The Freedom To Succeed
The freedom to succeed
A Review of Non-Clinical Research Fellowships
in the Biomedical Sciences
A report from the
Academy of Medical Sciences
July 2005
The independent Academy of Medical Sciences For more information about the work of the Academy
promotes advances in medical science and campaigns to
please see www.acmedsci.ac.uk
ensure these are translated as quickly as possible into
benefits for patients. The Academy’s Fellows are the
United Kingdom’s leading medical scientists from Information about the Academy’s work in support of
hospitals, academia, industry and the public service.
careers in the biomedical sciences and academic
medicine can be found at
The aims of the Academy are:
www.academicmedicine.co.uk
• to give national and international leadership in the
medical sciences;
The Academy of Medical Sciences is a company limited
• to promote the application of research to the
by guarantee
practice of medicine and to the advancement of
human health and welfare;
• to promote the aims and ethos of medical sciences
Registered Charity No. 1070618
with particular emphasis on excellence in research
Registered Company No. 3520281
and training;
Registered in England
• to enhance public understanding of the medical
ISBN No: 1-903401-09-7
sciences and their impact on society;
• to assess and advise on issues of medical science of
public concern.
The Academy of Medical Sciences was established in
1998 following the recommendations of a working
group chaired by Sir Michael Atiyah, OM, FRS, Past
President of the Royal Society. The Academy currently
has a Fellowship of over 800.
There is an elected Council of 23 Fellows that includes
the five Honorary Officers of the Academy:
President
Sir Keith Peters, FRS, PMedSci
Vice-President
Sir Michael Rutter, CBE, FRS, FBA, FMedSci
Vice-President
Sir John Skehel, FRS, FMedSci
Treasurer
Sir Colin Dollery, FMedSci
Registrar
Professor Patrick Vallance, FMedSci
The Academy’s Executive Director is Mrs Mary Manning.
Designed and produced by Quattro 020 7766 5225
2
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
The freedom to succeed
A Review of Non-Clinical Research Fellowships
in the Biomedical Sciences
July 2005
3
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Acknowledgements
The Academy of Medical Sciences is most grateful to
Professor Keith Gull CBE FRS FMedSci and the
members of the Committee for conducting this
review. It would also like to thank all the respondents
to the consultation for their instructive comments
and support.
Disclaimer
This report is published by the Academy of Medical
Sciences and has been endorsed by its Officers and
Council. Contributions by the Working Group, and
respondents to the consultations, are made purely in
an advisory capacity.
The members of the Working Group participated
in this report in an individual capacity and not as
Cover painting:
representatives of, or on behalf of, their individual
‘Opportunity #1’, Oil and French Enamel on wood panel.
affiliated hospitals, universities, organisations or
Reproduction courtesy of Emma Bennett,
associations (where indicated in the appendices).
Artist and formerly Academic Careers Officer,
Their participation should not be taken as an
Academy of Medical Sciences.
endorsement by these bodies.
4
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Contents
Page
Chapter one:
Summary and recommendations
7
Chapter two:
Introduction
11
Chapter three: Method of working
13
Chapter four:
Problems and emerging issues
15
The fellow
15
The funding scheme
16
The host institution
16
The funding agency
17
General and emerging issues
17
Chapter five:
Analysis and recommendations
19
Overview of fellowships
19
Number and quality of applicants and fellows
20
A better partnership between the three parties
21
Career development awards
21
Statistics within the funding agencies
22
Progression and renewal of fellowships
22
Career expectations
23
A career in industry?
24
Career destinations
24
Mobility and gender
25
Geographical distribution
26
EU employment directive
27
Full economic costing
27
The Research Assessment Exercise
28
Research Councils UK Academic Fellowships
28
Models of best practice in early career fellowship schemes
29
Appendix 1:
Focus group reports
33
Appendix 2:
Meetings with funding agencies
39
Appendix 3:
Committee membership
43
Appendix 4:
List of those consulted during the review
45
5
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
6
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Chapter one: Summary and recommendations
1.1 Research fellowships awarded on an individual
improving the quality of provision of their
basis, through competitive external funding, now
existing fellowship schemes, rather than
represent an essential part of the career path of
increasing the number of places available. For
some of the best biomedical scientists in the
targeted fellowships in specific disease areas or
UK. During the 1990s the number and type of
to build capacity, the numbers funded should be
fellowships proliferated and some Higher Education
in accordance with long term sustainability.
Institutes (HEIs) used research fellowships as an
integral part of their research strategies. Others,
1.7 Fellows and HEIs should view a fellowship as a
lacking an integrated strategy, accommodated
career opportunity and not as a defined career
fellows as and when their awards were made.
path. Planning for the exit of the majority from
the fellowship schemes should be a priority for
1.2 The result of this proliferation is that there is now
individual fellows and HEIs.
a considerable cohort of research fellows in UK
biomedical university and institute departments.
1.8 We recommend that early career fellowships
A substantial number of these are accumulating
should be awarded for no less than 5 years, even
in the later stages of their fellowships, raising
if this means a reduction in the number of
issues about the career paths that are now open to
awards. Moreover, to stimulate HEI focus on
them, and that they will choose to follow. It was in
sustainability, strategic ‘fit’ and the quality of the
the context of sustainability, and current fitness
fellowships and individuals they are proposing to
for purpose, that the Academy of Medical
host, HEIs should make a financial commitment
Sciences decided to conduct this review.
to the later stages of the fellowship.
