have expressed hope that a review of Australia’s research system will bring increased investment in R&D.

Full story: Early positions taken on overhaul of Australian research system

Also this week from Research Professional News

Cabinet reshuffle takes place at ‘crucial time for education’—New Australian ministers appointed for immigration, jobs and skills

Here is the rest of the Australia news this week…

Australian National University to repay staff

The Australian National University has said it has taken “immediate and comprehensive action” to repay its A$2 million in underpayments to 2,290 staff. On 25 July the university said it had “self-reported the missed payments to the Fair Work Ombudsman and has undertaken an extensive investigation of the issue spanning 11 years”. The median amount to be repaid per staff member is A$600. ANU vice chancellor Genevieve Bell apologised for the error. 

University of Queensland gets new provost

Mark Blows has been appointed as the new provost of the University of Queensland. In a 24 July announcement, the university said he would take over the role from Aidan Byrne in October. Blows is currently deputy vice-chancellor for research at UQ, and has been at the university for 25 years. Vice-chancellor Deborah Terry said that Blows had already “established an admirable track-record of leading teams to implement initiatives that support the teaching and research functions of the university”.

Call for action on repairing landscapes

A new report from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists says Australia needs to take “practical actions” to repair degraded landscapes. The 24 July report calls for an evidence-based response over the next 30 years, focusing on five key areas: soils, inland waters, native vegetation, threatened species and coastal environments. The group, which is a not-for-profit organisation of “scientists, economists and business people” has included costings for action in the report.

Humanities researchers travel the world

The Australian Academy of the Humanities has announced the 10 winners of its 2024 Travelling Fellowships scheme for early career researchers. The writers, named on 24 July, include a Flinders University researcher who will go to the United Kingdom to study medieval manuscripts, an RMIT researcher who will compare Australian Indigenous literary culture with that in other places, and a Deakin University scholar who will go to Washington, DC and New York to gain access to the unpublished papers of philosopher Hannah Arendt.

The post Australia news roundup: 23-29 July appeared first on Research Professional News.

New Australian ministers appointed for immigration, jobs and skills

Australia’s prime minister Anthony Albanese has reset his Department of Home Affairs with a cabinet reshuffle ahead of the forthcoming election. On 28 July, new ministers were appointed to three departments, with implications for universities.

Tony Burke has been appointed minister for immigration, overseeing student visas and post-work rights, replacing Andrew Giles, who has been moved to the skills and training portfolio.

The proposed caps to international student levels going through Parliament were formally proposed by the minister for education. The government supported the policy to deal with concerns about the effect of international student numbers on the cost of housing.

Burke has also become the minister for home affairs, replacing Clare O’Neil, making him responsible for security issues. 

Long-term politician Brendan O’Connor was moved out of skills and training after announcing his retirement.

Universities Australia said O’Connor had “played an important role in driving key reforms to grow and unify our tertiary education system through the Australian Universities Accord process”.

UA chief executive Luke Sheehy said Giles’s appointment came “at a crucial time of reform for Australia’s tertiary education system”.

“Universities look forward to working with minister Giles to increase participation in tertiary education.”

The Group of Eight praised outgoing minister O’Connor’s work, saying he had “made an extraordinary contribution to public life”.

“He has worked collaboratively across the entire post-secondary sector, with universities and VET providers, to deliver effective policy outcomes for Australia’s future,” the group, which represents the eight largest research universities in Australia, said in a statement. 

The Australian Resources and Energy Employment Association also thanked O’Connor. 

O’Connor recently helped launch the association’s report on a skills shortage in the maritime sector, which called for greater focus on science and technology training.

The post Cabinet reshuffle takes place at ‘crucial time for education’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

New Zealand research consortiums release information on favourable financial statuses

Four of New Zealand’s 10 Centres of Excellence have reported surpluses for 2023.

Not all reports for the centres, which operate as consortiums of interest across the country, have been made available yet, but some of the more prominent ones have said they are doing well.

The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology reported increased total income in 2023 of NZ$9.29 million compared with 2022’s NZ$8.56m, due to a surplus from the previous year, while government funding remained stable. It increased its spending on salaries by NZ$700,000 and returned a 2023 surplus of NZ$931,000.

The report said MacDiarmid had been focused on “the need for scale-up support for startup companies as they outgrow their university origins”. Deep technology was a “sector of critical importance to Aotearoa New Zealand’s economic and sustainability ambitions”, it said.

MacDiarmid’s report said two new companies had been spun out in 2023, and that existing spin-offs were employing nearly 90 people. 

‘A clear vision’

Te Hiranga Rū QuakeCore’s 2023 report revealed a surplus of NZ$8,000.

It said it had created a new early researchers’ network in 2023, and its researchers contributed to 101 peer-reviewed publications and 38 conference proceedings.

Santiago Pujol has been appointed director of Te Hiranga Rū QuakeCore. A professor of civil engineering at the University of Canterbury, Pujol will take over the role on 1 January 2025, according to a 12 July announcement. 

“Santiago has a clear vision for his leadership of Te Hiranga Rū QuakeCore as it heads into the next level of maturity, and we were very impressed with his ideas and energy.  I think Santiago is well positioned to build on Brendon’s excellent accomplishments as director,” QuakeCore’s board chair, Mike Mendonça, said.

‘Land management decision-making’

The report from Bioprotection Aotearoa emphasised its efforts to “train our researchers to be culturally cognisant and ethical in their work”. It said there was increasing demand for “research to support land management decision-making”.

Bioprotection Aotearoa, which takes in 11 partner organisations, worked with 18 principal investigators, 16 associate investigators,12 postdoctoral fellows and 31 research students during the year. 

It spent NZ$4.052m for the year, with an increased surplus of $NZ1.314 million compared with 2022’s NZ$1.066m. 

‘We are in an excellent position’

Charlotte Walshe, chair of the governance board for the Dodd-Walls Centre, is quoted in the report as saying 2023 had been the centre’s “greatest year of change, refocusing and energising since its inception eight years ago”. 

According to new director Frédérique Vanholsbeeck, Dodd-Walls Centre is involved in producing a forthcoming “report that will constitute an excellent tool to leverage additional funding for photonics and quantum technologies in Australia and New Zealand”. 

“We are in an excellent position to finalise the 2025 midterm review and work on a strong research programme,”  wrote Walshe.

Dodd-Walls’ financial statements show it had income of NZ$6.72m in 2023, well over the projected NZ$4.9m. This meant it returned a surplus of NZ$384,445 for the year instead of the expected deficit.

The post Several Centres of Excellence report surpluses for 2023 appeared first on Research Professional News.

Commission identifies triumphs and challenges in Horizon Europe backing for small and medium-sized firms

The European Innovation Council, whose focus includes supporting smaller companies use breakthrough technologies, has surpassed its goal of having at least 70 per cent of its resources going to small and medium-sized enterprises, according to a report by the European Commission.

A European Commission report on the participation of SMEs in the EU’s current research and innovation programme, Horizon Europe, since 2021 finds that the European Innovation Council allocated more than 74 per cent of its resources to SMEs.

The European Innovation Council is the EU’s flagship funder for the development of breakthrough technologies, also prioritising their commercialisation by SMEs.

SMEs have received 20 per cent of all Horizon Europe funding awarded so far, amounting to €6.6 billion for 7,474 companies. According to the report “SMEs bring to projects at least 38 cents for every euro in EU funds they receive”.

Just over a third of Horizon Europe project participants are identified as SMEs—a decrease from the previous funding programme, Horizon 2020, where they made up 41 per cent. The report states that this is in fact due to the discontinuation of an SME tool in favour of the EIC accelerator.

The application success rates for SMEs under Horizon Europe is 19 per cent, up from 12 per cent under Horizon 2020, and on average companies receive larger amounts of funding, up by more than a third. EIC accelerator grants can be worth up to €15m including equity.

Challenges

The EIC “does not add as many new participants to Horizon Europe” as its predecessor, says the report, adding that only 70 per cent of funded SMEs are first-timers compared with over 90 per cent under Horizon 2020.

Furthermore, newcomer companies are less likely to participate in more than one or two Horizon Europe projects and “have a low degree of attachment to the framework programme” compared to repeat awardees.

The report says that “obviously, the largest EU economies have more Horizon Europe SME participants”, but a whopping 62 per cent of funding is awarded to 12 member states “that are considered high-performing in R&I” such as Germany, Spain Italy and France. Widening countries that are identified as lagging in R&I received only 18 per cent.

The post European Innovation Council support for SMEs surpasses goal appeared first on Research Professional News.

European industry leaders want next EU R&I programme to include dual-use technology and “financial firepower”

A group of European industry leaders have called for a greater commitment to research and innovation in the EU’s next research framework programme, including allowing dual-use defence research.

Framework programme 10 will succeed the current Horizon Europe, which is worth €93.5 billion for 2021-2027.

The European Round Table for Technology (ERT), which brings together chief executives and chairs from 60 of Europe’s largest industrial and technology companies, released a report that called for EU decision-makers to tear down “the artificial ‘fences’ that exclude ‘dual-use’ projects—and correct a major weakness of Horizon Europe” in FP10.

Call to prioritise defence research

The inclusion of dual-use technology should focus on “drawing the line only between innovation for specifically military applications and ‘everything else’”, saying that research for defence encompasses fields as disparate as aviation, artificial intelligence, chemicals, energy and health, says the report.

Military-specific R&D should still be excluded due to lack of security capacities within FP10, it adds.

The report urges prioritising defence research in Europe, saying that “current defence technology will become obsolete and ineffective sooner rather later” due to global competition.

Horizon Europe has already lost some funding to other causes such as defence, prompting worries that defence research could dilute the focus of FP10.

Competition

The report also challenges the EU to follow through on its recent focus on competitiveness with “financial firepower and pragmatic policy to mobilise human capital in order to master and drive forward key technologies”.

The ERT advocates for the EU to more than double the Horizon Europe budget to €200bn under FP10 and for member states to prioritise investment in R&I as well.

The report argues that Horizon Europe is a“success”, but if it “has one dark chapter, it is the experience of how opportunities are lost due to tight national purse strings”. So far, due to budget shortages, Horizon Europe has been able to fund only around a third of the high-quality proposals it has received.

The ERT said that “systemically low chances for success lead to frustration and make Europe a less attractive place to study and pursue academic careers when compared to more lavishly funding (and competing) world regions”, letting China and the US take the lead in R&I.

Chair of the ERT’s Committee for Competitiveness and Innovation and chief executive of Syensqo, Ilham Kadri, said: “FP10 is a vital opportunity to further boost research and to scale-up innovation potential by adding elements that are still missing—to help the EU make that leap forward in emerging technologies".

The ERT also calls for technologies that are closer to being market ready to be eligible to apply for some FP10 funding.

Funding tools

The report emphasises that FP10 should build on successes of Horizon Europe, such as the “very powerful” European Research Council, which has proven vital in maintaining world-class science and thus “rather than being disrupted, it should be made even stronger”.

The same applies to the European Innovation Council, which supports scaling up technology and funds deep tech startups.

