EDITED MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 09 & 10 MAY 2017 AT ST JAMES COURT HOTEL, LONDON.

Transcription

1 ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL EDITED MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 09 & 10 MAY 2017 AT ST JAMES COURT HOTEL, LONDON. Council Members: Dr P Golby (Chair) Professor P Nelson Mr J Boyer Professor M Calder (items 1-6) Professor A Darzi Ms B Dean Professor Sir R Friend (items 1-6) Professor R Jones (items 1-6) Professor T Jones Baroness Neville-Jones Professor M Rosseinsky Professor M Smith (items 1-7) Professor T Whitley BEIS: Dr S Axford, Deputy Director RC Policy and Funding Invitees: Sir Mark Walport, UKRI CEO Designate (items ) Executive: Secretary: Dr A Bourne Mr A Lewis Miss J Nicholson Dr K Pandya Professor T Rodden Dr N Viner Dr A Wall (items 1-6) Mr A Paul 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1.1 Dr Golby welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were received from Professor Finkelstein and Dr Neville. The Chair took this opportunity to congratulate Mr Boyer on his appointment to the Board of the Sir Henry Royce Institute. 1.2 Dr Golby reminded Council that Sir Mark Walport had kindly agreed to join Council for a discussion later in the meeting. 1.3 There were no new declarations of interest from members. Page 1 of 12

2 2. OPENING REMARKS Oral 2.1 Professor Nelson updated Council on some recent developments. He reported that, since the last Council meeting the BEIS Ministers had confirmed funding for the Sir Henry Royce Institute ( 128M) and UKCRIC ( 125M). Greg Clark had also announced a new 100M investment into the Rosalind Franklin Institute. A formal allocation was awaited, together with those for the National Nuclear Users Facility Phase 2, New Cavendish Laboratory and National Innovation Centre for Data (NICD). The Council would assume no responsibility until it had received allocation letters; the precise delegation arrangements under the UKRI model were yet to be determined. 2.2 Professor Nelson provided a brief update on developments with funding streams associated with the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF). He reported that the three areas to receive investment through the first wave of funding were: i) Clean and flexible energy ( 246M); ii) iii) iv) Cutting edge healthcare and medicine ( 197M Innovate UK); Robotics and artificial intelligence for extreme environments ( 93M) the latter being a challenge that had emerged as a top priority in the set of workshops held earlier in the year; and A pulse of investment to support previously unfunded proposals (eg Prosperity Partnerships). The efforts of Dr Bourne and theme leads to help secure these additional allocations against short deadlines - were commended. 2.3 Professor Nelson said that work was underway to develop processes to consider the next wave of funding from the ISCF. He added that the big ideas work currently underway in EPSRC was intended to provide one route for identifying further possible funding opportunities from the ICRF. 2.4 In discussion, members said that the important step was for announcements to be translated into joined-up commissioning across the parts of UKRI, but that EPSRC should retain decisionmaking about the exact siting of investment. There was much detail to be decided, but the additional investment in the science base was to be celebrated. 2.5 Professor Nelson reminded Council that the 2017 spring budget had also announced support from the National Productivity Investment Page 2 of 12

3 Fund for highly skilled researchers and to develop the talent needed by British industries. In particular, this had included 90 million to fund 1,000 new PhD places aligned with the industrial strategy, together with funding to enhance the outcomes from existing doctoral studentships. He reported that EPSRC had subsequently been allocated half of this funding to deliver at least 500 studentships. This allowed for a one-off uplift for doctoral studentships starting in October 2017 and added that this provided funding to 43 universities based on existing EPSRC studentship routes. Members noted that this was a successful outcome, given the Council s strong alignment to the ISCF topics; Dr Wall and her team were commended for their efforts. 2.6 Council noted the CEO s update. 3. TRANSITION TO UKRI - UPDATE Oral 3.1 Professor Nelson reported on progress with the HE Reform Bill and in establishing UKRI as a shadow organisation. 3.2 He began by saying that the HE Reform Bill had successfully completed its passage through the final parliamentary stages, and had received Royal Assent on 27 April. He said that ffurther Parliamentary time would be required to commence the legislation and to formally confirm the intention for UKRI to be properly constituted in April He commented that, with the completion of the Bill process, it was anticipated that the transition activities would gather increased momentum. He said that he hoped that a key aspect would be to establish clear and robust communication mechanisms to report on progress. 3.3 Professor Nelson said that it had been recently announced that the Swindon Polaris House campus would remain the key office location for the Research Councils and Innovate UK as they become part of UKRI. He added that work to identify a London base for UKRI was underway and that the current Bristol location had been confirmed for Research England particularly to ensure business continuity whilst completing the next REF exercise. 3.4 Professor Nelson reported on the transition activities that were currently under way and the governance of the implementation programme. He said that the primary focus was on the practical aspects of ensuring that UKRI is able to operate successfully and from a sound governance base from 01 April He added that further transformation will be over a longer timescale to realise benefits once UKRI was established and that phasing such changes would enable operational stability. Page 3 of 12

