Search

National governments spend significant amounts of money supporting public research. However, in an era where the international economic climate has led to budget cuts, policymakers increasingly are looking to justify the returns from public investments, including in science and innovation. The so-called 'impact agenda' which has emerged in many countries around the world is part of this response; an attempt to understand and articulate for the public what benefits arise from the research that is funded. The United Kingdom is the most progressed in implementing this agenda and in 2014 the national research assessment exercise, the Research Excellence Framework, for the first time included the assessment of research impact as a component. For the first time within a dual funding system, funding would be awarded not only on the basis of the academic quality of research, but also on the wider impacts of that research. In this paper we outline the context and approach taken by the UK government, along with some of the core challenges that exist in implementing such an exercise. We then synthesise, together for the first time, the results of the only two national evaluations of the exercise and offer reflections for future exercises both in the UK and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of personalised or stratified medicine is evolving alongside the formation of a plethora of public/private partnerships and collaborations. These new institutional forms, or ‘social technologies’, are varied and emerge in response to several drivers, including the need to draw on a broader base of data inputs relating to genomics, patient behaviour and healthcare system differentiation. This paper discusses some of these drivers of partnerships and collaborations. Although the number of such partnerships is growing, their rationale and basis for collaboration remains unclear. Public–private collaborations are at the core of the set of new life sciences policies in the UK but there is little indication in the policy documents of clear boundaries for these partnerships. In part, this is due to the lack of empirical evidence at the system level for conceptualising what is still a relatively new approach. The collection of evidence in the form of broad evaluations, rather than tightly focused theoretical studies, is more likely to be related back to systems and be of more use for formulating policy rationales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]