Considering the success of both these instruments, the ERT argues that the final pillar of Horizon, focused on research to tackle global challenges, should have an Industrial Competitiveness Advisory Council that would set a clear and strategic course.

The post CEOs call for dual-use defence research to be allowed in FP10 appeared first on Research Professional News.

Space South Central expects university’s membership to help boost space science

University College London has joined the UK’s “largest” regional space cluster as part of an initiative to deepen investments in space skills and knowledge. The move is expected to benefit both the university and the region.

The London university’s membership of Space South Central as an academic partner is expected to benefit researchers and help boost south-central England’s “world-class reputation for space expertise, research and innovation”.

‘Greater opportunities for collaboration’

Andrew Fazakerley, professor of space plasma physics and head of the UCL’s Department of Space and Climate Physics, said joining the cluster “will bring significant and tangible benefits to our growing community of researchers involved in space research”.

“It will mean greater opportunities for collaboration with both academic peers and industry partners, helping us to ensure that innovative ideas and research breakthroughs achieve their full potential,” he added.

The cluster unites business and academia to boost innovation, collaboration and growth across Hampshire, Surrey, and the Isle of Wight, the region with a £3 billion space industry comprising more than 170 space-related organisations and employing approximately 14,000 people.

Boost to space capabilities

UCL joins existing academic partners the University of Portsmouth, University of Southampton and University of Surrey.

The university is home to the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in Surrey (pictured) and the UK’s largest university space research group. It has participated in more than 35 satellite missions and over 200 rocket experiments.

The cluster expects that having UCL as a member will help it “strengthen ties between London’s business and academic networks and key space industry sector partners in the south of England” as well as to boost its space capabilities overseas given UCL’s international profile.

Louise Butt, director of the Space South Central Enterprise Network, said: “We are delighted that UCL has chosen to partner with Space South Central to support, enhance and benefit from our cluster initiatives.

“UCL brings a wealth of complementary expertise to our cluster, with a rich space heritage and a vast portfolio spanning planetary science, space policy, climate physics, astrochemistry, quantum science and much more.

“To have four world-class academic partners working together with our unrivalled range of up-stream and down-stream businesses–large and small–presents many exciting opportunities for the sector in Hampshire, Surrey and the Isle of Wight, and for the wider UK space industry.”

‘Delight’ over announcement

Geraint Rees, UCL vice-provost for research, innovation and global engagement, said: “I’m delighted that UCL is joining the largest regional space cluster in the UK. Collaboration with both industry and academic peers has been a defining feature of UCL’s space activity for over 60 years, stretching back to the multinational Ariel 1 satellite, Britain’s first step into space.

“It’s fitting to see this legacy of successful industry academic partnership continue with Space South Central and I look forward to seeing the synergies that arise.”

The post UCL to ‘boost UK space industry’ by joining regional cluster appeared first on Research Professional News.

Early positions taken on overhaul of Australian research system

Research and industry groups have expressed hope that a review of Australia’s research system will bring increased investment in R&D.

A senior public servant has recently been named to run the review, but little else has been confirmed since the government used its 14 May budget to announce what it is calling a “strategic examination” of the research system. 

Jane O’Dwyer, chief executive of Cooperative Research Australia, said she believes the national cooperative research centre (CRC) programme will survive any changes that flow from the review. 

“I’m confident the programme is safe because it’s so high quality,” she told Research Professional News. Cooperative Research Australia represents all the current cooperative research centres.

O’Dwyer said A$900 million had put aside in the nation’s four-year forward estimates for new CRCs. 

In 2023 only two new CRCs were funded—“we’d love to see more”, she said.

Role for education maven

Former education department public servant Dom English has been appointed to head the secretariat of the “examination”, which is being housed in the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.

Until the end of June, English was the Department of Education’s first assistant secretary for higher education and research. That role is now held by Anthony Millgate, a department official with a background in research commercialisation. English’s appointment was posted on a government directory on 8 July.

But few details of the review have been released. The industry department confirmed that arrangements to appoint an expert panel and give terms of reference were under consideration. The review is expected to take around 18 months.

Millgate will also join the national advisory group on research infrastructure.

Three per cent bid

On 22 July, the Group of Eight, representing Australia’s major research universities, released a “roadmap” to Australia spending 3 per cent of gross domestic product on R&D. 

It called for a deadline of 2035 and a national approach to involve all sectors in meeting the target. The roadmap calls for a number of changes, including new incentives for small-to-medium businesses to work with research organisations and expedited permanent residency deals for international students who gain an Australian PhD.

The roadmap also calls for priority funding for training of science, technology, engineering and mathematics students, improvements to intellectual property practices and “aggregators” to help Australia’s cashed-up superannuation funds invest in research and development. 

It also repeats Group of Eight calls for Australia to pursue greater participation in Horizon Europe and other international funding schemes. 

O’Dwyer said Cooperative Research Australia also supports the 3 per cent target, which is widely nominated as the right target for Australia.

She said the cooperative research centre model could be expanded to other schemes involving non-government entities, to leverage businesses, universities and independent research organisations currently taking part in cooperative research centres, with a requirement of a substantial cash commitment, as well as in-kind assistance before a bid has a chance of gaining federal funding. 

“Our interest is in what unlocks private sector R&D in our system. The CRC programme is our best example of that. The return on investment is huge,” said O’Dwyer.

“We probably are going to have to increase our Commonwealth investment a bit…but the Commonwealth knows that if it invests in this model, the bang for its buck is a well-known and quantified number, and it means they know how much it accelerates us towards that 3 per cent.

“The model you have in the CRC programme—there is no reason why you wouldn’t adopt and apply that model in portfolios where there’s important national needs…in climate change, in agricultural, even in social services,” said O’Dwyer.

The post Research groups call for changes to R&D landscape ahead of review appeared first on Research Professional News.

Peter Kyle also says he will consider issue of visa costs for scientists, without committing to action

The UK’s science secretary, Peter Kyle, has said he prioritised a cybersecurity bill as a matter of “national security priority”, and will next work on an artificial intelligence bill.

“When I became secretary of state, within a very short period of time, and I’m talking hours not multiple days, I became very, very aware that there was a cybersecurity challenge that our country faced that I simply wasn’t aware of before becoming secretary of state,” Kyle told the Guardian today.

The new cybersecurity and resilience bill featured in the recent King’s speech, setting out the government’s legislative plans, bumping the much-anticipated AI bill.

Kyle added: “We are preparing the [AI] bill, we are consulting on the bill, and we will have the bill ready to go. We are committed to legislating for AI.”

‘Desperately exposed’

He told the paper the country is “desperately exposed” to cyber threats and that national resilience to both cyber and pandemic threats suffered “catastrophically” under the previous government.

His comment came as the National Cyber Security Centre warned last week about the rising “scale, pace and complexity” of threats to critical national infrastructure, with the nation’s capacity to repel them being outpaced by malicious actors.

Meanwhile, another recent report, from the Covid inquiry, said the UK’s pandemic planning was beset with “fatal strategic flaws” and has not improved much after the pandemic.

“We are not in the place we need to be, to be as resilient as we should be—the Covid inquiry has laid that bare,” Kyle said. “We are picking up the pieces of that, and it’s a job we take very seriously.”

Kyle also touched on the issue of visa costs for scientists, which some in the sector—including new science minister Patrick Vallance—have argued are too high and risk deterring research talent from coming to the UK.

“I am aware of this specific challenge, but as the secretary of state I see all of the challenges, and all of the potential, in the round,” Kyle said. “I have to see where that fits in alongside all of the other challenges and opportunities, and where I see a need for adjustment I’ll start making representation to the relevant departments.”

The post UK science secretary focusing on cybersecurity and AI appeared first on Research Professional News.

Free speech legislation paused, and David Behan to head the Office for Students

It took two years to pass, a year to appoint a director and six months to consult, but the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Act has been put on hold by the new Labour government, just days before its powers were due to come into effect. The news came in a parliamentary statement, which also saw career civil servant David Behan appointed as interim head of the Office for Students.

Behan—the former chair of Health Education England—was the author of a statutory review of the regulator for higher education in England, which was also published on Friday. The stinging report is the second critical assessment the OfS has received this academic year, following an inquiry in November by the Lords Industry and Regulators Committee.

Behan is the sort of calming interim appointment you make after an institution has been through a public trauma. Over the summer, people at the OfS (now on its third chair since its inception in 2019) will have some time to think about what has been going on at what we once dubbed the Venus de Milo of arm’s-length regulators.

In her written statement, education secretary Bridget Phillipson confirmed that the process to appoint a permanent chair has started and will conclude next year. The Behan appointment implicitly recognises the problems at what Phillipson previously has called “a politicised regulator”, and that there are few with sufficient recent knowledge of the state of play within the OfS black box to start unwinding the damage.

Some interim appointments come with the brief not to touch anything until the next guy or girl comes along; others are there to clean out the stables before a permanent successor enters the fray. We suspect that Behan’s time at the OfS may be more in the latter mode.

Phillipson’s Friday release also confirmed her decision “to stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 in order to consider options, including its repeal. I am aware of concerns that the act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS, and I will confirm my long-term plans as soon as possible.”

Rather than prolong the OfS’s time in the trenches of the culture wars, the regulator will now “more sharply focus on key priorities, which include monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students”. However, the OfS will continue to introduce “strengthened protections for students facing harassment and sexual misconduct, including relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements in such cases by universities and colleges”.

Despite the parliamentary language, Phillipson’s statement is a clear repudiation of the legislative legacy of the previous government in higher education. The regulator is being reigned in and being tasked with sorting out the financial mess in universities—a need that ought to have been obvious since at least the Lords select committee report.

The former Conservative minister who finally dragged the bill over the line, Claire Countinho, popped up in the Sunday Telegraph to defend the legislation. The other ex-ministers associated with the passage of the act all lost their seats at the general election.

That has not stopped Tory outriders complaining about the loss of the act, which was set to take effect on 1 August in the absence of guidelines from the OfS on how it would actually work. Several voices have said that the views of gender-critical feminists would no longer be protected on campuses.

This is a red herring. The legislation contains nothing that would have altered the cases of Kathleen Stock at the University of Sussex, for example, and Jo Phoenix at the Open University, any more than it would have affected the case of David Millar, who won an industrial tribunal against the University of Bristol for wrongful dismissal over his “anti-Zionist” views.

In the case of Stock, the OfS has been conducting a three-year investigation into her resignation from Sussex and has yet to publish any findings. The primary power of the act was a legal tort that gave external speakers the course to appeal, and compensation in the event of the cancellation of a speaking engagement.

However, Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said the act, “while well-intentioned, risked enabling antisemitic extremists to access university campuses by severely impacting the ability of universities to block their presence”. He told the Times that scrapping it “will enable the government to consider how to ensure that freedom of speech is protected without allowing free rein to purveyors of hate speech”.

Speaking to those close to the legislation, Playbook understands that the tort was intended as a deterrent, which would nudge universities and student unions into compliance but would never be tested in a court of law. But institutions have spent significant time, money and psychic energy preparing for a confused and unenforceable act that arose from the views of splenetic opinion columns rather than a secure evidence base which identified a genuine problem in universities.