1.3 While the design of fellowship schemes is not
Research funding statistics
an exact science, and there cannot be a single
solution for all HEIs1, this report seeks to define
1.9 We recommend that all funding agencies should
a number of key principles and makes
collect, and display on their web sites, statistics on
recommendations on how best use can be made
numbers of applications and awards, with gender
of research fellowships by the holders, HEIs and
information. Statistics on progression and
granting agencies in the current climate. These
renewal rates for fellowships in their portfolio
are summarised below.
should also be included. This information should
be regularly reviewed within the agency. A
1.4 The review continues earlier work undertaken
consistent format would facilitate meta-analysis
by the Academy on the career prospects of
for the UK fellowship system as a whole, and
non-clinical scientists in medical research.2
contribute to a more strategic appraisal of
fellowship schemes.
Fellowship schemes
Career expectations
1.5 The UK research community is best served by
maintaining a diversity of research fellowship
1.10 HEIs should develop better partnerships with
schemes funded by different funding agencies,
their fellows to boost the appeal of an academic
even though some fellowship funding schemes
position. A powerful way for HEIs to increase
need refinement and a greater definition of
confidence in this career route would be through
purpose.
better management of research and teaching
time for excellent researchers in HEI academic
1.6 Funding agencies should concentrate on
positions.
1
The term Higher Education Institute should be taken to include universities, research institutes and units.
2
‘Non-clinical scientists on short term contracts in medical research.’ February 2002.
7
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
A research fellowship in industry
Dealing with a changing world
1.11 Research councils and some charities should
1.15 HEIs should develop a defined policy for fellows
develop better connections with industry in their
based on EU employment directives. Plans for
fellowship programmes. Industry also has a
full economic costing (fEC) of fellowship grants
responsibility to target this cohort of talented
should also be carefully considered to facilitate
researchers to ensure greater awareness of the
individual research career opportunities for
careers open to them. We recommend that a
fellowship holders and active Higher Education
new, co-funded fellowship programme in the
Funding Council (HEFC)-funded researchers.
biomedical sciences be developed by the regional
development agencies and/or research councils,
1.16 We recommend that research fellows who hold
that would facilitate movement of talented
an externally peer-reviewed independent
scientists between HEIs and industry.
research fellowship should be (a) included in the
2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)
Career destinations
submission and (b) included in the subsequent
funding model. In this context, they should be
1.12 We recommend that final reports on individual
treated as the equivalent of HEFC academic staff
fellowships should be obtained and analysed
members.
by the funding agencies. They should collect,
maintain and publish agreed data sets on the
career destinations of fellows. Groups such as
Research Councils UK (RCUK), the Association
of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) and the
Funder’s Forum could usefully coordinate
agreement on a basic template of the metrics to
be collected, and then publish period overview
analyses for the UK.
Mobility issues
1.13 Flexibility in the use of a fellowship, and mobility
after the award of a fellowship, is valuable and
should be embedded in the initial conditions of
the fellowship.
Career planning and personal development
1.14 HEIs should aim for clarity in the terms of the
fellowship agreement from the outset. There
should be transparency in the matter of career
opportunities available to fellows, and mentoring
and appraisal should be provided either by the
funding agency, host HEI or preferably both.
Fellows, for their part, must assume responsibility
for their own career planning, and should be
willing to undertake some (limited) activities to
support the host HEI and to develop teaching
and management skills that may be useful to
them in their future careers. Experience of
communicating science to the general public
would also be beneficial.
8
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Models of early career fellowships
1.17 In this report, we present models of early career
independent researchers. The figure below
fellowships based on good practice that are
illustrates the Academy committee’s preferred
designed to allow our most promising young
funding partnership between the HEI and the
biomedical scientists to develop as world class
funding agency.
Fellowship Part A Salary
6 year
10 year
Fellowship Part A Core costs
6 year
10 year
Fellowship Part B Grant (variable length)
1
6 YEAR E
0
YEAR E
AW
RE
V
A
I
R
E
N
N
D
W
D
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Key to Funding Source:
Institution
Funding Agency
Model 1. Funding partnership between HEI and funding agency
9
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
10
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Chapter two - Introduction
Background
• routes of entry into fellowships in the early
career period, such as developments in
2.1 Research fellowships awarded on an individual
graduate education and post-doctoral training
basis, through competitive external funding, now
• routes of entry into mid- and late career
represent an essential part of the career path of
fellowships, such as fellowship renewal, temporary
some of the best biomedical scientists in the UK.
exit from lecturing and administrative duties,
During the 1990s the number and type of
return or re-location to, and in, the UK, and
fellowships proliferated and some Higher
other major career changes
Education Institutes (HEIs) used research
fellowships as an integral part of their research
• routes of exit from fellowships, such as
strategies. Others, lacking an integrated strategy,
interactions with funding agencies and host
accommodated fellows as and when their awards
institutions, proleptic appointments, transfer of
were made.
institution, maintenance of the research group
and funding.
