‘Distorted’ research funding split ‘driving regional inequality’

The UK’s “distorted” model for research and development funding is contributing to regional inequalities in both economic and health outcomes, a vice-chancellor has warned.

Tim Jones, vice-chancellor of the University of Liverpool, said the UK’s research excellence was strong but must be diversified because the current model has “failed and is failing the nation”.

“The regions are underperforming economically compared to London and the south-east, and alongside that we have major societal challenges in healthcare and education…and I think those things are undoubtedly connected,” he added.

“We’ve perpetuated a model where those parts of the country that have long benefited from significant levels of public sector R&D funding continue to get more – whereas those in the regions which traditionally get much less funding, continue to receive much less.”

Speaking in Liverpool, he cited figures showing that that London and the south-east of England – home to 36 per cent of the total UK population – receive 55 per cent of total research and development funding.

Professor Jones said that “distortion” had been amplified by government investments around major infrastructure in the past few years, including the synchrotron Diamond Light Source facility in Oxfordshire and London’s Francis Crick Institute.

However, delegates at the Foundation for Science and Technology (FST) event heard of even bigger distortions in clinical healthcare funding, where individual buildings in London receive more than the whole of the north of England.

Evidence shows that health outcomes for the population where research is carried out are significantly better, by about 20 per cent to 30 per cent.

Professor Jones warned that infrastructure decisions in this area had amplified inequalities in cities such as Liverpool, which already grappled with major healthcare problems.

“We’re not after charity; we’re after a fair share of the funding in areas where we genuinely are competitive, world-leading internationally excellent and we have those partnerships,” he added.

While there was no easy answer, Professor Jones said, change was needed because the highly centralised model was contributing to the development of one of the most distorted economies in the developed world.

Fairer levels of research funding would help regions retain skilled graduates, attract foreign investment, generate growth in spin-offs, improve health outcomes and reduce economic inequalities, he added.

Thomas O’Brien, the vice-chair of Liverpool’s innovation zones programme, called for greater transparency and more involvement of the regions in decision-making – rather than “appearing like white smoke through a chimney from London”.

This would help change the status quo and bring the Liverpool city region, and others, a “bigger slice of the pie that we contribute towards”, he added.

“We need national policies and budgets which drive R&D. They’ve got to be better and more equitably targeted across English regions, and that change needs to happen quickly and decisively,” Mr O’Brien said.

With a new government with a “place-based agenda” and structures already in place with the metropolitan mayors, Lord Willetts, chair of the FST and the host of the event, said it was the “right moment” to have a debate about regional funding.

However, there are concerns that next week’s budget could see research funding cut by a cash-strapped Labour government.

“It’s so much easier to rebalance if you’re in an environment where the total is going up. It’s much harder to do if it’s a completely brutal zero-sum game,” warned the former universities minister.

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com