So, good riddance to bad legislation. Hopefully universities can also be free of the grifters who have made careers out of the vexatious caricatures of students and their institutions of learning, although somehow we doubt it.

Fit for the future

Speaking of grown-ups being back in charge of public bodies, David Behan’s independent report of the OfS, Fit for the Future: Higher Education Regulation Towards 2035, is a riveting read. Swap out the latest Linwood Barclay in your holiday suitcase for this regulatory roller coaster.

The TL;DR version is that political mission creep at the OfS has seen the regulator lose focus on what it is supposed to be for. Imagine if Ofwat, the body that regulates the marketised water industry, were given powers to fine wild swimmers for being woke or protesting over effluent in rivers—that is where the Office for Students has ended up with the learners whose interests it was established to protect.

However, it is not, says Sir David, all the fault of the folk at the OfS, who are there to ensure compliance with legislation even if they have been guilty of regulatory overreach. “The OfS does not regulate in a vacuum, and government needs to clearly articulate its strategy for the future of higher education, considering both the private and public good of higher education, for individuals, the economy and society,” says Behan.

The report recommends that the OfS pairs back its priorities to concentrate on “monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students”. This view is very much reflected in Phillipson’s parliamentary statement.

Behan is interested in students, which has been something of a rarity at the higher education regulator since it was established. He wants to see the OfS return to its roots, with a focus on its “consumer enforcement powers”. He suggests the regulator and the sector work together to come up with a model that works for student interests.

Not only that––he wants (shock, horror) the Office for Students to pay attention to said students. Behan calls on the regulator to seek “opportunities to involve students directly in its formal governance and regulatory activity, by constituting the student panel as a formal committee to the board and including students in quality assessments and investigations”.

But he does not stop at university health and paying attention to students. There are recommendations on reducing regulatory burden on institutions, working with other bodies within the higher education landscape, and on running pilot schemes before rolling out regulatory changes.

On quality, Behan recommends doing away with the need for a separate designated body and encourages the OfS to take on this role itself as part of “providing a continuous improvement feedback loop” for providers rather than beating them with a stick.

On finances, Behan suggests that the government needs to take a view on “whether the non-interventionist positioning is still the most appropriate for meeting the challenges of today”. Those challenges might become considerable on the other side of summer, when university recruitment targets are met or missed.

Rather than living in denial about university finances, Behan recommends that the OfS shares intelligence with universities and other sector bodies to “support sector planners to undertake realistic and prudent forecasting, scenario-planning and decision-making”. In other words, stop concocting university budgets on the basis of heroically optimistic recruitment forecasts.

There are also recommendations on joined-up working between the OfS and government, which sound as if they come from Behan’s own experiences of working in the NHS. However, significantly, the report says the OfS should develop “a more transparent style of communications to demonstrate to the sector its independence from government”.

There is a lot to unpack in that sentence, and a lot of work to do to reverse the damage of the past few years. Behan recommends an independent evaluation of the OfS board and a clear determination of which roles should be in the gift of the secretary of state, and which roles should be appointed by the chair.

“This will provide clear lines of accountability and avoid a dilution of the chief executive’s authority. The review recognises new legislation would be required to enact this,” reads the report. An experienced regulator like Behan is pointing out that something has gone wrong in the design of the Office for Students and is in need of urgent remedy.

The report is something of a vindication for vice-chancellors who have criticised regulatory burden and overreach. Behan is recommending a reset of the OfS and in turn wants to see “the sector reciprocate with the OfS, engaging productively and willingly with regulation”. Well, you can’t have everything, but it is certainly possible to have a much healthier relationship between universities, the regulator and government than we have had since 2019.

And finally…

In other news this weekend, the Sunday Times reports that “top universities” are to take students with lower grades in clearing in an attempt to solve their cash crisis. It is really a story about Ucas publishing the grades that universities actually accept for degree courses rather than the prospectus sticker price.

The most interesting part of the story is a quote from Higher Education Policy Institute director Nick Hillman, who says: “The [financial] crunch point for universities this year could be clearing. I expect to see more Russell Group universities in clearing because of the fall in overseas students. That will mean that lower-ranking universities have even more competition for UK students and may not meet their targets.

“If universities have a bad clearing and then a lot of their students drop out in the first few weeks of term, before they pay the first instalment of their tuition fees, that could be catastrophic. A trigger for a bankruptcy could be a bad clearing or a bank calling in a debt because it has lost faith in an institution, or for some other reason.”

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times also reports a recommendation from Grant Ritchie, the former principal of Dundee and Angus College, who served on the board of the Scottish Funding Council, that Scotland’s further and higher education institutions need to consider mergers. He is quoted as saying the Scottish sector is “in a state of financial crisis and there are really tough decisions that need to be made by individual institutions and by institutions collectively”.

He says: “It also needs the government to be serious about taking a leadership role and having ideas about how to move forward because the current structures are unaffordable. Mergers and intensive collaboration are required to make sense of the large number of institutions that we have in Scotland.”

We suspect this might be a long hot summer for higher education across the UK. Tomorrow sees the last regular edition of Playbook for this academic year—with the season finale of Ivory Tower on Wednesday—but you will be able to keep up with all the big stories on universities and research with our daily news service throughout August.

On Research Professional News today

In yesterday’s Sunday Reading, Gordon McKenzie draws on 18 years’ experience of higher education finance to predict future policy.

Chris Parr reports that the Labour government is to consider repealing last year’s legislation on freedom of speech in higher education over concerns that it is burdensome for universities, student unions and the Office for Students, and that the Office for Students’ regulatory approach provides insufficient protection for students in the event of a university exiting the market, according to a new report.

He also writes that education secretary Bridget Phillipson has confirmed that David Behan, former head of the Care Quality Commission, will be appointed interim chair of the Office for Students, the English higher education regulator, and that a government-commissioned review of the Office for Students has recommended that England’s regulator act in a “bold and confident manner” and monitor the financial sustainability of all higher education providers more closely.

Additionally, he gives us a rundown of the 32 recommendations made in the government-commissioned review of the Office for Students.

Emily Twinch tells us that the UK government has appointed a tech entrepreneur to create an action plan that will support the country’s efforts to develop an artificial intelligence sector that can compete on the world stage.

John Whitfield says the UK government has announced it will invest £106 million to create five hubs for R&D in quantum technology.

Nina Bo Wagner reveals that the German government has proposed a broad post-Brexit alternative deal between the UK and EU that would include student mobility arrangements and ameliorate high visa costs, according to reports, and that Switzerland’s main research funder has decided to raise minimum PhD salaries by 6 per cent from 2026 onwards.

John Bonner writes that five new members have been appointed to the board of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, EIT.

In the news

The BBC reports that Durham University’s choir has been invited to sing at St Peter’s Basilica in September. It writes that the University of Northampton is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its Gay Outdoor Club.

It also reports that a court has given the University of Sheffield permission to clear the Gaza protest camp outside its students’ union building, and that controversial new powers for universities and student unions to be fined for failing to uphold freedom of speech have been put on hold by the government.

The BBC also reports that Anglia Ruskin University will get a new media and TV building, despite objections.

The Guardian writes that Jonny Clothier, who was refused graduation at Bristol University for 41 years over an unpaid bill relating to his flatmate’s bird, has now graduated. The paper also reports on Labour halting the Tory’s law on freedom of speech in English universities.

The Times says Scottish universities must merge to survive, according to experts. It reports on a King’s College London donor linked to the Communist Party of China and writes that ministers are wrong to shelve legislation passed by parliament to protect free speech in universities.

The paper also suggests that Britain has too many universities and that the cash crisis resulting in a fall in the number of overseas applicants is forcing top universities to take students with lower grades. It also reports that education secretary Bridget Phillipson is to announce reforms, among which is telling the OfS it must save universities from bankruptcy without the help of the taxpayer.

The Telegraph reveals that every member of Team GB men’s rowers at the Paris Olympics are Oxford Brookes alumni. It publishes a comment accusing Labour of surrendering to the enemies free speech and publishes another comment condemning Bridget Phillipson’s decision to cancel the commencement of the Higher Education Act, saying it brings shame upon the party.

The Financial Times reports that the space industry is calling for bolder bets in the UK’s funding strategy.

The Independent writes that Labour’s decision to pause the freedom of speech law has been branded as ‘chilling’ by a former Conservative minister.

The Herald reports that research by University of Dundee professor Husam AlWaer, looking at how people in refugee camps reshape their environment, has been given a prestigious award.

The Scotsman writes that colleges have stressed they will not be ‘press-ganged’ into mergers as part of a restructure of the University of the Highlands and Islands.

The week ahead

Parliament goes into recess on Tuesday 30 July, which is also the date of the last Playbook of this academic year. 

From 11am on Tuesday, there will be a debate in the House of Lords on regulating AI technologies. 

Wednesday is the final day of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales’s existence. On Thursday, we formally welcome Medr as the tertiary body for Welsh education and research.

Also on Thursday, the Higher Education Policy Institute publishes a paper on retention, progression and promotion of early career Black academics.

The Playbook would not be possible without Donatella Montrone, Harriet Swain, Chris Parr, Orlen Crawford and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Good riddance appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: gene therapy funding, equality in gaming and economic growth for North Jutland

In depth: The rector and vice-rector of the University of Oslo have defended their institution’s academic cooperation with China, following the arrest of a Norwegian citizen accused of spying for China.

Full story: University of Oslo defends collaboration with China

Also this week from Research Professional News

Plan to alleviate administrative tedium enters first stage—Government’s policy change is designed to give Swedish universities more time for research

Here is the rest of the Nordic news this week…

Health tech researcher receives Lundbeck Foundation grant  

Ditte Jæhger, a researcher at the Technical University of Denmark, has received a grant of €670,000 from the Lundbeck Foundation, the university has announced. Thanks to this support, Jæhger will spend the next 18 months researching gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis. 

Tampere University reports good progress in game research

A project in Finland that is researching problems of equality and inclusion within the computer gaming world has completed its first stage. During the spring of 2024, stakeholder organisations such as Female Gaming Finland helped to identify the main problems in gaming culture. The project will now move on to workshopping solutions, according to an announcement from Tampere University. 

Aalborg University brings growth to North Jutland

As Aalborg University enjoys the 50th anniversary since it was founded, the university has said it brings growth and economic opportunity to the North Jutland region of Denmark, where it is located. Aalborg University said it generates a benefit of €1.2 billion per year for North Jutland, which equates to 4.9 per cent of the region’s GDP.

The post Nordic news roundup: 23-29 July appeared first on Research Professional News.

Government’s policy change is designed to give Swedish universities more time for research

Swedish universities burdened with administrative tasks will now have more time to dedicate to research, following government plans that aim to alleviate administrative load.

The first stage of these reforms involves a review of current administrative burdens that universities face. Universities and colleges will be asked to indicate which administrative tasks are particularly onerous, and to suggest measures to improve efficiency. The plan was announced on 22 July and the results of this initial stage are expected in September 2025.