2.2 The result of this proliferation is that there is now
a considerable cohort of research fellows in UK
A definition and overview of non-clinical
biomedical university and institute departments.
fellowship schemes
A substantial number of these are accumulating
in the later stages of their fellowships, raising
2.5 Research fellowships are personal awards that
issues about the career paths that are now open to
fund the salary of the fellow for periods of 1 to 10
them, and that they will choose to follow.
years, with varying degrees of support to cover
the cost of the fellow’s research. They are distinct
2.3 Recent movements in the medical charity and
from funding used to support post-doctoral
research council sectors have brought about an
staff (even named) on research grants. Many
overall reduction in the number of fellowships. In
individual funders, including research councils,
addition, a number of external influences are all
charities and industry, have schemes for research
likely to influence the future pattern of personal
fellowships. Thus fellowships are an important
awards. These include EU employment directives,
form of support for some of our most able
the introduction of full economic costing (fEC) for
non-clinical biomedical scientists.
grants funded by research councils, and the
introduction of 1000 Academic Fellowships by
2.6 The UK biomedical research area benefits from
Research Councils UK (RCUK) following the
the investment of many individual funders
Roberts’ Review. It is in the context of sustainability
representing government, charities and industry.
and current fitness for purpose that the Academy
Virtually all of these funding agencies have
of Medical Sciences decided to conduct this
specific schemes for personal awards designed in
review.
whole, or in part, to facilitate the individual’s
research effort. Some of these fellowships have
Research fellowships in context
been in operation for over 20 years, but many
have been developed, or changed substantially,
2.4 This review focuses on non-clinical research
during the 1990s. Fellowships come in a variety
fellowships in the biomedical sciences. We have
of forms. However they can usefully be grouped
concentrated on the operation, successes and
into 5 themes:
weaknesses of the different fellowship schemes
that have operated within the UK over the past
Independent/early career fellowships
20 years. However, we have conducted our
Entry to these fellowships is usually via a
review within the wider context of issues
period working as a ‘steps to independence’ named
influencing:
post-doctoral fellow in the laboratory of a senior
11
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
scientist. We view such training as an important
Examples include:
prerequisite. The independent/early career fellowship
Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowships, Royal Society
establishes the independence of new investigators
Industry Fellowships and BBSRC Research
after the post-doctoral period. These fellowships
Development Fellowships.
may be of variable length, depending on the
scheme, but are typically 3-6 years. Sometimes
Training or capacity building fellowships
this is seen as enabling the early career, or as aimed
These are often fellowships of shorter length
specifically at facilitating a permanent academic
designed to facilitate personal skill training or
position.
re-training, or to allow re-entry into research after
Examples include:
a career break. They can be individual-led, or
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
have a designated theme and are then used to
Council (BBSRC) David Phillips Fellowships, Royal
build a cohort of new talent in that research area.
Society University Research Fellowships, Medical
Examples include:
Research Council (MRC) Career Development
Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships, Wellcome
Awards, Wellcome Trust Research Career Development
Trust Research Career Re-Entry Fellowship Scheme and
Fellowships, British Heart Foundation (BHF)
a large variety of fellowships run by research councils
Intermediate Research Fellowships, Diabetes UK RD
(BBSRC, MRC and the Engineering and Physical
Lawrence Research Fellowships, and Cancer Research
Sciences Research Council, EPSRC) and charities
UK (CR-UK) Career Development Fellowships.
to build capacity. Recent topics have included
bioinformatics, stem cells, neuroinformatics and
Mid career/senior fellowships
mathematical biology.
These provide a research-intensive period for
senior scientists with the possibility of renewal,
The diversity of fellowships
most often with an attached grant for the research.
2.7 While all these fellowships have the intended aim
Applicants are usually required to have 5-10
of supporting a concentrated period of research
years’ post-doctoral experience.
time for an individual scientist, they differ in certain
Examples include:
key features:
Wellcome Trust Senior Basic Biomedical Sciences
Fellowships, MRC Senior Non-Clinical Fellowships,
• Personal financial support of the individual:
CR-UK Senior Cancer Research Fellowships, Diabetes
most fellowships provide the fellow’s salary,
UK Senior Research Fellowships and BHF Senior
although some actually provide funds for a
Research Fellowships.
replacement position when the awardee
already holds a tenured position.
Professorial/principal fellowships
• Conditions of award: the fellowship length,
These provide a research-intensive period for
possibility of renewal, a safety net fund at denial
very senior scientists, most often with an attached
of full renewal, financial commitment to
grant for the research. They are sometimes, but
personal costs and travel all vary enormously.
not usually, renewable.
In addition, some fellowships carry guidelines
Examples include:
for the commitment required by the host HEI
Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowships,
(in terms of space, teaching and administration
BBSRC Professorial Fellowships, MRC Professors,
load).
BHF Chairs, CR-UK Principal Research Fellowships
• Research support grant: some fellowships focus
and CR-UK Gibb Fellowships.
mainly on the two items above without a
particular commitment to funding for the
Research-leave fellowships
employment of other staff, students, consumables
These are designed to allow a variable period of
or equipment for the research project. There is
intensive research for staff who already have
a spectrum of support in this category, from a
tenured positions in UK universities. This is
lack of support to full support of a research
sometimes a period in their own laboratory,
group. This spectrum is a reflection both of
sometimes a sabbatical period overseas or a
different funding agency policies, and of the
period in industry.
type and level of fellowship.
