Overall, much to admire & digest. It’s a serious piece of work—& represents a welcome attempt to synthesise the evidence base on regional inequality & opportunity across the UK. 2/
On R&D aspects, the thrust of its conclusions seem sensible. Whether the recommendations will do much to shift the balance of R&D funding distribution is far more debatable…3/
As a package, these measures will hopefully go some way to slowing the remorseless tide of concentration in R&D spending, which has seen Greater South East (GSE) increase its overall share of gross R&D spending by 1% a year since 2017. 4/
But set against the scale of investment outside the GSE required to redress these historic & accelerating imbalances—summed up well by @thomasforth & @RichardALJones as a “missing £4 billion”—these measures are modest & inadequate. nesta.org.uk/report/the-mis… /5
We need to be particularly careful to understand the baselines being applied to any specific R&D targets. So the target to spend 55% of BEIS R&D funding outside the GSE by 2024/25 may sound impressive. 6/
But given that 54% of public & charitable R&D spend combined currently goes to regions outside GSE (and 46% to GSE), a proportional 1% increase by 2025 isn’t a big change in the funding balance! (screengrab from Forth & Jones, p.6) /7 
It also depends how this is broken down across different BEIS R&D spending lines. So, for example, within UKRI’s funding, non-GSE regions currently account for 51% of total funding. (This from the accompanying technical annex on metrics, which is very useful!) /8
A shift from 51% to 55% over the next three years feels a bit more ambitious—if indeed this is applied to all of UKRI. But we need to understand more about how these shifts would be delivered across different UKRI programmes & mechanisms, including QR. /9
Other elements feel a lot more concrete: for example, commitments on DHSC and NIHR health R&D, which do sound positive. And the new flagship Innovation Accelerators, which will hopefully make a meaningful difference in the three regions to have secured them. /10
The other target— of an overall 40% uplift by 2030 needs to be benchmarked against wider growth projections across the entire R&D system over that time (& public R&D spending within that). /11
The increases already announced in the autumn SR constitute an increase of around 25% in real terms over the three years of this SR to 2024/25. /12
Projecting forward another five years to 40% by 2030 is welcome but how ambitious is it in the context of the 2.4% GDP overall target for 2027? And crucially in this context, hitting 40% doesn’t necessarily require a significant shift in regional distribution. /12
The White Paper is upfront on the “evidence gaps” that exist—& the need for more granular baseline data. This acknowledgement is good, as is the commitment to tackling it through joint work by @ONS & GO-Science. /14
But to the more cynical among us, it also leaves the government plenty of wiggle room for goalposts to be moved, & targets to be revised down the line. /15
So overall, plaudits to those involved for such a comprehensive analysis of these problems & ways to tackle them. (Despite as many have pointed out, the regular reinvention of wheels in these debates—RDAs etc!) /16
https://twitter.com/john_tomaney/status/1488793125359390723
Speaking from Sheffield, I don’t think there will be researchers thronging the streets of South Yorkshire tonight in celebration of a bright new R&D-driven dawn. /17
And predictable bleating by some in the London funding lobby is a bit pathetic, given how modestly the measures in the White Paper will materially change the monopoly that they & the rest of GSE will continue to enjoy over R&D funding.
londonhigher.ac.uk/news/london-hi… /18
londonhigher.ac.uk/news/london-hi… /18
@AndyWWestwood @JJenRae @AnnetteB_N8 @natalieday1 @thomasforth @RichardALJones @ResFortnight @mgmcquillan
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