Universities in Sweden already have more independence from the government than other public bodies, both in terms of how they operate and how they spend money, but they still they have administrative obligations to fulfil.

The Swedish Agency for Public Management has been tasked with proposing measures to reduce these burdens. “Researchers and university [lecturers] must focus on conducting world-class research and building outstanding research environments. They should not spend too much time on burdensome reporting,” said education minister Mats Persson.

The post Plan to alleviate administrative tedium enters first stage appeared first on Research Professional News.

Rector and vice-rector argue against cutting ties with Chinese researchers

The rector and vice-rector of the University of Oslo have defended their institution’s academic cooperation with China, following the arrest of a Norwegian citizen accused of spying for China. 

The suspect, who denies any wrongdoing, was apprehended at Oslo airport after returning from China. The case has sparked a debate within Norway about the extent to which the country should cooperate and collaborate with China across a number of areas, including research and higher education.

“Caution is required, but panicked reactions demanding that all cooperation with China be broken and that scare Norwegian students from travelling to China are counterproductive,” wrote rector Svein Stølen and vice-rector Mette Halskov Hansen in an online statement.

‘End to research collaborations’

The statement from the University of Oslo goes against arguments from the Progress Party, which has called for an end to research collaborations between Norway and countries it says put Norwegian national security at risk. “It is difficult to understand why it is so important for the government to allow Russian and Chinese researchers access to our technology. The understanding of security seems to be absent. We invite espionage by not limiting who we work with,” reads a statement from the right-wing and populist party.

The Norwegian domestic intelligence service, PST, has classed China as an increasing and significant intelligence threat to Norway in its most recent assessment. In an interview with Norwegian news outlet Verdens Gang, the leader of PST’s counterintelligence department, Kristian Takvam Kindt, said Norwegian students going to China are at risk of being recruited as spies.

‘China on equal footing with US’

But the University of Oslo has strongly defended its research collaborations with China. Stølen and Hansen argued that China is on equal footing with the United States in terms of its significance as a research nation. Therefore, Norway simply cannot afford to not cooperate with China.

“It is about more than academia. With a population of 1.4 billion and very rapid economic development, China is central to solving many of the global societal challenges—not least climate problems,” they wrote. “It is absurd and downright dangerous to imagine that we will not have any research collaborations with Chinese institutions and researchers.”

Stølen and Hansen did praise the PST for keeping a close eye on China’s activities, but they said universities should be trusted to assess the risks of cooperation with Chinese partners for themselves.

“We must be selective and not uniformly dismiss all research when we urge caution because of the real threat that some forms of knowledge transfer could be used militarily or industrially in China. Instead, we must make concrete risk assessments of the collaboration we choose to develop.”

The post University of Oslo defends collaboration with China appeared first on Research Professional News.

Gordon McKenzie draws on 18 years’ experience of higher education finance to predict future policy

Higher education funding is simple—that’s what I was told when I started working on higher education policy as a civil servant in 2006. It’s a compound, they said, of number of students, unit of resource for teaching, and terms and conditions of student finance. So simple, and so contentious in the 18 years since.

As I retire from working in the sector, higher education funding is still being debated, and the stakes seem higher than ever.

“Right system, wrong parameters.” This (from Nicholas Barr, quoting Anna Vignoles) is a good description of the state of income-contingent loans now. Right system because there is no financial barrier to access and, as Karl Marx pointed out, “free” higher education is just a middle-class subsidy from taxes. Wrong parameters because the various changes since 2012 mean that in England we are loaning too much, for too long, in a regressive system with far too little direct government subsidy.

Higher education provides public, as well as private, benefits and the balance of funding should reflect that. But with public subsidy at just 16 per cent, students and graduates are, pretty much, paying for higher education themselves. Yet ministers have moaned about the choices students and graduates make and what the system delivers.

In The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe show how the Treasury’s zeal for savings destroyed the potential social policy benefits of the child support reforms of the early 1990s. At the time, the Labour spokesman Michael Meacher quipped that the 1994 white paper, Children Come First, should have been called, The Treasury Comes First. While it has taken longer, given where we have ended up, you could make the same joke about the 2011 white paper, Students at the Heart of the System.

The combination of accounting trickery that flattered the national accounts and (full-time) students’ willingness to take out the loans proved addictive. Fees of £6,000 and a smaller reduction in teaching grant? No, push it to £9,000. Keep some level of maintenance grants? No. Like Lou Reed, the Treasury was rushing on its run. Reinstate maintenance as well as extend the repayment period as the Augar panel recommended? No. And after all those changes to loan terms and conditions, the right system for funding mass higher education is now described as not working by the new government. I guess the Treasury just didn’t know.

Public priorities

In between dropping out of one university course and starting another, I worked in a West Midlands factory making plastic bags. The chargehand, Keith, asked what I was studying and I made the mistake of telling him. After a long, incredulous pause he replied: “****ing drama? You ****ing ****er!”

Apart from any personal animosity, I think Keith was making a broader point about the extent to which certain subjects, qualifications or students should be prioritised for publicly supported higher education. At different times, I have met politicians from all three main parties who held broadly similar views to Keith (although not necessarily expressed in the same language)––some scepticism about the number of students and what they study.

In the 11 years since George Osborne said he was ending the cap on aspiration, government policy has enabled anyone suitably qualified to enter higher education if accepted and to study what they choose. The “number of students” factor in the funding calculation has been set aside.

Government rhetoric, particularly in recent years, has been rather different. By the time the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act put in place the legislative underpinning for a regulated market (legislation blocked during the coalition years to save Liberal Democrat blushes), the Conservatives had fallen out of love with expansion. But while ministers trash-talked degrees, they did not restrict student numbers––perhaps because, despite their magical policy thinking, even they could see that 30,000 degree apprenticeship starts was no alternative to a higher education system enrolling half a million new first-degree students.

Getting it right

Yet calls for a re-introduction of student number controls continue to come from both the political left and right. Many taxpayer-supported goods and services are rationed explicitly (e.g. means testing) or as a result of underfunding, so there is nothing wicked in asking whether higher education has got it right––although I would have more sympathy if the system had a much higher level of public subsidy than it does.

Arguments for number controls tend to be around teaching quality (if there is only so much to go around then having fewer students would allow government to spend more per head); questions about whether students are “suitably qualified” (the view that providers have a financial incentive to recruit those who are not); or a mismatch with the labour market (reported under-utilisation of skills, falling graduate premium, absence of promised productivity increases).

And I suspect the arguments won’t go away, despite the Labour manifesto promising to “continue to support the aspirations of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university”. Labour wants a skills strategy, supporting an industrial strategy, supporting growth. If new ministers think the system is failing to produce what the country needs at the right price, then they may return to the question, “How many students, studying what?”

Figure 1 in the recent Office for Students publication on the financial sustainability of English providers shows the real-terms value of the unit of resource for teaching over time. And it is now pretty much where it was in 1997 when Labour came to power, accepted the need for top-up fees and subsequently introduced them––first at £1,000 and then £3,000. 

Fee levels

Some commentators have suggested that a Labour government may well raise fees to just under £10,000 early in the Parliament. This is because a) Labour has talked––although not in the manifesto––about a fairer deal for students and graduates, and if that means increased maintenance and/or decreased repayments then it would be the least-worst time politically to increase fees as well; b) Labour will have to do something about university finances as “universities going under” is on Sue Gray’s list of potential crises facing the new government and c) while Bridget Phillipson has said there are “no plans” for fee rises, she has not ruled them out. 

I get the political timing point but I’m not convinced the Labour Treasury team will think the risk that some universities may fail is best addressed by giving all universities a 5-6 per cent fee increase. They may instead agree with the OfS that the “sector as a whole has been in a relatively strong financial position for much of the past decade” and that the “financial challenges it is facing now could be a catalyst to drive positive change and innovation”. And they may see Scotland and Northern Ireland––where very much lower levels of the unit of funding for teaching have not yet caused a university to fail––as canaries in the mine and think maybe this can wait a bit longer.

If so, I hope they also take account of the OfS’s warning that leaving sorting out sector financial crises to the individual actions of institutions risks impacts on the size, shape and reputation of UK higher education––impacts that could damage student choice, the breadth and depth of academic provision, and the ability of diverse institutions to maximise their contribution to local and national economies.

Gordon McKenzie is the former CEO of GuildHE and a former senior civil servant

The post Changing parameters appeared first on Research Professional News.

A rundown of the 32 recommendations made in government-commissioned review of English regulator

In December 2023, former head of the Care Quality Commission, David Behan, was commissioned to lead a review of the Office for Students by the former Conservative government.

His conclusions were published in a final report on 26 July 2024. On the same date, Behan was appointed interim chair of the OfS, England’s higher education regulator. 

The new Labour government has said it accepts the “core recommendations” of Behan’s report, which call for a stronger focus on the financial security of governance, a more collaborative approach to regulatory work, and consideration of the burden that regulation places on sector bodies.

It makes 32 separate recommendations:

Efficacy

1. That the OfS reduces its number of strategic objectives and focuses on the priorities of monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students.

2. That government and the OfS further consider the legislative powers and tools required to enable the OfS to effectively regulate against these priorities.

Regulating in the student interest

3. That to support the OfS to enact a strong, student championing role, the OfS should be given consumer enforcement powers.

4. That the OfS and sector explore the development of a model students’ contract for higher education.

5. That the OfS seeks opportunities to involve students directly in its formal governance and regulatory activity, by constituting the student panel as a formal committee to the board, and including students in quality assessments and investigations.

6. That the OfS considers an enhanced focus on the assurance of the management and governance of providers, and how they carry out the range of priority areas for their students and providers, by revising and strengthening the ‘good governance’ ongoing conditions of registration.

How the OfS regulates: risk-based regulation

7. That the OfS board reviews its risk appetite framework and approach with a view to becoming more proactive in anticipating, identifying and responding rapidly to address emerging risk.

8. That the DfE and OfS engage the sector in an ongoing, constructive dialogue with a view to reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, including data burden, and to seek to embed the Regulators’ Code principle of ‘collect once, use many times’.

9. That the OfS works more collaboratively with other regulators and arm’s-length bodies within the wider higher education system to understand their collective requirements and identify opportunities to reduce areas of regulatory overlap and duplication.

10.That the OfS considers the benefits of an independent academic evaluation of its practice and approach, alongside stakeholder feedback, in seeking to improve itself. This should include an evaluation of the effectiveness of its regulatory intervention.

11.That the OfS consults the sector when implementing changes to regulatory methods and then pilots such approaches before formal rollout.

How the OfS regulates: quality

12.That the OfS’s quality assessment methodologies and activity be brought together to form a more integrated assessment of quality.

13.That the OfS contributes to the overall improvement of the higher education system, providing a continuous improvement feedback loop and description of high-quality higher education. 

14.That the OfS be prescribed as an official whistleblowing body to ensure whistleblowers can be afforded full protections when providing information. This intelligence should inform the qualitative assessment of risk to quality.