12
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Chapter three - Method of working
3.1 The Academy Committee adopted the following
in different regions of the UK. These were
method of working. It started work in late 2003
chaired by members of the Committee, and, in
and met twice to determine how to conduct the
one case, by Dr Tanya Whitfield of the University
review, what issues were likely to be included,
of Sheffield. Focus group members included
what data would need to be gathered and how the
fellowship award holders from a variety of
outcomes would be presented. It was agreed that
schemes, from different departments and, in
the Committee would conduct an analysis of the
a number of cases, from local universities. A
fellowship models used in the UK biomedical
template of suggested questions and topics for the
research community and that the output would be
focus groups was drawn up and used by all focus
a report that identified enabling or inhibitory
groups (Appendix 1).
factors influencing the progress of the fellow and
their ultimate career outcome. It would also
3.4 The focus group reports were debated and
debate how current and forthcoming issues might
common, and particular themes, identified. These
impact on fellowship schemes. The review would
refined the issues that were later discussed in
define the best practice in, and characteristics of,
meetings of the Committee with representative
a successful fellowship model. The report would
funding agencies. In addition, the Committee
take the form of a narrative focusing on three
obtained a variety of quantitative information
aspects: the funder, the fellow and the host
from these funding agencies. Most meetings with
institution.
funding agencies (held between September 2004
and January 2005) involved the agency’s chief
3.2 It was agreed that a broad spectrum of schemes
executive, as well as staff members involved with
funded by both medical research charities and
the fellowship schemes and academic chairs of
the research councils would be studied in a
fellowship committees.
comparative manner. Emphasis would be on
early to mid-career fellowships and these would
3.5 Given the vast differences in management
be examined in career context (how the scheme
structures now used in biomedical research
was entered and how it was exited). It was agreed
universities, uniform points of contact (vice
that ‘fellowships’ used to obtain a PhD or post-
chancellors, deans, heads of department) within
doctoral fellowships, used by the holder for
different host institutions were not likely to elicit
research under the guidance of a separate
the required detail on generic issues. The
principal investigator, would not be included.
Committee did not analyse individual universities.
These schemes were studied for the Academy
Rather, it gathered general points pertaining to
report ‘Non-clinical scientists on short-term
host institutions as well as examples of good and
contracts’3. There is often a need for shorter
bad practice to inform its discussion. The major
schemes that are post-doctoral in nature. They are
generic outputs from the structured meetings with
awarded in concert with a particular host
focus groups and funding agencies are given in
laboratory or group, and are aimed at providing
two appendices (1 and 2).
training, or have an apprenticeship form of
relationship to the sponsor. We believe that such
3.6 We held focus group meetings with cohorts of
schemes, while welcome, should be clearly
research fellows from 10 HEIs: the Universities of
differentiated as ‘a step to independence’ rather
Aberdeen, Bristol, Cambridge, Dundee,
than an independent fellowship, and are thus
Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle Oxford,
outside the scope of this review.
Sheffield and Sussex. No less than 7 fellows from
each university were involved in an extensive
3.3 Information and views from current fellows were
analysis of the issues confronting fellowship
gathered in early 2004 by arranging focus groups
holders. The fellows covered the full range of age,
3
Academy of Medical Sciences. February 2002.
13
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
experience and seniority of fellowship type.
3.8 The funding agency meetings involved The
Many fellows had moved between institutions;
Wellcome Trust, BHF, MRC, BBSRC, CR-UK,
some were educated abroad and had been
AMRC and the Royal Society. We also contacted
attracted to the UK by the fellowship schemes. A
a number of other charities and funding agencies
number also had partners in science and there
over specific issues.
was a good gender balance. We found the fellows
to be very informed about the relevant schemes.
3.9 The Committee analysed a large amount of
published information on fellowship schemes, as
3.7 In total we interviewed 65 fellows holding the
well as information on university and funding
following types of fellowships that span the
agency websites. The Committee chairman and
research councils and medical charities and
members discussed the issues with a wide range
include a few (3) named university fellowships:
of colleagues in their own and other institutions,
as well as with current award holders, past award
Royal Society University Research Fellowship
holders and funding agency staff.
Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship
MRC Career Development Fellowship
MRC Senior Research Fellowship
BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship
Wellcome Trust Research Career Development
Fellowship
Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship
Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship
Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship
BHF Fellowship
Lister Fellowship
CR-UK Career Development Fellowship
Named university fellowships
14
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Chapter four - Problems and emerging issues
4.1 Research fellowships are by definition a form of
actions. Finally, we have addressed some issues
research funding that is as much concerned with
in the form of templates for recommended good
the development of the individual scientist, as
practice.
with the science that gets done, and it was to the
former aspect of the fellowship schemes that the
The fellow
Committee devoted its attention. In essence,
success in this venture involves getting the fellow,
4.4 The issues here are much influenced by the
the funding agency and the host institution to
personality and position of the fellow, but our
work effectively together - a trinity to unity issue:
discussions with fellows suggest that problems
exist concerning the level of ownership that some
fellows assume for their own career development.
Most fellows will end up in academic positions
The Fellow
that demand skills in teaching and administration.