4 3.5 In terms of overall governance in relation to the transition, Professor Nelson said that a quorum of Council members would be required to continue membership for six months after April 2018 in order to sign off the business. The processes to identify those members and to establish the new Council to support the Executive Chair would be defined and implemented soon. Dr Golby added his encouragement to members to apply to that new body in order to ensure continuity. The appointment process to the UKRI Board was well under way, with decisions and announcements anticipated after the election purdah. 3.6 Minute not included as contains exempt material, at the time of publication, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act Council noted the update. 4. THE BALANCE OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHERS IN THE PORTFOLIO Page 4 of 12 (EPSRC 12-17) 4.1 Dr Wall introduced the paper, noting that it was the product of further consultation and investigation of the matters in question, as requested by Council at its December 2016 meeting. The present paper did not tackle the postdoctoral issues, to which Council would return at a later date. 4.2 Dr Wall said that, whilst the responses from universities (principally pro-vcs) were varied, there was general agreement that (i) the system could absorb more studentships through an alignment with strategic awards which would relieve pressure on the Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), and (ii) the DTP was the best route to provide students to early career researchers. In formulating the paper s recommendations, the Executive had sought to achieve those ends whilst also ensuring that universities had, and deployed, local flexibility, without instigating any unforeseen effects. 4.3 The paper also proposed revisions to the First Grant scheme: removing the funding cap, providing guidance to steer applicants toward good practice in the scale and nature of proposals submitted, and introducing greater flexibility on resubmissions. 4.4 Members welcomed the consultation exercise undertaken and thanked the office for a job well done. Members felt that the combined recommendations were collectively logical and the aims sound. A key principle was to act consistently with the viewpoint of the beneficiary of the funds. Nonetheless, members expressed caution that universities internal pressures might militate against the desired outcomes. This could potentially be headed off via the

5 provision of clear guidance setting out the intent and the type of behaviours expected in respect of both the use of the DTP and the alignment of studentships to strategic awards. With the imperative being to enhance flexibility, members had no appetite for more prescribed solutions. It was right to put in place measures which put the onus on universities to think strategically about the best deployment of the investments in question. It would be important for the office to monitor the implementation within universities. 4.5 Members welcomed the freeing up of the First Grants limit and the consequent greater flexibility. Members did, however, wonder whether there was more to do to assist early career researchers, particularly in the light of the potential loss of ERC support. Professor Nelson said that he and fellow CEOs were starting a dialogue on precisely that topic. More widely, members noted that there was more work to do to consider how all these measures would work in the UKRI context; accordingly Council directed the Executive to start preparing for discussions with the other constituent bodies. 4.6 Subject to the comments on the use of guidance, and the need to monitor outcomes, Council agreed: i) That the DTP should be the preferred route to provide studentships for Early Career Academics; ii) iii) To use the option to have studentships aligned to strategic research investments, with appropriate guidance provided; To a revision of First Grants to become New Investigator Awards, removing the value cap, with enhanced guidance provided to convey expectations on the anticipated scale and nature of such awards. 5. BUILDING AN EPSRC PIPELINE OF BIG IDEAS WITHIN UKRI (EPSRC 14-17) 5.1 Professor Rodden introduced the item, which focused on the development of a pipeline of potential investment ideas. The paper reported on the progress that had been made in developing a template for the presentation of ideas. This had been promoted across future UKRI partners. The paper also presented initial work to populate a pipeline, in readiness for the establishment of UKRI. Finally, it set out some design options for a Council dashboard of potential investment ideas as an aide to prioritisation. 5.2 In discussion, members welcomed the progress made, and expressed the need for this activity to be normalised as a core element of the Council s strategic business. While the processes were important, the key aspect was the ideas themselves: members Page 5 of 12