15.That the OfS describes high-quality education and the standards required to demonstrate high quality, without the need for a separate designated body to perform this function. Legislation should therefore be amended to clarify that the OfS will perform this role.

How the OfS regulates: financial sustainability

16.That government undertakes policy work to revisit and clarify its position on market exit and whether the non-interventionist positioning is still the most appropriate for meeting the challenges of today.

17.That the OfS and government continue to build an infrastructure to offer advice, guidance and support for providers experiencing financial sustainability challenges, considering options such as early warning identification, management of emerging risk and prevention of disorderly market exit.

18.That the OfS continues to work with the sector to build and share an accurate and current picture of financial risk in the system, developed through open and honest dialogue and the sharing of intelligence with the sector, government, UKRI and relevant partners. 

19.That the OfS revises the requirements for student protection plans to ensure these are current, detailed and accurately consider risks to, and mitigations for, these risks to students.

Relationships with the sector

20.That the OfS develops a comprehensive stakeholder strategy, including an annual stakeholder survey, to continue building on its relationship with the sector.

21.That the sector reciprocates with the OfS, engaging productively and willingly with regulation.

Accountability

22.That the sponsorship team act as the central conduit between the OfS and government, managing the initial policy asks of the OfS. Outside of agreed business planning, all new and ad-hoc requests for work should be managed by the sponsorship team, until such time as that work has been agreed as part of, or as an adjunct to, the business plan.

23.That stronger information-sharing protocols are put into place between the OfS and government to enable joined-up working and proactive feedback around key areas of shared priority and risk.

24.That there is regular contact between DSIT and DfE to enable a joined-up approach to sponsorship and to allow for more open dialogue regarding financial sustainability as part of a wider cross-government approach to sharing knowledge and learning about regulation.

Independence of the OfS

25.That the OfS develops a more transparent style of communication to demonstrate to the sector its independence from government.

Governance

26.That the OfS commissions an independent board evaluation.

27.That DfE carefully considers upcoming appointments to the board, taking the opportunity of vacancies to ensure it has the required skills, experience and expertise for the challenges the sector will face over the coming decade. 

28.That DfE reassesses which members of the OfS’s leadership team are appointed by the secretary of state. In keeping with other arm’s-length bodies, the secretary of state should appoint the chair and non-executive directors. The board should then appoint the chief executive, and the chief executive should in turn appoint their executive team. The review recognises new legislation would be required to enact this.

29.That there should be a review of which specific executive roles formally constitute towards the make-up of the board’s membership.

Efficiency

30.That the OfS continues to pursue efficiency savings and enhanced productivity as it considers the efficacy, accountability and governance recommendations of this review.

31.The OfS should align its business planning with a continuous improvement cycle that considers efficiencies in line with effectiveness, and agree a resourcing plan with DfE.

32.That DfE conducts a review into the OfS’s fee structure within the context of the OfS’s current and planned work on efficiency and productivity.

Some recommendations have been edited for length. The report and recommendations in full are available on the DfE website.

The post In full: What the Behan review of the OfS recommends appeared first on Research Professional News.

Government-commissioned report calls for bolder action from English regulator

A government-commissioned review of the Office for Students has recommended that England’s regulator act in a “bold and confident manner”, and monitor the financial sustainability of all higher education providers more closely.

In a review commissioned by the Department for Education last year and published on 26 July, David Behan—who has today been named interim chair of the OfS—said the regulator should concentrate on four key priorities in the short term: monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money, and acting in the interests of students.

The government said in a statement that it accepts Behan’s “core recommendations, recognising that strong regulation is crucial to ensuring a stable future for the UK’s world-leading higher education sector”.

Behan said the OfS and the government should work together to manage financial sustainability, collaborate more effectively on data and intelligence that can proactively help to protect students, and recommended the OfS introduce an “integrated model of quality regulation” to set and assess quality standards.

His report calls for the regulator to become “a more active collaborator” with government departments, UK Research and Innovation, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, and bigger education institutions. It adds that consideration should be given to whether “improvements can be made to reduce the overall data burden” of regulation.

Meanwhile, the review states that the OfS should develop a more “transparent style of communication to demonstrate to the sector its independence from government”.

It also states that the Higher Education and Research Act should be amended to remove “the need for a separate designated [quality] body”. The OfS became the designated quality body for England last year, after the Quality Assurance Agency relinquished the role, but it had not been confirmed whether it would retain the position.

“It has been a privilege to lead the review of the OfS and I now look forward to delivering the changes the review recommends, importantly financial sustainability, quality, student interest and value for money,” Behan said.

An overview of all 32 recommendations made by the review is available here.

Delivering better outcomes

Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the OfS, said it was an “important time for higher education” as Behan took up his role as chair, and welcomed “the thoughtful conclusions and recommendations” in his report.

“Students and colleagues from across the higher education sector found time to speak with him during the review and their important perspectives are reflected in his report and its proposals,” she said. “The review highlights a range of important areas—including the financial sustainability of the sector—that the OfS will continue to prioritise.”

Lapworth added that the report will prompt “reflection for government, the sector, and the OfS”, and sets out areas in which the OfS “can, and will, continue to improve”.

“We continue to work hard to improve our engagement with the institutions we regulate, to ensure that trust-based relationships can underpin effective regulation,” she said. “And we are developing our understanding of the things that matter to students, and how their perspectives can inform our work, as we develop our new strategy.”

Jamie Roberts, policy manager for the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, said financial sustainability was “the most significant and growing challenge for the higher education sector”.

“Moves towards a more genuinely risk-based approach to regulation would also be positive and could help cut unnecessary red tape,” Roberts said. “Streamlining the OfS’s approach to regulation with a renewed focus on key challenges would help stop resources being diverted away from teaching and student support.”

A spokesperson for Universities UK said the Behan review was “thorough and we welcome many of its recommendations”.

“Its findings underline the importance of an independent regulator for higher education in England and the need for a focus on the financial sustainability of the sector,” the spokesperson said. “This will continue to strengthen the sector’s relationship with the OfS and ultimately help deliver better outcomes for students.”

The post Behan review urges stronger OfS focus on financial stability appeared first on Research Professional News.

Ivory Tower: Next on Sky Sports HE, 10 days of the universities and research Olympics

Day 1: Opening ceremony

And here comes Team GB, one of the favourites in this year’s events. No strangers to a league table, we hope to see UK universities competing with the US, Australia and Canada for international numbers. Unusually, this year the teams are not parading around a stadium but sailing in boats up the Seine.

It’s fortunate for Britain that the Conservatives recently lost the election because, of course, their policy was to stop all boats sailing from France. At the front of our vessel, you might be able to spot team captain Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, who will be participating in the early morning TV and radio interviews event, a new category in this year’s games which combines wrestling, fencing and heavy-lifting.

Day 2: Marathon

As we approach the final stages on the streets of Paris, this has been a truly impressive effort from the Brits. After five years of strikes over a defined benefit pension scheme, British universities certainly know a thing or two about arduous marathons.

The frontrunners now approach the Rue des Écoles, famed home of the Sorbonne and other institutions of higher learning. But what’s this? It looks as if the route has been blocked by a flaming barricade with staff and students barring the way.

We haven’t seen anything like this in France since 2009. I can’t quite see what they are protesting about… Ah, yes, it looks like that old bug bear, the Bologna process, to bring universities into line with European and Anglo-Saxon standards.

One banner reads, “After Brexit, why are we still doing this?” But you’ve got to say that’s a misunderstanding. After Brexit, recession and the declining value of tuition fees, British universities are now in line with continental counterparts: they are just as impoverished as everyone else.

Day 3: Track and field

You join us for the final of the academic relay race. Hosts France, like so many others, are using the tried and trusted Erasmus+ method, while the Brits have their own alternative scheme—let’s hope they’ve been practising their exchanges.

The starting pistol fires; there’s an early lead for the European teams. Taith, the Welsh runner, makes the first exchange for Britain. It’s now with the Scottish parliament, which has promised a successful exchange, but we’ve yet to see any evidence of it.

That looks like a terrible fumble from Scotland, but it’s now with Turing from England, who exchanges with no one. Oh dear, someone has really dropped the baton there.

Day 4: Diving

It’s been an exciting day in the pool with success for Britain’s vice-chancellors in the 100-metre crawl, something they’ve practised extensively with ministers in the previous government. Now we take to the high boards for the diving contest.

British universities are hot favourites here, they’ve been taking a nosedive for several years now. And here’s late entrant Jacqui Smith, minister for further education, higher education and skills, whose own career took a sensational dive from home secretary to podcaster in record time.

Smith comes to the edge of the board and looks to take the plunge. She jumps, performs a classic DfE twist and turn, and the water covers over her head. Let’s hope she is not out of depth.

Day 5: Gymnastics

High hopes for Britain in the men’s event as science minister Patrick Vallance now approaches the horizontal bar. So far, UK science has been doing somersaults, taken a pummelling on the horse, and been vaulted over by the likes of Canada and New Zealand, but finally the bar on Horizon has been lifted.

Vallance begins his routine. The Brits might be a little rusty on the horizon programme after years of absence from the competition. There will be deductions for slips and errors using a complex repayment system to the Treasury that no one quite understands.

Vallance has got a strong grip, and that’s some impressive flips and twists from the UK government, man. He should now be looking to dismount but he seems unable to let go. That’s what comes of being a life peer in the science minister role. He could be here for some time, going round and round…

Day 6: Rowing

The Brits have really come to dominate rowing in higher education. Some say it’s because you can sit down while doing it, but some of our best rowers do it standing up.

In recent years we have some great rows in higher education. Who can forget science secretary Michelle Donelan’s row with members of an equality advisory board, or education secretary Gillian Keegan’s row over minimum staffing levels.

And, of course, the brief but glorious career of skills minister Andrea Jenkyns, who could start a row in an empty house. Our best hope this year is in the mixed pairs, where the University and College Union and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association will be rowing about the annual pay rise, even though everyone agrees higher education in the UK is bankrupt.

Day 7: Cycling

This is another set of events that British higher education excels at, going round and round the same track for ages until someone finally crashes. And, of course, UK universities have their own Trac programme they complete every year, even though no one can really remember why.

We’ve had some great successes over the years. Perhaps most memorably when universities minister Jo Johnson introduced the gold, silver and bronze awards for the Teaching Excellence Framework, which was widely recognised as a recycling of a bad idea that took everyone for a ride.

Later on, science minister Peter Kyle will be leading the UK in the team pursuit with a target of 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 to meet. Let’s hope no one in the Treasury puts a spoke in his wheels.

Day 8: Track and field 2

Welcome back to the Stade de France, where later we’ll see the blue-ribbon event of the 100-metre sprint. Competing for Britain is outgoing UKRI chief executive Ottoline Leyser, who tells us she can’t wait to make a dash for it.

In a great evening of athletics, we will also see some long-distance running. We spoke to many representatives of UK universities today who have said they would run a mile if the Tories ever got back in.

But first let’s go over to the hurdles, where the Office for Students has been laying out some pretty high barriers for universities to jump over. However, we understand James Wharton has pulled out of the race as he was obviously for the high jump.