The fact that many fellows define their fellowship
in a rather negative manner as ‘not being a
lectureship’, and take little opportunity to gain
A
skills and training outside of research, is
SUCCESSFUL
disturbing. A level of naivety exists among a
FELLOWSHIP
minority of fellows over these issues as well as
over the likelihood of being able to continue in a
The Host Institution
research-only career. There is a tendency to view
The Funding Agency
the fellowship as a career path, whereas it should
be seen as career opportunity.
4.2 Research fellowships were consistently described
• Many fellows have little contact with industry
as being the most prestigious form of research
and most do not consider this as a career route.
funding, with the awardees representing a cohort
This is of real concern, and both industry and
of the very best scientists and research leaders.
fellows have a responsibility to recognise the
The importance of this intellectual capability to
value that each brings to British scientific
the biomedical sciences research base in the UK
endeavours.
demands that all parties share a common, unified
• The degree and quality of the fellow’s contact
view, to ensure that schemes remain fit for
with the funding agency and HEI varies
purpose and contribute to the successful career
considerably; some of the solutions to this issue
paths of the fellows.
of awareness and interaction must also involve
greater initiative on the part of the fellow.
4.3 The Committee found that there were areas to be
applauded in the schemes that were presently
• Specific issues relating to family responsibilities
running, and in the roles of fellows, funding
still exist for fellows with families, or fellows
agencies and host institutions. However, in none
with partners who are also scientists. Some
of these three camps was good practice uniform.
fellowship programmes encourage movement
Moreover, there are a number of current and
to the UK from abroad, or movement between
horizon issues that will test the robustness and
institutions in the UK. This can place inordinate
attractiveness of the research fellowship as a
pressure on fellows, as it can be very difficult for
prestigious career path over the next 20 years. We
their partners to find new jobs. Enforced
have gathered these issues and listed them in
mobility can be stressful for fellows with
outline in the paragraphs below. We then analyse
children, who have to be moved to new
them in detail and suggest recommendations and
schools. The high cost of childcare and
15
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
accommodation in some cities means that
The host institution
fellows are often compelled to live some
distance from their place of work.
4.8
There are excellent examples of good practice in
•
HEIs’ handling of both the general requirements
There are problems with the status of many
of a cohort of fellows, and those of the individual
fellows in particular universities. However, in
fellow. However, some institutions have failed to
return for improvements and formalisation of
address the need for a transparent policy as
good practice in these universities, fellows will
regards this set of independently funded research
need to examine their contribution to
fellows in their departments. Problems of
departments over and above their research
mentoring, appraisal, promotion, training and
output.
status exist in many universities. Devolvement of
these responsibilities to the sponsor of the
fellowship, or even to the department, is
The funding scheme
unsatisfactory, given the need for decision-making
during the award period and in its final stages. At
4.5
Much prestige is associated with the research
those times, decisions on proleptic appointments,
fellowship schemes in the UK. They are
renewal or underwriting need to be made
beneficial to the fellow, the funding agency and
openly and quickly.
the host institution. However, in the wider sense,
they are also key to attracting excellent scientific
4.9
Lack of clarity in this issue also contributes to
talent to the UK and keeping it there. Any
unsatisfactory arrangements in practical matters
changes to the funding schemes will need to
such as provision of space, access to university
ensure that this prestige and fitness for purpose is
funds and studentships, expectations of teaching
maintained.
commitments and administration. In this
context, the level of communication with the
4.6
Some early career, or career development, types
funding agency is sometimes less than optimal.
of fellowship do not appear to be very effective,
often because they are of too short a duration for
4.10 Many HEIs do not appear to have systems in
high impact science to emerge and for the fellow
place for regulating the teaching and administrative
to build and maintain an effective, core research
loads of young, research-intensive staff. As a
team. In reality, fellows on these schemes are
result, many talented researchers see a fellowship
essentially independent scientists; we found that
as a means of avoiding a lectureship position in
they have often accepted such positions in
their early career, or use it to gain a break from
preference to lectureships. Yet the details and
teaching in their mid-to late career. This would
conditions of some schemes appear to operate
suggest that there is still much that should be
against this independence.
done by HEIs to protect research time for the
most talented academics.
4.7
Diversity in the portfolio of UK fellowship
schemes is a good thing, but there could be
4.11 In universities with large concentrations of
improvements in the operation of some schemes.
fellows, the management of fellows’ career
The balance between different portions of the
development is not always handled with the skill
award (personal salary, core support and a grant
or commitment that it should be. In particular,
for research) in relation to the length of the
interactions between fellows and the human
award, and the number supported each year, is
resources (HR) and finance departments could
important. In addition, a lack of clarity in
be improved.
schemes over the relationship with the HEI (for
instance, in expectations of teaching commitments)
4.12 University policies on the operation of EU
is often a perceived difficulty.
16
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
employment directives appear not to be well
General and emerging issues
developed in many instances. Universities also
appear to be approaching the opportunities
4.17 We identified a number of issues that currently
presented by the RCUK Academic Fellowships
have a negative impact on research fellowship
in different ways.
schemes, or may do so in the future.