6 asked to see more of the science detail behind the ideas, including the specific research problems, as distinct from societal ideas and problems. At the foundational research level, it was important to focus on the challenge question and not to simply think in terms of the application of science, nor to leap to mechanisms. Professor Nelson said that fellow RC CEOs were clear that the strength of the basic research should not be compromised by the general environment of societal challenge-based thinking. 5.3 Members also highlighted the opportunities presented by this work: to broaden the thinking beyond academia for example, to include the financial investment community; to galvanise the research community to enhance its creative capability; and, potentially, to revisit unfunded proposals. 5.4 Subject to the comments made, Council agreed to the approaches described in the paper, and asked to maintain sight of the detailed ideas-content as it evolved. Professor Rodden said he would approach members to join a SAN-Council working group, as proposed in the paper. 6. MEETING WITH SIR MARK WALPORT 6.1 Dr Golby welcomed Sir Mark and thanked him for finding time to meet with Council. He invited Sir Mark to share his vision for UKRI going forward, the emerging thinking about the relationship between the UKRI Board and its Executive and indeed the constituent research councils. He added that it would also be useful to hear from Sir Mark how EPSRC might assist him with successfully establishing UKRI as a world class organisation. 6.2 In his opening remarks, Sir Mark said that the early work of establishing UKRI was about transition, with transformation being a longer programme. He noted in particular that: i) The additional money for science in the last budget could be seen as recognition that UKRI was already on the right trajectory; ii) iii) iv) UKRI needed to present a unified voice for science, with a coherent strategy across the nine component parts; Nurturing the talent pipeline was a key function of UKRI s work; There was more work to do to understand the landscape better, including data-backed evidence on student destinations, especially after post-doctoral positions; Page 6 of 12

7 v) A key UKRI task would be to consider the historical balance of allocations across the disciplines; vi) The UK was efficient, but should not be complacent, given the significant investment in science being made by other nations; vii) There was a need to communicate better what we do, within a societal framework. 6.3 In discussion with members, Sir Mark recognised existing EPSRC strengths in: basic research excellence, translation of that into economic and social value, inter-disciplinary work (though with more to do on that), and EPSRC s approach to skills training. Sir Mark noted that there were continuing fiscal pressures which would continue to colour government plans. His own priority was a challenge-based approach, with the immediate imperative being to make a success of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, within which there were opportunities to explore other models (such as the DARPA approach) and to form variable programme geometries across UKRI. He added that ministers were also highly focused on the place agenda, although he recognised that there was a distinction between how that challenge might be met and the Council s core emphasis on excellent science. 6.4 Asked what EPSRC could immediately do to help, Sir Mark said Council should keep a focus on business as usual, and he asked members to continue contributing to the overall endeavour, including applying to be future Council members. He invited Council to provide any further feedback in the coming months. Dr Golby again thanked Sir Mark for taking the time to attend Council. 6.5 Minute not included as contains exempt material, at the time of publication, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act In conclusion, Council agreed there was action to be taken to address the areas of opportunity highlighted in the discussion with Sir Mark, notably in: i) Helping to facilitate the success of the ISCF; ii) Addressing the place challenge; iii) Improving the knowledge of student destinations; and iv) Better articulation of our contribution to the nation. Page 7 of 12

8 7. OUTCOME OF THE CDT MID-TERM REVIEW (EPSRC 15-17) 7.1 Dr Viner introduced this paper which described the process and the outcomes from the CDT mid-term review and the next steps, including the next round of CDT investment. He said that the review had concluded that the majority of CDTs were providing high quality training which was setting the gold standard for cohortbased doctoral training in the UK. There were some outstanding examples of best practice and some of these were included in the meeting papers. Minute not included as contains exempt material, at the time of publication, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act The Chair thanked Professor Mark Smith for having chaired the review panel and asked him if he had any particular reflections about the process. Professor Smith said that the most helpful inputs to the review had been the portfolio managers reports on the centres rather than the centres own reports - which was a learning point for the future. Other lessons learned were outlined in the paper. He said that the review had identified a variety of different but equally valid operating models. One small but notable issue was that in some cases the degree of promised leverage had not materialised. Minute not included as contains exempt material, at the time of publication, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act In summary, Professor Smith said, the review had been comprehensive and the work of the Executive had been first class. Overall, the evidence demonstrated that the CDT tool was a successful component of the training portfolio, playing a valid role alongside the DTP and ICASE routes. 7.4 Council welcomed the outcome of the review. Members said that one issue for potential follow-up was to enhance the degree of engagement of the centres with SMEs. Moreover, given the distribution of CDTs, there was an opportunity to consider how the training portfolio could contribute to the place agenda this might usefully factor in the destinations of PhDs and the extent to which individuals remained near to the university. 7.5 Council noted the plans for the next call for proposals for CDTs. Dr Viner asked members to consider putting themselves forward to participate in the sub-set to oversee that phase. Page 8 of 12