Day 9: Shooting

So far, these games have been a great success for British universities, with education secretary Bridget Phillipson winning friends for her unexpected performance in the graduate visa route slalom. There’s also been success for the Brits in the modern pentathlon of REF, TEF, KEF, LEO and NSS.

Now we’re on the shooting range for an event the Brits are currently world champions at: the large-bore circular firing squad event. What an array of talent we have, from vice-chancellors and trade unions to government ministers and sector thought leaders.

This year the group will be led by the free speech tsar, Arif Ahmed—a controversial choice since he declared that no one should be shot down just for voicing an unpopular opinion. However, with the new government pressing pause on new free speech legislation set to take effect in a matter of days, it seems as if the guy charged with tackling cancel culture may already have been cancelled.

Day 10: Closing ceremony

Now, that’s a heart-warming sight after a such a competitive and challenging set of events. It really is something to see so many people from British universities still working in August.

Such a pity that Team GB became embroiled in that doping scandal when former education secretary Gavin Williamson took part in the A-Level Results Judo. The organisers said they had never seen such a big dope in the system and have banned the UK from all subsequent events.

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday. It should be passed on like the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. Want to order a replica of Team GB’s higher education Olympics mascots, Russell the Fresher and Nando’s the Returner? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com

The post Olympic trials appeared first on Research Professional News.

German plan for “mega deal” covering Erasmus+ and visa costs welcomed by student unions

The German government has proposed a broad post-Brexit alternative deal between the UK and EU that would include student mobility arrangements and ameliorate high visa costs, according to reports, bringing a warm welcome from German student union representatives.

An article published today by Politico says that as the EU discusses a new post-Brexit security deal with the UK’s Labour government, the German government has proposed broadening that into a much wider “mega deal” encompassing areas ranging from agriculture to the EU student mobility funding programme Erasmus+.

Germany’s ambassador to the UK, Miguel Berger, told Politico that the proposed deal “would include the Erasmus programme, school trips, youth exchanges, and the question of visa costs, which are more than 10 times higher to come to the UK than the other way around”.

He said he would like to see “progress” on “day-to-day mobility, especially for young people”.

Erasmus+ has an estimated budget of €26.2 billion for 2021-27 and supported more than 30,000 exchange programmes in 2023. It facilitates the EU’s goal of reaching 20 per cent student mobility. 

Warm welcome

Paul Klär, international officer at Germany’s Free Association of Student Unions (FZS), said it “would welcome a re-association of the UK with Erasmus+ immensely”.

Klär said that “dissociation from Erasmus+ and a simultaneous drastic increase in tuition fees for foreign students has made the UK inaccessible… for German students”.

The FZS, alongside the European Students’ Union, has repeatedly called for the UK to rejoin Erasmus+.

Klär said the move would bring benefits “for students both in the UK and in all the current Erasmus+-countries, including Germany”, and foster “intercultural understanding on campuses”.

Previous mobility proposals by the EU have been met coolly by the UK’s new Labour government, which is adamant it will not reintroduce freedom of movement in any form. But Germany and the EU stress their ideas focus on short-term visas.

The post Proposed EU-UK deal ‘includes student mobility’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Minimum salaries will increase by 6 per cent in 2026 to ‘maintain attractiveness’ of PhDs

Switzerland’s main research funder has decided to raise minimum PhD salaries by 6 per cent from 2026 onwards.

The Swiss National Science Foundation announced on 24 July that its board and representatives from the higher education sector have agreed to the first salary adjustment for doctoral students since 2014.

Thomas Werder, a member of the SNSF executive management team and head of research funding, said in the statement that “this salary increase is essential if we are to maintain the attractiveness of the doctorate and of Switzerland as a research centre”.

The SNSF allocated 52 million Swiss francs (€52 million) in its 2025-28 financial programme to be used in raising doctoral salaries. Minimum doctoral salaries will increase from 47,040 to 50,000 Swiss francs per year.

The raise will take effect from January 2026 to give institutions time to plan their budgets and “guarantee equal treatment for their doctoral students”, according to SNSF.

The foundation has already adjusted the upper limit of doctoral salaries, to 55,000 Swiss francs per annum, in both 2023 and 2024 to adjust for inflation.

The SNSF is the largest research funder in Switzerland and since 2021 has been providing a domestic alternative to the EU’s research programme, Horizon Europe, until accession negotiations recently re-started.

It supports more than 6,000 PhD students and recruits approximately 2,000 new doctoral candidates each year.

The post Swiss funding agency to increase doctoral salaries appeared first on Research Professional News.

Tech entrepreneur and Aria chair Matt Clifford appointed to deliver programme to grow AI sector

The UK government has appointed a tech entrepreneur to create an action plan that will support the country’s efforts to develop an artificial intelligence sector that can compete on the world stage.

Matt Clifford is charged with finding ways to use artificial intelligence (AI) in driving economic growth in the country and improving the lives of its citizens.

Clifford is co-founder of a startup, Entrepreneur First, that helps people to build technology companies. He said: “AI presents us with so many opportunities to grow the economy and improve people’s lives. The UK is leading the way in many areas, but we can do even better.

“I’m excited to start work and develop an ambitious roadmap to identify the biggest opportunities and support the new government as it makes important choices about where to focus its efforts.”

The tech entrepreneur is also chair of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, a government research and funding agency.

Work underway

Clifford will be responsible for creating an action plan that boosts AI take-up of technology across all parts of the economy, in both the public and private sectors. He will be expected to examine the infrastructure, talent and data access that will be required to achieve that.

Work on the action plan has started and will involve key industry and civil society figures. Clifford has been asked to deliver a set of recommendations to the science secretary, Peter Kyle, in September.

The plan will assess what the UK needs in terms of computer infrastructure and other resources by 2030.  

Kyle said: “We’re putting AI at the heart of the government’s agenda to boost growth and improve our public services. Together we will use AI to drive productivity and economic growth in every part of the country, so we can make everyone better off.” 

AI unit

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will also establish an ‘AI Opportunities Unit’, with the aim of bringing together the knowledge and expertise to implement the action plan’s recommendations.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves explained that “artificial intelligence has the potential to raise productivity and help us do that”.

“Our AI Opportunities Unit will unlock its full potential to grow a more productive economy, create good jobs across the country, and deliver the excellent public services that people deserve while saving taxpayers’ money,” she said.

The post UK government launches AI ‘action plan’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson ‘considering options’ including scrapping controversial legislation

The Labour government is to consider repealing last year’s legislation on freedom of speech in higher education, over concerns that it is burdensome for universities, students’ unions and the Office for Students.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, said in a written ministerial statement on 26 July that she had made the decision to “stop further commencement” of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to “consider options, including its repeal”.

“I am aware of concerns that the act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS, and I will confirm my long-term plans as soon as possible,” Phillipson said.

The act passed in May last year, and offers people who feel they have been no-platformed by universities or student groups a legal avenue to seek financial compensation.

The legislation also established a “free speech tsar” at the OfS to oversee campus free speech issues. The inaugural holder of the post is University of Cambridge philosophy professor Arif Ahmed.

However, the proposals were unpopular with universities, with many experts—including university leaders and members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords—claiming that the legislation was unnecessary. Other raised concerns that legal cases could prove so costly for universities that it might discourage them from inviting controversial speakers to campus in the first place.

Chaos avoided?

Diana Beech, a former adviser to three Conservative universities ministers and chief executive of the London Higher group of institutions, said the decision to review the act was “a sensible move…sending a clear signal to the sector that it has listened to concerns and is reacting appropriately”.

“The duties set to be inferred on the regulator by the Freedom of Speech Act risked making the OfS run before it could walk,” she added. “The decision to pause the act now gives the regulator the time it needs to improve its capability and capacity when it needs first and foremost to be looking out for the sector’s sustainability.”

The Russell Group said universities were “committed to protecting free speech on campus and already have robust measures in place to support freedom of expression”.

“The decision to stop implementation of the act is a sensible and proportionate step given universities and students’ unions were yet to see final guidance from the OfS on new free speech duties despite some requirements of the legislation being due to come into effect next week.”

Last week, a Research Professional News webinar heard from education lawyer Smita Jamdar, a partner at Shakespeare Martineau, who issued a warning on the changes that had been set to come in next week—including a new free speech complaints process.

“Something has to happen about that start date,” she said on 18 July. “Otherwise we’ll just have chaos for a few weeks, and that is not a great way to start a new system.”

Phillipson said that, to enable students to thrive in higher education, she welcomed OfS plans to “introduce strengthened protections for students facing harassment and sexual misconduct, including relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements in such cases by universities and colleges”.

The post Labour pause on free speech act labelled ‘sensible’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

New faces join organisation responsible for directing EU innovation policy

Five new members have been appointed to the board of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, EIT.

The board is responsible for guiding the strategic direction of the EIT, the independent EU body charged with strengthening the bloc’s capacity to innovate. It is also responsible for selecting and monitoring the performance of the nine Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) created since the EIT was established in 2008.

The new members are: Anne Borg, former director of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Dariusz Jemielniak, vice-president of the Polish Academy of Sciences; Kyriacos Kokkinos, Cyprus’s former minister for research, innovation and digital policy; Anna Lindén, vice-chair of the board of Åbo Akademi University in Finland; and Michel Mariton, vice-president for economic development at Paris-Sarclay University in France.

EIT is based in Budapest, Hungary. Its 15 board members have backgrounds in business, education and research. They are appointed by the European Commission and serve a non-renewable four-year term.

The post Innovation body selects five new board members appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, we profile Blood Cancer UK’s first early career fellowship scheme since the pandemic and learn why understanding who grant reviewers really are can improve the chances of success of any bid.

This week in Funding Insight

Blood Cancer UK changed its name from Bloodwise in 2020. Around that time, because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the charity paused new calls for its fellowship schemes. This year, that support is returning in the shape of Early Career Advancement Fellowships, which offer a maximum of £350,000 for projects lasting up to three years (or five years part time).

The charity says the scheme is for “outstanding early career researchers who are dedicated to pursuing a career in blood cancer research and who are aiming to transition towards independence”. The deadline for applications is 19 September.

Richard Francis, deputy director of research at Blood Cancer UK, explains how the scheme fits into the charity’s reinvigorated grants portfolio and relates what assessors will be looking for in applications.

From the archive: As Funding Insight eases into its summer break, we spare a thought for all our readers who won’t be able to spend as much time away from a computer screen as they might have liked because they have grant application deadlines looming in the coming months.

To help focus your minds, we republish this reflection from May 2021 on who you will be writing for as you work up your bid. As the article makes plain, you won’t be writing for a panel of fearsome, omniscient mega-minds but rather inquisitive, intelligent but time-limited and pressured researchers (and others)—much like you. And that requires a different mindset…

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Labour tipped to ‘change focus’ on next UKRI leader—Recruitment process well underway before election, but new science minister may have “names up sleeve”

Dsit announces £16m boost for UK biomedical database—Government matches contribution from Amazon Web Services, aiming to benefit medical research

Researchers’ views sought on new EU platform—First European Open Science Cloud platform to be presented to scientific community in October

British Academy makes housing expert its next president—Cambridge-based geographer Susan Smith will head up humanities and social sciences body from July 2025

Volkswagen Foundation offers €10m for Earth sciences—Professorships established to create fresh perspectives on our planet

The Funding Insight email is taking its habitual summer break and the next one will hit your inboxes on 4 September. In the meantime, if you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Blood Cancer UK fellowships and understanding who will read your bid appeared first on Research Professional News.