The funding agency
• At present, the assessment of fellows in the
RAE, and the pattern of Higher Education
Funding Council of England (HEFCE) funding
4.13 There is no doubt that all funding agencies
operate research fellowship schemes of
of fellows post-RAE, are important issues that
distinction and prestige. However, at times there
inhibit the spread of good practice in the
appears to be a lack of clarity as to the ideal
management of these researchers’ careers.
shape of this portfolio. We learnt of concerns
• The lack of connectivity of many of the fellows
about the appropriateness of particular
to the UK biomedical industry, and the lack of
fellowships, and whether they are successful. The
appeal of industry as a career, is also a critical
lack of a holistic view on the shape of the
issue that requires urgent action.
portfolio across funding agencies suggests that
informed strategic planning is difficult.
• Three items - the introduction of fEC of
research activity, EU employment directives
4.14 A series of issues relate to the gathering of
and university strategies for use of the
statistics on fellowships and their use for internal
Office of Science and Technology (OST)
review and planning. Lack of such intelligence
Academic Fellowships programme - have direct
and good practice also inhibits appropriate
implications for fellowship schemes.
feedback to fellows. In addition, refinements of
• The training and development of both UK PhD
the type of information gathered (such as renewal,
students and post-doctoral fellows will be vital
extension or progression rates and career
to ensure that individuals entering fellowships
destinations) and its publication could usefully
have appropriate skills and experience.
defuse much speculation about the possibilities of
particular career paths for fellows. For instance,
4.18 These and other factors suggest that the pattern
the occasional reluctance of fellows to move into
of the UK pyramid of individual research
a lectureship post after denial of renewal, or
fellowship awards needs to be assessed, and
progression of a fellowship, needs to be
some account taken of the new circumstances in
addressed.
order to ensure a meaningful sustainability of this
resource. There are additional problems relating
4.15 Development of a greater commitment from the
to the status and remuneration of the non-clinical
HEIs, partnership with them and the
biomedical researcher, in comparison with
encouragement of good practice, are largely the
clinical research fellows. Not only is there the
responsibility of the funding agencies.
question of the personal reward differentiation,
but there are also fewer opportunities for
4.16 Good practice can be developed through the use
non-clinical biomedical researchers to obtain
of a wider fellowship of past award holders, or
funding for international meetings. The advance
committee members, to act as mentors to
of modern clinical science requires strong
existing fellows. The Academy of Medical
partnership between non-clinical biomedical
Sciences is considering an extension of its
scientists and clinician scientists. If such a team is
mentoring scheme to include non-clinical
to flourish, we continually need to check that
scientists and we hope that this will provide a
equal emphasis is being given to the sustainability
large measure of professional guidance and
of both sectors.4
support.
4
This issue was covered in more depth in the Academy report ‘Non-clinical scientists on short-term contracts in medical research’. February 2002.
17
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
18
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Chapter five - Analysis and recommendations
Overview of fellowships
5.1
Fellowships are still perceived to be a mark of
5.2
Examples of fellowship schemes are shown in
excellence and we observed no diminution in
Table 1. The statistics on applications and award
this view by funding agencies, applicants,
numbers have been relatively constant over the
institutions or fellows. However, our view is that
last 5 years. There was some evidence that the
some of the schemes are, or are likely to become,
number of research fellowships awarded by
unfit for purpose in a fast-changing UK
some of the other medical charities had fallen
academic research system.
somewhat over this period. This table is not
comprehensive but merely gives a snapshot
comparison of applicant numbers and awards.
Table 1. Illustrations of fellowships, application and award numbers
Funding agency
Fellowship
Applications
Awards
BBSRC1
David Phillips
91
10
BBSRC1
Research Development
17
5
BBSRC1
Professorial
16
1 or 2
Wellcome Trust2
Research Career Development
82
26
Wellcome Trust2
Senior Basic Biomedical
95 preliminary, 32 full
8
Wellcome Trust2
Principal Research Fellows
7
3
BHF3
Basic Science Chairs & Lecturers
15
2
BHF3
Intermediate Research
21
7
CR-UK4
Career Development
20 preliminary, 11 full
2
CR-UK4
Senior Cancer Research
27 preliminary, 11 full
2
Royal Society5
University Research
350
45
Royal Society5
Dorothy Hodgkin
250
14
Royal Society5
Industry
25
8
MRC6
Senior Non-Clinical
34
5
MRC6
Career Development Awards
82
8
KEY: All data represents the numbers per year averaged over a particular period.
1 BBSRC data is the average of 2000-2003.
2 Wellcome Trust data is the average of 1993-2004 for Research Career Development Fellowships (14 new awards made in 2004), 1996-2004 for Senior Basic
Biomedical Fellowships (6 new awards made in 2004) and 1988-2004 for Principal Research Fellowships (0 new awards made in 2004). Only eligible and
appropriate applicants are invited to submit full applications. Figures do not include fellowship awards that were renewed.
3 BHF data is the average of 1989-2004.
4 CR-UK data is for 2003-2004 for Career Development Fellowships and for 2000-2004 for Senior Cancer Research Fellowships.