9 8. INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY (IS) EPSRC SUBMISSION (EPSRC 13-17) 8.1 Dr Pandya introduced the item which provided an update on the development of EPSRC s response to the Industrial Strategy green paper. He thanked those Council members who had helped develop the response. The document, now submitted to the Industrial Strategy team at BEIS, had been predicated on EPSRC having a footprint across all of the pillars in the green paper. Dr Pandya proposed that work should be initiated, through a SAN group, to consider enhanced engagement with SMEs. The more general question was how to build on the submitted response in such a way as to: i) Influence policy makers in the run up to the anticipated White Paper; ii) iii) Create a community call to action, taken alongside the Big Ideas work; and Guide EPSRC s position in the transition to UKRI. 8.2 Members said that the most significant next step was to develop a response to continued ministerial interest in place, and to be positioned in readiness for any possible investment opportunity. The platform for this was to be found in the broad distribution of EPSRC s research and training investments and our excellent partnership model with universities (which were major regional economic drivers). The key objective following from this was to embed more world-class science into more places, and to help facilitate its transfer into high-value industry. In the first instance, there was a task to gather and understand the evidence from similar activities in other countries. The BEIS science and innovation audits were continuing, and these would also provide useful background. Council s own knowledge maps and related university investment and leverage data were also valuable starting points. Members suggested running pilots, in order to gauge the appropriate methods and scale required to have effect. Council asked the office to explore this. 8.3 Council noted the submission to the green paper, and the proposed work to explore SME engagement. 9. BALANCING CAPABILITY LESSONS LEARNT (EPSRC 16-17) 9.1 Dr Viner introduced the item, which focused on the lessons learned from the balancing capability project. The response to the Page 9 of 12

10 publication of the research area rationales was highlighted in the paper, along with some statistics on web-site hits, evidence of researchers active engagement with the outputs. Dr Viner said that the Executive was now focused on embedding the approach into business-as-usual portfolio management, rather than being a periodic, high-volume exercise. Council would be asked to re-visit the research area taxonomy later in the year. This would be a crucial piece of work in advance of the UKRI action - as flagged by Sir Mark - to review the apportionment across disciplines. 9.2 Council noted the lessons learned and commended the Executive on a very successful exercise. Members said that the approach, and the work to revisit the taxonomy, demonstrated the extent to which the Council displayed knowledge-leadership in relation to its portfolio and was able to dynamically re-balance the portfolio as needed. Minute not included as contains exempt material, at the time of publication, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act Members suggested there was scope to promote this knowledgeleadership work further perhaps through a showcase event built around the four Prosperity Outcomes - aimed at decision-makers, and deploying the full, broad range of researchers who could demonstrate what EPS contributes to the nation s success. 10. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 10.1 The minutes were accepted as a true record of the meeting. Professor Rosseinsky requested further feedback on the anonymous peer review trial and in particular was looking for assurance that there were no unintended consequences. 11. ACTIONS AND MATTERS ARISING 11.1 Actions from the previous meeting were completed and included in the meeting papers, or were scheduled for future agendas, with the exception of item 3.9: Professor Rodden said that the activity to further develop EPSRC s strategy for UKRI was, collectively, the following activities: i) The responses to the Industrial Strategy, (including the work on the ISCF topics); ii) The ideas-generation work; and Page 10 of 12

11 iii) The work identified earlier in the meeting (paragraph 9.1 above) to prepare for UKRI re-balancing of science base allocations. 12. EXECUTIVE REPORT (EPSRC 17-17) 12.1 Professor Nelson said there were no further specific points from the paper he wished to highlight Council noted the update. 13. REPORT FROM ARAC 25 APRIL 2017 (EPSRC 18-17) 13.1 Ms Dean briefly reported on the key business from the most recent ARAC meeting, held on 25 April. Minute not included as contains exempt material, at the time of publication, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act Council noted the report from ARAC. 14. OPERATIONS REPORT (EPSRC 19-17) 14.1 Mr Lewis introduced the report. He asked Council to delegate signoff of the audited accounts to ARAC. Council agreed to this Members asked when Council would receive the various expected allocation letters. Mr Axford reported that they would be issued shortly. Mr Lewis said that there was productive dialogue with BEIS to ensure that the letters incorporated realistic and helpful spend profiles. No responsibility was assumed until letters were received Members asked what the aim was of the Funding Sustainability Strategy Group. Mr Lewis said that this was a cross-organisational body convened to keep under review the long-term sustainability of the sector Council noted the Operations Report. 15. ITEMS TO NOTE ONLY 15.1 There were two information papers: i) Communications Update EPSRC ii) Corporate Risk Log EPSRC Page 11 of 12

12 16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 There was no other business. 17. NEXT & FUTURE MEETINGS 17.1 The next meeting would be on 04 & 05 July 2017 and would incorporate visits to both the University of Glasgow and the University of Strathclyde. Page 12 of 12