DfE confirms appointment, publishes report on English regulator and considers scrapping free speech act

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has confirmed that David Behan, former head of the Care Quality Commission, will be appointed interim chair of the Office for Students, the English higher education regulator.

It comes as Behan publishes the findings of his independent review of the OfS, which was commissioned last year by the former government, and as ministers consider repealing free speech legislation passed under the Conservatives.

Behan was chief executive of the Care Quality Commission from 2012 to 2018, and before that served as director general for social care in the Department of Health. He was the first chief inspector of the Commission for Social Care Inspection and was knighted in 2017 for his services to health and care. 

On 26 July, Phillipson said Behan had conducted “a rigorous and thoughtful review”.

The review recommends a sharper regulatory focus on “key priorities, which include monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students,” Phillipson said.

“I also wish to announce that Sir David has been appointed as interim chair of the OfS,” she added. “His role will primarily be to work with the current executive to implement the recommendations of the independent review. The process to appoint a permanent chair has started and will conclude next year.”

James Wharton, a Tory peer who had been chair of the OfS since 2021, stood down following Labour’s landslide general election victory.

In her statement, Phillpson said the government would now “stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal”.

“I am aware of concerns that the Act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS, and I will confirm my long-term plans as soon as possible,” she said. “To enable students to thrive in higher education, I welcome the OfS’s plans to introduce strengthened protections for students facing harassment and sexual misconduct, including relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements in such cases by universities and colleges.”

The post Behan named interim OfS chair amid regulation shake-up appeared first on Research Professional News.

How the Australian Sports Commission is driving a sports research revolution

The days of the Olympics accepting only “amateur” sportspeople are long gone. The average Australian Olympian has behind them sponsorship deals and years of paid training, often at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) or a top-level club.

But their secret sauce is research: evidence-based dietary advice, tailored daily regimes and high-tech equipment. Think the “shiny suits” that helped the 2004 cohort of Olympic swimmers set records that are yet to be passed now that the suits are banned.

The Australian Sports Commission (ASC), which has been running, in various forms, since 1981, is charged with developing all levels of Australian sport. While the public focus, especially during the Olympics and Paralympics, is on the AIS, the commission also fosters sport in the community, and has an internal and grants-based research programme and, since 2021, a chief science officer.

That officer, Paolo Menaspà, has set about overhauling the priorities of the research programme. He told Research Professional News that there was an appetite among athletes and coaches for evidence-driven improvements.

“I think it’s driven by a genuine interest in being faster, stronger, more skilful or whatever it takes to excel in their sport,” he says. “Many athletes and coaches actually follow scientists on social media and they want to know about the latest research.”

Research agenda

The ASC has met with industry stakeholders––researchers, coaches, government officials and, of course, athletes––to develop a formal research agenda.

The agenda, launched in 2022, is being guided by a national advisory group on sports research, with 33 members. Together, the agenda and advisory group cover more than the ASC’s work; they aim to guide all Australian researchers working on sports-related projects.

The agenda lists five priorities, only one of which is high-performance sport, where Olympians, Paralympians and national teams sit. The others are: participation in sport; the value and benefits of sport; the impact and legacy of major events; and sport system sustainability.

Menaspà notes: “The amount of sports-related research that we support or fund is only a small part of the research happening in Australia. There is amazing research happening independently from the AIS and ASC.” He also cites the influencing power of funding programmes.

Outside research

In 2024, the ASC, through the AIS, offered A$400,000 in funding for outside research projects. While those grants are still being decided, the most recent round of the programme has funded a Deakin University study of injury recovery, a University of Technology Sydney study of ways to decide when injured athletes should return to sport, and other recovery-related research at Edith Cowan University and La Trobe University.

In 2022, the ASC updated guidelines for research it funds to reflect research best practice.

“I’m very conscious of research waste and not wasting taxpayers’ money,” Menaspà says. “Sometimes research waste comes from addressing questions that may not be a priority of the beneficiaries, so when I started, the very first thing I [had done was engage] widely with our stakeholders… particularly athletes and coaches.”

He wanted to see sports research move, as health research has, towards more attention to end-user needs, such as the holistic development of athletes.

“In that case the identified gap was research that considers the athlete as a whole,” he says. “There is a lot of research focused on specific areas, whether it is mental health or physical health.”

Lifting their game

In 2022, the ASC published a report that suggested there was room to work on greater integrity in Australian sports research, and more open-access publication.

It said that although “questionable practices” had not specifically been found in sports research: “It is unlikely that sports research is immune to this problem,” noting that “an increasing number of studies in the area of sports science and sports medicine have been retracted for statistically improbable data patterns, data fabrication, duplicate publications and plagiarism”.

The ASC has since improved its funding guidelines to match best practice in other research fields, Menaspà says.

“There has historically been a focus on delivering products/services which are useful for athletes, which is great and we want to maintain this,” he says. “At the same time, science practice is improving, it’s changing, it’s growing, and we want to promote the uptake of contemporary research practices in sports research.”

His changes include creating a list of nine good research practices, based on a 2022 University of Sydney study of health and medical research by Joanna Diong. 

“ASC aims to be the first Australian funding scheme to encourage researchers to address all nine criteria,” he says.

The list includes registering study protocols, including statisticians in research teams and making data available. Even the nation’s major funders failed to meet all nine criteria, the 2022 study found.

Menaspà has also set up a “meta-research” programme within the ASC to improve its own practices.

“Currently it’s not common in sports [research] to conduct research on research, but we want to use research to improve the way we do things,” he says.

Most ASC research is carried out by practitioners, with Menaspà and a research manager the only full-time research professionals. ASC staff have recently published studies on female performance, sports injuries and illness.

A new “clearing house”, where sports research can be registered, and which offers resources such as suggestions on how research can help performance for those working in the field, has also been established. It lists possible sources of sports research funding beyond the ASC.

Meanwhile, the ASC convenes an annual Sports Technology and Applied Research Symposium, where researchers share their findings with each other and potential users.

“The peer review process [in publication] is a chance to highlight the quality of the research that we do,” Menaspà said.

CASE STUDY

Scientists and coaches in Australia are collaborating to create new ways for athletes to train

Two Australian researchers are walking the walk––or swimming the swim––when it comes to collaborative research.

A three-year project headed by Katie Slattery and Jamie Stanley, funded by the Australian Institute of Sport, is aiming to create a framework for “holistic” management of athletes’ training.

The project, which is two years into its term, is notable for several features: it eschewed a “research question” in favour of consulting with practitioners; it is prioritising results over publication; and it is building on connections both to support the work and to give it longevity.

Stanley, who is attached to the South Australian Sports Institute, where he is involved with Olympic swimmers and cyclists, and Paralympic cyclists, says: “We have both worked with athletes for quite a long time as physiologists and sports scientists. We’d faced challenges of working in that environment, and we could see that there were plenty of areas that could be improved upon. So part of that was around thinking about an athlete more holistically.

Slattery, who is a sports researcher at the University of Technology Sydney, says they began with consultations, approaching some of the national sports institute networks and holding interdisciplinary focus groups, with at least one athlete, one coach and one performance support staff member in each.

“Based on that we’ve come up with a framework that can help guide more holistic athlete preparation, and we’ve called that ‘performance-centred practice’,” she says.

Collaborative study

The initial research was done in conjunction with AusCycling and Swimming Australia, but Stanley says the framework can be applied more widely.

“I think that’s the cool thing about it,” he says. “It has potential to impact the system for able-bodied, para, a whole range of sports.”

While they developed the framework, they also looked for ways to test many technologies available in “real time” to improve training practices.

“With the evolution of wearable technology, every step, every breath, every heartbeat that an athlete takes can be measured both while they’re training and when they’re not training,” Slattery says.

Just as important was how to integrate “what the coach has seen, what the athlete is feeling, and what the technology is telling us”.

Slattery says they will speak again to coaches, athletes and performance support staff to get their feedback on a draft version of the performance-centred practice framework and adjust it as needed.

“By having these regular touchpoints with the people who will actually be implementing what the research is recommending, the aim is that it’s a much more usable, meaningful and impactful research outcome,” she says.

Final phase

The final, fifth phase of the research will be conducted with a few “select cycling coaches” who will apply the framework and give feedback. There is no intention to formally publish the results of that phase, Slattery says. “We want it to be as authentic as possible and allow the coaches and athletes freedom to be completely honest and share all their data without thinking that it’s going to be public.

Stanley says that while there’s an academic, peer-review literature aspect to the work, a more important part of it for them is its uptake across the system. Some sports are already implementing part of what they have found.

The research was designed to leverage all available resources. As well as the initial A$125,000 grant from the Australian Institute of Sport, researchers involved include multiple PhD students and honours students doing the applied research, with university funding, support from the South Australian Sports Institute and in-kind support. University of Technology Sydney, the universities of South Australia and Western Australia and Griffith University have all contributed.

Slattery says the collaboration has provided the time and the resources to answer the “real-life research questions”.

“When you’re day-to-day in the training environment, you don’t have time to write your ethics applications, to write your publications, to even apply for grants,” she says. “So it just expands the capacity of people who are working in the field to be able to get quality answers to their questions.

Even if they never publish phase five of the research, they will still achieve their performance metrics if it has strong impacts––something Slattery welcomes.

She says: “[There has been] a shift in the mindset of universities away from publications and towards, ‘How is your work impacting in the real world?’ that has also enabled this kind of research to happen.

The post Higher, faster, stronger: Reshaping sports research appeared first on Research Professional News.

A report suggests how the government could prevent universities from going bust

Playbook understands that an interim chair for the Office for Students and other regulatory changes will be announced today in a written ministerial statement.

Imminent action in this area was signalled by education secretary Bridget Phillipson earlier this week when she made it clear in an interview with the BBC’s Today programme that the first response of the new government to the financial problems affecting higher education would be to focus on regulation and the OfS rather than pumping in cash through fee rises or government grants.

Meanwhile, a timely report out today from the think tank Public First—Institution Overboard: Managing the Risk of Disorderly Market Exit in English Higher Education—highlights how much attention the current regulatory regime needs.

It argues that the regime is not set up to cope with any large-scale failure of higher education institutions—either in terms of multiple institutions or one large institution.

This is not just because student protection plans have no force in insolvency law and students no more rights than creditors should an institution go bust, but because the current approach to institutional failure takes no account of the risk of “contagion”, whereby the failure of one institution could affect the behaviour of students, staff and lenders elsewhere in the system.

The report says a failure would have knock-on effects both for the region around the university concerned and for the wider ecosystem of UK teaching and research.