5 Royal Society data is the average of 1998-2004 for all science subjects.
6 MRC data is the average of 2001-2003.
19
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
5.3
We concluded that the funding of research
5.7
Conclusion: the UK research community is
fellowships in the non-clinical biomedicine area
best served by maintaining a diversity of
has had a beneficial effect on research quality in
research fellowship schemes funded by
the UK, and we see a continuing need for such
different funding agencies, even though
funding. We were, however, disappointed that
some fellowship funding schemes need
some funding agencies appeared to have a poor
refinement and a greater definition of
grasp on:
purpose.
• why they funded particular fellowship schemes
Number and quality of applicants and
• why particular fellowship schemes were successful
fellows
5.4
There often appeared to be a view that it was
5.8
Some individuals in our surveys argued simply
self-evident that fellowships were a good thing.
for more fellowships, and for longer fellowships,
as solutions to perceived problems. However, the
5.5
We consider that the existence of a wide variety
focus groups tended to define quality of support
of fellowship schemes is beneficial to applicants
as of greater importance. We found few strategic
and to the system. The UK is well served by
reasons for the number of fellowships presently
having a diversity of funding agencies (in
funded within a particular funding agency’s
number, size and type) in the biomedical arena,
portfolio, with the explanations most often given
each of which contributes to funding research
being historical precedent and a view that ‘it was
fellows. However, we believe that individual
about right’.
funding agencies should consider building
greater flexibility into their existing schemes,
5.9
We believe that, in a constant funding situation,
rather than developing new schemes with a focus
the numbers of fellowships should fall rather
that is virtually indistinguishable from what went
than the length of the award become less than 5
before.
years, or that the associated funding becomes
further restricted. There is likely to be continuing
5.6
Some funding agencies inhibit applications to
pressure on fellowship applications.
similar schemes offered by other funding
agencies as a way of restricting applications, or to
5.10 Postgraduate numbers in the biomedical sciences
focus applications on a particular research topic.
rose dramatically between 1996/97 and 2001/2,
While we understand the reasons for such
in contrast to those in other science and
restrictions, there is a danger that if this practice
engineering subjects. Since 2002, numbers may
were adopted by all agencies it would discourage
have declined due to a decline in the number of
applications, and diminish the UK’s attractiveness
funded studentships, especially from HEIs, but
as a place in which to conduct biomedical
definitive numbers were not available to us.
research.
Table 2. Percentage change in numbers of first year post-graduates, 1996/97 to 2001/2
Subject area
Total
Full-time
Part-time
Research
Taught
increase
increase
increase
degree
degree
increase
increase
Biological sciences
44
38
57
30
54
Subjects allied to medicine
96
41
122
37
106
Physical sciences
-2
3
-21
-2
-1
Engineering and technology
13
14
13
11
14
Data from Times Higher Education Supplement/Higher Education Policy Institute Report. November 2004.
20
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Changes in the size of the future ‘feeder layer’ for
Career development awards
post-doctoral fellows, excluding applicants
educated abroad, should be recognised.
5.14 Our analysis suggests that 3- or 4-year early
career fellowships, often designed as the first
5.11 Conclusion:
funding agencies should
fellowship obtained by a young scientist, are no
concentrate on improving the quality of
longer fit for purpose even though they might
provision of their existing fellowship schemes,
enable a researcher to obtain a permanent
rather than increasing the number of places
academic position. This view was held by
available. For targeted fellowships in specific
many of the fellows, university representatives
disease areas or to build capacity, the
and funding agency staff to whom we spoke. The
numbers funded should be in accordance
nature and usefulness of these career
with long-term sustainability.
development awards appears to have changed. A
major issue (among others, such as restrictions on
A better partnership between the three
status and ability to hold other awards) is the
parties: fellow, funding agency and HEI
short length of the fellowship, which precludes
long term experimentation, sets an early deadline
5.12 The identification of factors inhibitory to an
for career decision-making such as a move of
effective relationship, and suggestions to
institution, and requires often unsatisfactory
improve the relationship, were a recurring theme
arrangements in the HEIs for appointing research
in most of our discussions. This relationship
assistants and post-graduate students in the
worked extremely well in some institutions, for
last half of the grant. We registered widespread
some fellows and for some fellowship schemes.
dissatisfaction with these awards. Many would
However, we believe that:
like to see their number fall, and their length
•
increase. In developing our examples of good
Fellowships should be viewed as a career
practice in fellowship programmes, we saw little
opportunity and not as a career path (see also
need to differentiate between these fellowships
paragraph 5.29).
and more senior ones, except in the award of
• There is a need for greater connectivity and a
differential resources to cover the core costs and
more constructive partnership between the
grant component of the fellowship.
institution and the fellow. This is particularly
important in the planning of the exit of fellows
5.15 In the spirit of good practice and sustainability of
from fellowship schemes.
a fellowship programme in a particular HEI, we
• Greater clarity is needed in the responsibilities
believe that the HEI should be prepared to make
of the HEI to the funding agency. These
some financial commitment to the individual
responsibilities need to be clearer at the start of
fellowship programme. While we do not wish to
the fellowship. We are convinced that there is
be prescriptive about this commitment (which
a current lack of clarity and, therefore, of
may differ with different agencies and fellowship
responsibility in some cases, and much more
types), with the 5-year major fellowships that
could be done by all parties to improve this
we advocate, we believe that the commitment
situation. However, the lead for change towards
from the HEI should come in the form of a
better partnerships should come from the
contribution towards the end of the fellowship.
funding agencies.
