Search

Most scientific research is concentrated in a few high-income countries and tends to focus on challenges that are not relevant to SDG challenges in low-income countries. Such unequal distribution of research efforts may be of little support to the SDGs. We show that countries' research priorities do not always align with their SDG challenges, which may hinder their capabilities to address them. Funders, donors and international organisations should seek to steer research priorities, including by consulting with a wider range of stakeholders and improving the assessment of research’s (unequal) impact on societies.

How can international and regional actors on the one hand, and national actors on the other hand, align and realign practice, funding and support to ensure embedded excellence in science and research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)? What are the roles, challenges, and opportunities for science granting councils (SGCs) – science or research councils, or agencies responsible for the funding and/or management of science and research in SSA – in embedding scientific excellence in SSA? In this chapter, we examine the notion of embeddedness, or relevance, of scientific excellence to national development agenda. We discuss actions that SGCs can take to foster and support embedded excellence in science and research in SSA. We argue that the notion of excellence needs to extend beyond the traditional metrics, such as publications and citations, if science and research are to be relevant to national contexts. We maintain that in order to embed scientific excellence in SSA, adequate alignment and realignment of the various agenda (of international, regional and national actors), practice, funding and support for science and research in Africa will be necessary. To achieve this goal, SGCs in SSA will require greater ownership of their research agenda, autonomy, resource, vision and alliances. Grounding the ‘Republic of Science’ in the realities of national contexts will require this. Furthermore, a set of ‘capitals’, strengthened capabilities, and capacities will be needed to support the process of embedding excellence at the national level., Published by African Minds.

Chapter 16 in the book Transforming Research Excellence: New Ideas from the Global South., Published by African Minds.

In early 2012, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) leadership programme was re-commissioned for a further three years following an evaluation by RAND Europe. During this new phase of the programme, we conducted a real-time evaluation, the aim of which was to allow for reflection on and adjustment of the programme on an on-going basis as events unfold. This approach also allowed for participants on the programme to contribute to and positively engage in the evaluation. The study aimed to understand the outputs and impacts from the programme, and to test the underlying assumptions behind the NIHR Leadership Programme as a science policy intervention. Evidence on outputs and impacts of the programme were collected around the motivations and expectations of participants, programme design and individual-, institutional- and system-level impacts.

The Department of Health's Innovation, Health and Wealth (IHW) strategy aimed to introduce a more strategic approach to the spread of innovation across the NHS. This study represents the first phase of a three-year evaluation and aims to map progress towards the IHW strategy and its component actions. This evaluation used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods: document review, key informant interviews and stakeholder survey. This study also forms the basis for selecting case studies for phase two of the evaluation. Our findings from the interviews and survey suggest broad stakeholder support for the overarching ambitions of the IHW strategy. However, we found variable progress towards the overarching objectives of the eight IHW themes and an ambiguous relationship between many of the themes' objectives and their actions. It was difficult to assess progress on IHW's actions as commitment to the actions, implementation guidance and expected outcomes of the actions were not clearly articulated. The Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) and the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) were reported to be working well, which may be attributed to their clear structures of accountability and earmarked budgets. However, survey respondents and interviewees raised concerns that budgetary pressures may limit the impact of both AHSNs and the SBRI. The main challenges identified for ongoing action were the resources available for their implementation (e.g. Medtech Briefings), lack of awareness of the initiative (e.g. the NICE Implementation Collaborative) and the design of the actions (e.g. the Innovation Scorecard, web portal and High Impact Innovations).

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Invention for Innovation (i4i) programme supports the development of innovative medical technologies for patient benefit. The i4i product development stream involves collaborative projects between at least two partners from academia, the NHS and industry. Medical technology innovators apply for funding for one to three years, through a peer review-based process that includes presentation to a selection panel. The funding and business advice provided by i4i support the development of early-stage innovations, generally at proof of concept and prototype stages. Since its inception the product development stream has identified and supported 170 projects, led by 146 principal investigators (PIs). RAND Europe evaluated the programme, with the aim of identifying its outputs and impacts and examining the factors influencing performance. The evaluation findings should help inform the future of the programme. The evaluation used a multi-method approach, including a focused review of background information from i4i, scoping interviews with key informants, a survey of programme participants and case studies of projects representing diverse technologies and health needs.