Search

Reports on Great Britain's Science and Engineering Research Council's withholding of funds from two of its interdisciplinary research centers (IRC) for failure to work closely with universities and industry. IRC's goals to focus onto specific areas of research; IRC's views on the value of money; Total amount withheld from the IRCs.

The article reports on the growing number of researchers in Great Britain who claim that their applications for European Union (EU) research funding programme Horizon 2020 are in doubt after the country's exit from the EU, known as Brexit, in June 2016. It notes the survey on the impact of the Brexit vote conducted by lobbying group Scientists for EU which suggests the general concerns of British scientists on the future of science in the country.

The article focuses on how British universities are resorting to marketing tactics in a bid to attract undergraduate and foreign students. Topics discussed include marketing emphasis on research facilities and teaching facilities and the importance of diversity in the student community. The necessity for universities to ensure an acceptable staff-student ratio and consideration for university branding are also mentioned.

The article warns that British research councils focusing larger funds on a smaller number of projects would reduce the availability of small grants for individuals and stifle scientific creativity, according to researchers. It notes that David Delpy, chief executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, discussed the possibility of fewer but larger grants during a hearing of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in November 2010. The issue was raised allegedly due to 30% savings being demanded from the councils.

The article examines research institutes in Great Britain with ties to the country's Conservative Party. Several of these organizations were founded by persons who have become cabinet ministers in the government of Prime Minister David Cameron. The effect of the government's formation in 2010 on the institutes' fund raising is considered.

Comments on research funding proposals introduced by British Higher Education Minister Alan Johnson at the 2003 Universities UK Conference. Threat of increased selectivity; Universities' opposition to further concentration of research funding; Office of Science and Technology's proposal to require universities to be responsible for recovering the full costs of their research; Medical Research Council and Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's practice of awarding of research funds to their top ten institutions; Disadvantages of too much concentrated funding.

The article focuses on ranking of British universities in the periodical's ranking of universities based on research council income in 2015. Topics discussed include Imperial College London, England, removed its top position, University of Oxford ranked on the first position for research council income followed by Imperial College London and views of Deborah Smith, pro vice-chancellor for research at York University, England.

Discusses the commercialization of academic research in Great Britain. Ethical concerns in research ownership and technology transfer; Scope of businesses' influence in university research; Commercial and economic impact of research; Correlation between business incubators and the scientific community. INSETS: Do not incubate to accumulate, by David Auckland.;Consult carefully before spinning off, by John Ashworth..

This section offers news briefs. Places are open for an evening forum on April 19, 2012 at Shakespeare's Globe in central London, England to discuss research impact. Universities welcomed the news that the annual immigration limit for highly skilled workers from outside the European Union will still be 20,700 for the next two years. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Climate will fund a 13 million British pounds Britain Carbon Capture and Storage research centre.

The article provides an overview of the possible impact of Lord John Browne's review of student fees and finance on different types of higher institutions in Great Britain. In the elite research institution, government will provide 20 percent of funding as a share of income. The share of teaching grant for band C and D subjects for the second-tier research institute comprises 60 percent. The general financial status of specialist non-science institution will rely on its reputation and ability to control the market.

The article focuses on the British research institute the Royal Institution. Its director Susan Greenfield, a prominent neuroscientist, was dismissed on January 8, 2010. Greenfield's modernization of the institute's headquarters in London, England have left it with a massive debt burden and possible bankruptcy.

The article reports that the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) received its second tranche of funding. About £5 million from the fund will be up for distribution to researchers in Great Britain. The centre aims to bring together experts from different fields in ensuring a green energy supply for the future. The two primary goals in the country's energy policy include cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and ensuring reliability of energy supply.

The article reports on the possibility that researchers in teaching-led institutions may be denied funds for students who are taking doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree in Great Britain, according to think-tank Million+. A research committee of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has moved to return fund to elites by lessening the budget for arts, humanities and social science in order to protect the funding for science and medicine. Also explained is a clause in the funding formula of HEFCE for research degree programme (RDP).

The article reports briefly on calls by British Universities Secretary John Denham for changes in the organization of university research funding in Great Britain. In a speech at the Royal Academy of Engineering, Denham said the country needs to be able to attract research investment from global companies.

A news brief is presented, reporting data showing higher education in Great Britain accounted for a record proportion of the British economy in 2007. The annual survey by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) showed universities received an increased amount of collaborative research funding from businesses.

The author reflects on the full economic costing of university research. She discusses the report of the Higher Education Funding Council for England for universities in Great Britain, in which universities failed to recover the true costs of their activities by £1.4 billion in 2007. She highlights the promised extra cash of the British government in return for an improvement in the management of their budget with the aim of recovering the full economic costs of research.