And it calls for the role of the OfS to be rebalanced to prioritise collaboration over competition and to take a more proactive approach towards managing and forecasting financial risk in order to help avoid it. This would also involve student protection plans being strengthened.

Restructuring scheme

The report, written by Jonathan Simons, partner and head of education practice at Public First, and Jess Lister, an associate director, also proposes a new £2.5 billion Higher Education Enhancement and Transformation Scheme to preempt market exits by making repayable loans available to institutions that can “make a compelling case for restructuring”.

This compelling case would rest on meeting six tests: offering a plan for economic growth in the region; protecting the community; having an impact on public service training; affecting the future flow of graduate labour; protecting scientific assets and the research base; and protecting academic specialisms.

Money would be offered upfront in exchange for later cost savings and improvements in productivity, such as better use of research funding. The idea is that it would be a good option for institutions that are perhaps one or two recruitment cycles (say 18 to 24 months) away from real challenges.

For institutions too close to the brink to be saved by such a scheme, the report makes the case for a Special Administration Regime, modelled on that already in place for further education colleges, which should mean that any exit from the sector is properly managed.

This would ensure minimum disruption for existing students should an institution go bust—and the report argues that it could be introduced relatively quickly, although it would require primary legislation.

The problem is that the mere passing of such legislation could knock the confidence of institutions, students and creditors, the report’s authors suggest. They say that other measures, such as the proposed transformation scheme, could be delivered more quickly and at a lower cost.

Finally, the report calls for the appointment of a higher education commissioner at the Department for Education to liaise between the sector and government.

The commissioner would be able to offer support with changes to senior leadership, financial management and health checks or restructuring, as well as being responsible for managing the transformation scheme.

Longer-term stability

In a foreword to the report, Stuart Croft, vice-chancellor and president of the University of Warwick, writes: “The potential ‘market exit’ of a higher education institution is a feature, not a bug, of the current regulatory framework. In practice, exit––orderly or otherwise––of an institution from the sector has not been adequately prepared or planned for. Action is required to both protect students and to ensure that the reputation of the higher education sector is safeguarded.”

He argues that the OfS was set up with too little emphasis on financial sustainability and that while the recommendations in the paper should help stabilise the system, there are also longer-term issues to address.

One of those is the sector’s reliance on international students.

In her BBC interview and later in a speech at King’s College London, Phillipson spoke enthusiastically about the contribution made by these students.

Her words were warmly welcomed by a sector that has blamed less positive rhetoric about international students from the previous government for recent scary falls in their numbers.

Phillipson appeared to signal that with finances stretched and the idea of raising tuition fees politically unpalatable, the government is looking to international students to fill the financial gap.

But Croft warns in today’s report: “We need to be clear-eyed about the future. Student recruitment will continue to get more competitive, and not every UK university will be able to sustain, let alone grow, current levels of international student recruitment.”

The report also warns that an institutional failure could make international students less confident about choosing to study in the UK.

Resizing and reshaping

Concerns about managing market exit have been growing for a while. Smita Jamdar, head of education at the law firm Shakespeare Martineau, told Playbook in June that there was no clear roadmap for how to handle such exits because they depend on how individual institutions have been incorporated.

In its recent annual assessment of the health of the sector, the OfS suggested that mergers could be a solution and predicted that “we might see some changes to the size and shape of the sector, for example through mergers and acquisitions or increased specialisation”.

But the Public First paper adds to warnings from many, including Jamdar, that mergers may not be an easy answer. It recognises that most UK universities are the product of a continual process of merger and integration, such as the gradual merger of art and design, teacher training and nursing schools into universities, and it rejects the idea of preserving the current system in aspic. It warns, however, that such reordering becomes a problem when it reduces students’ choice of courses and institutions, the breadth of research or institutions’ contribution to their local communities.

The paper also rejects the idea of a “backstop”, whereby local institutions are forced to take existing students if an institution closes, on the grounds that it is unreasonable to expect the system to hold enough spare capacity just on the off-chance that a failure happens, and because, unlike customers, students cannot be seamlessly switched between providers.

Controversially, it sees a case for reclassifying universities as part of the public sector should more government intervention be necessary, because, despite the dangers of a loss of autonomy, it considers the dangers of disorderly exit to be so serious.

“Government, policymakers and indeed all citizens benefit from a financially sustainable higher education system that delivers both individual benefit and wider national goals for the country,” it states. “Changes in provider shape and size are acceptable—and even to be welcomed when they come in response to student demand, but they need to be managed in a strategic way, and the systemic impact constantly monitored.”

Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the OfS, said the report “helpfully adds to the debate about how students can best be protected if their institution is no longer able to operate”.

“We are continuing our work to understand the financial position of individual institutions and the steps they are taking to respond to the risks they face. We are particularly focused on ensuring effective student protection planning is taking place where risks are greatest.”

More resources

One problem the report identifies is that the OfS is cautious about its legal and political capacity to take the action needed. It suggests the regulator is likely to need greater direction and statutory guidance, as well as more resources, especially in a case of significant market exit.

In this context, it is interesting that earlier this week, the regulator advertised “multiple roles” for legal advisers, offering “an opportunity to grow your legal expertise by working across our diverse and rapidly evolving organisation on a wide range of regulatory and corporate issues”.

Clearly, then, it anticipates doing some major evolving––and quickly––although it is a little concerning that those appointed to the roles will be expected to grow their legal expertise on the job rather than having it already. And the salary of between £51,844 and £56,662 plus £5,000 allowance and £3,566 London weighting seems on the low side for a qualified solicitor or barrister with regulatory experience, when newly qualified lawyers in London are routinely earning six-figure salaries.

It seems particularly low when their expertise is expected to cover such a wide range of issues, from knowledge of the Higher Education and Research Act to data protection, freedom of information, defamation, human rights, consumer protection, equalities legislation and the higher education regulatory framework.

The government is not short of advice from sector bodies keen to get their key messages across early on in the new regime, and it will be interesting to see how many of the ideas outlined by Public First it takes up.

University Alliance, which represents 16 professional and technical universities, also contributes a report this morning, offering cost-neutral or low-cost ideas for the government to consider in its first 100 days. These range from launching a cross-governmental healthcare education taskforce to increasing student maintenance, removing international students from long-term migration statistics and scrapping “burdensome” freedom of speech regulations.

The fact that a ministerial statement on the OfS is expected today suggests that amid all the clamouring for attention, Phillipson has recognised that help for higher education institutions in serious difficulty is needed urgently.

At the same time, this focus on regulatory support suggests she has few plans to offer the financial kind, which could have prevented the difficulty occurring in the first place.

And finally…

Readers attending degree ceremonies over the summer should be aware that anything can happen, as is made clear in a University of Manchester Magazine interview with Nancy Rothwell, who steps down next week as the university’s vice-chancellor.

“I remember, one degree ceremony, shaking hands with a student who then cartwheeled down the aisle,” she recalls.

“Then another who asked very politely: ‘May I set off a rocket?’ And I said yes, imagining it’d be a small rocket. It wasn’t––it was massive and showered the whole stage in confetti. She didn’t do it above my head, so that was alright.”

Playbook’s advice to Rothwell’s successor Duncan Ivison is that if a graduate asks to set off a rocket at a degree ceremony, just say no.

On Research Professional News today

Emily Twinch reports that the EU must invest in firms at the scale-up stage to stay at the forefront of technological change, according to the bloc’s leading financial institution.

Chris Parr writes that Brunel University London has announced it is to become part of the University of London federation from October.

John Bonner tells us that the national funder UK Research and Innovation has agreed a deal on closer collaboration with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.

John Whitfield says that a UK organisation representing early career researchers has launched a scheme to recruit and support young at-risk academics.

Frances Jones writes that the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are part of a group that has urged the prime minister to make their cities and region the “first UK innovation supercluster”.

She adds that a group representing the European pharmaceutical industry has accepted the final agreement on the European Health Data Space regulation.

Nina Bo Wagner reveals that global crises are driving steady change in universities, according to a European University Association report.

In the news

The Financial Times reports that the science minister has pledged a cybersecurity boost for crucial data troves, and the Universities Superannuation Scheme has warned on future investments after Thames Water losses.

In the Telegraph, the Public First think tank has warned that universities ‘will collapse without a £2.5bn emergency loan pot’, and there’s a look at the best student bank accounts.

In the Times, the University of Cambridge has placated Gaza activists with the promise of an arms investment review.

The Herald covers a prestigious award for a University of Dundee paper on refugee camps, and a Scottish homeless charity is to open new cafés in a university expansion plan.

The day ahead

There will be a House of Commons debate at 9.30am on making Britain a clean energy superpower.

The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Chris Parr, Orlen Crawford and Fiona McIntyre.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Making an exit appeared first on Research Professional News.

Government-commissioned analysis calls for policies to reduce dropout rates and tackle skills shortages

The Netherlands’ higher education system needs to do more to ensure that students’ choices work better for them and for the nation’s economy, according to a report commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Science.

While noting that Dutch universities perform well internationally, the report states that high dropout rates and course switching, contributing to poor educational performance, show that too many students are not choosing the best institution or course for them.

Dropout rates are 8 per cent for university students, and 15 per cent for those taking courses in higher professional education. For students switching courses, the figures are 17 per and 19 per cent, respectively.

The report makes several policy proposals aimed at reducing these figures. One key recommendation is to improve study information and guidance, including mandatory orientation programmes, to help students make better choices and increase their chance of completing their studies successfully. It also suggests shared first-year courses between vocational and research-intensive institutions, to give students experience of both options.

The report also advocates the introduction of a flexible learning credit system, similar to that used by the Belgian region of Flanders. This system would give students more control over their educational careers and encourage institutions to focus more on increasing completion rates and reducing course durations.

Labour shortages

Students are also not on the right courses to meet the demands of the Netherlands’ labour market, the report concludes. It calls for policies to direct students to sectors with skills shortages, such as engineering, healthcare and education—although, given the difficulty of predicting future labour needs, recommends that interventions should be small-scale.

One way to address shortages, it says, would be to increase the number of international students remaining in the Netherlands to work after their studies. This number has almost doubled over the past decade, but should be higher still, the report says.

Another challenge identified concerns the regional spread of students. Demographic trends will lead to student numbers levelling off or decreasing, potentially leaving those in underserved areas unable to find suitable programmes, and making some regions inaccessible to higher education. The report calls for regional and sectoral policies to shore up accessibility and promote cooperation between institutions.

Funding reforms

The report explores a number of different options for reforming the funding regime to promote the changes it advocates. These include changing the relationship between fees, funding and the duration of study, so as to encourage students to complete their courses more quickly, and increasing the cost of master’s degrees to encourage graduates to enter the workforce.

In total, it estimates that its policy package would save between 10 and 20 per cent of the total annual higher education budget, currently standing at €11.7 billion. Implementing such reforms would be “a major task, requiring sharp choices”, it notes.

The report, ‘Effective Higher Education: Talent in the right place’, is an Interdepartmental Policy Study, produced by officials from various ministries, based on research and interviews with experts. It was published on 17 July.

The post Too many Dutch students are on the wrong course, says report appeared first on Research Professional News.