The article focuses on the status of small independent research institutes in Great Britain. Since government departments and research councils are withdrawing from funding independent research institute, William McIntosh advises that the latter must look for partnership with big universities. It adds that the universities in Scotland promote research partnerships and mergers because of research pooling. The partnership between University of Edinburgh and Roslin Institute is highlighted.

Focuses on the funding to be awarded by UK Clinical Research Collaboration to develop clinical research facilities in Great Britain. Clinical lectureship grants to be given by the consortium; Aim of the research facility funding; Implications of the funding for clinical researchers.

Focuses on the implications of the proposed metrics-based assessment of research for universities and research institutions in Great Britain. Effects of a metrics-based system of assessing research on the distribution of research funding in the country; Impact of the system on big research universities; Benefits of the system to bottom-rated universities in the country.

Deals with issues on the proposed metrics-based assessment of research in Great Britain. Publication of the proposed five metrics models that could replace the country's research assessment exercise; Implications of the proposed models for some of the country's research institutions; Impact of the proposal on key subject areas such as pure and applied mathematics.

Reports that the way Great Britain's publicly funded scientific research establishments are run could hinder the implementation of government policies such as the public understanding of science. Principle performance indicators; Aim of the government to improve the commercialization of research output and enhancing public understanding; Focus on scientific peer-group interests.

Reports on the income of research institutes from certain universities and colleges in Great Britain as of January 2004. Top rankings of research institutions; Analysis of the financial performance of the top ranked research institutes; Sources of income.

Reports on the proposal (RAE) by the British Council for Industry and Higher Education on the funding of university research projects. Proposal to replace research assessment exercise with a system where project costs are paid in full by research councils and external funders; Goals of the project-cost system; Disadvantages of the RAE system.

Reports that British academics and business leaders have criticized plans by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to replace the research assessment exercise (RAE) as a funding model for universities. Alleged failure of the HEFCE to address the basic problems of the balance between the two streams of the dual-funding system; Reactions of the Royal Society, the Universities UK, the Confederation for British Industry and Learning and Teaching Support Network to the RAE reform plans.

Reports on the expected radical restructuring of research funding in Great Britain. Recommendations of the study conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England; Increase in the establishment of funding streams; Pressure on universities to meet revised standards and make competitive bids for funding. INSET: THE RECOMMENDATIONS..

Comments on the competition for research funding among university research institutes and other entities of higher learning in Great Britain.

Reports on the insufficient funding of the research institutes of Great Britain. Discussion about the accuracy of their textbooks and research journals; Details about the Rothschild report which was presented to the parliament in 1971; Response on the attempt by the Lord Chancellor's office to limit access to legal aid.

Reports on the European Commission's proposed measures to help universities in Great Britain recover the full cost of undertaking contract research for industrial sponsors. Emphasis on the need for intervention regarding research in universities; Development of repositories for surplus research results under a Common Academic Research Policy; Introduction of research set-aside and quotas.

Reports on changes made to the research assessment exercise (RAE), which is used by higher education funding councils in Great Britain, to assess the amount of that universities receive for research. When the RAE is schedule to take place; Reason the funding councils made changes to the RAE; Problems identified in the RAE; Comments from John Mulvey, of the pressure group, Save British Science; Effect of changes on the academic transfer market.

The article reports on the plan of the Great Britain Science Minister to provide additional fund for the establishment of a research facility focusing on graphene. Researcher Leonid Ponomarenko said that graphene has various applications, is chemically inert, and is an excellent electronic conductor. Some of the methods used in producing graphene include the Scotch tape method, heating silicon carbide at high temperature and chemical vapor deposition on a copper metal substrate.

The article deals with the proposed Research Excellence Framework (REF) of the Higher Education Funding Council of England. Under the proposed REF, 60% of funding for research institution will be allocated according to outputs, 25% allocated according to impact and 15% allocated according to how well the institution's environment fosters a continuing flow of excellent research. It notes on the statement of a university lecturer that the REF is an attack on high-risk, curiosity-driven research. The advantages and disadvantages of the REF are noted.

Presents updates on the optical trade in Great Britain as of September 2005. Information on a fund raising for the Gift of Sight Eye Research Centre in Southampton, England; Donation of Scrivens to the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf People to sponsor the training of dog Erica; Information on the Rodenstock Challenge Cup in Kent, England.

Reports on the possible closure of the Silsoe Research Institute (SRI) in Great Britain. Move of the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council to withdraw its funding of the agricultural engineering research and test center; Impact of the fund withdrawal on the SRI; Implications of SRI closure on tractor and farm machinery manufacturers; Contributions of the SRI on the country's agricultural sector.