Ramped contributions, or contributions in a
renewal period, are also useful approaches. We
5.13 Conclusion: fellows and HEIs should view a
outline below two models (pages 30-31) for
fellowship as a career opportunity and not as
fellowship schemes that embody the move
a defined career path. Planning for the exit of
towards sustainability and connectivity together
the majority from the fellowship schemes
with some principles of good practice.
should be a priority for individual fellows and
HEIs.
5.16 There is already evidence that a financial
contribution to fellowship schemes can be
21
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
operated effectively. For 6 years, the Leverhulme
made these statistics available on the web, and
Trust has provided an Early Career Fellowship
many had never even considered doing so.
scheme that funds 50% of a 2-year fellowship.
This scheme, like so many of the Leverhulme
5.20 The fellows and the committee felt that this
Trust’s activities, is open to applicants from any
information was important, both in terms of
academic discipline. The trust has seen
openness, and in allowing applicants and
applications rise steadily, and receives an
institutions to make a realistic assessment of the
average of around 340 applications per year. In
schemes. The data should be maintained as a
the last 2 years, applications have risen to over
web-based, year-by-year table for each scheme.
450 per year. Each of these applications comes
Some funding agencies argue that simple
from an individual who has already gained the
statistics might mislead, for instance, because
financial support of 50% of the potential funds
applicants make applications to more than one
from the HEI. This is a powerful demonstration
agency, or that they might deter applications for
of a cooperative fellowship partnership that has
particular schemes. We believe that each of these
been successful for many award holders in terms
arguments can be dealt with, and that publication
of their research. These fellowships, although
of a coherent, ongoing set of statistics is
short, also have a very high success rate in
important. We commend the example of the
enabling the holders to secure a tenured or
Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) annual
long-term appointment.
report,5 which gives a >10 year history of
applications/triage/award numbers with statistics
5.17 Conclusion: we recommend that early career
on gender and geographical spread.
fellowships should be awarded for no less
than 5 years, even if this means a reduction in
5.21 We deal with statistical information on
the number of awards. Moreover, to stimulate
progression, renewals and career track of earlier
HEI focus on sustainability, strategic ‘fit’ and
year groups in sections below. Compilation and
the quality of the fellowships and individuals
publication of such historical information would
they are proposing to host, HEIs should make
be instrumental in creating a sense of openness.
a financial commitment to the later stages of
the fellowship.
5.22 If this information were available to all parties
we believe it would lead to a more coherent
Statistics within the funding agencies
partnership between the fellow, funding agency
and HEI.
5.18 We were disappointed to learn that some funding
agencies had only partial records and statistics on
5.23 Conclusion: we recommend that all funding
their fellowship schemes. This undoubtedly
agencies should collect, and display on
makes comparative analysis of schemes rather
their web sites, statistics on numbers of
difficult. Moreover, while some funding agencies
applications and awards, together with gender
had basic records of numbers in year groups,
information. Statistics on progression and
they did not appear to use these statistics in
renewal rates for fellowships in their portfolio
strategic planning or for committee assessment of
should also be included. This information
the effectiveness of fellowships.
should be regularly reviewed within the
agency. A consistent format would facilitate
5.19 In our focus group discussions with fellows, we
meta-analysis for the UK fellowship system as
consistently found that they would strongly
a whole, and contribute to a more strategic
support publication of the statistics on
appraisal of fellowship schemes.
applications/triage/awards made each year by a
particular agency in a particular scheme. Fellows
Progression and renewal of fellowships
would find this useful when making decisions,
both during the application process and after the
5.24 There is much misunderstanding about the issue
award is made. We found few funding agencies
of progression from one fellowship to another,
5
http://www.hfsp.org
22
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
and of renewal of the same fellowship. Some
5.27 Around 200 senior personal awards (not
funding agencies are very clear about the finite
including Principal Research Fellowships, PRFs)
term of particular fellowships (BBSRC). Others
have been made by the Wellcome Trust since the
(Wellcome Trust) accept progression and
launch of the PRF scheme in 1988. Of these,
renewals for some schemes, while others (MRC)
there have been 37 subsequent applications for a
define the fellowship schemes as a career path.
PRF, and 13 have been successful. To date, 50
We understand that progression and renewal
PRFs have been awarded and taken up since
may be useful to funding agencies and fellows
1988, and 6 PRFs have been renewed. Currently,
and can be very positive experiences. However,
there are 34 PRFs.
they also create problems of insecurity about
alternative career decisions, and may influence
5.28 The figures above illustrate the progression that
HEIs to neglect good career planning and
is possible within the fellowship schemes,
connectivity with their fellows.
particularly at the early to mid-career stage.
However, given the numbers in each cohort, it
5.25 We have a firm view that statistics on progression
is evident that progression is not available
and renewal applications and success rates should
for the majority of fellows. Publication of
be collected by all funding agencies and
appropriate and full statistics would ensure that
published on a year-by-year, cumulative basis.
both fellows and HEIs understood this important
The absence of information in this area causes
point.
much misunderstanding and feeds bad practice.
Progression does occur, but since many fewer
Career expectations
senior fellowships are awarded than career
development fellowships, and many fewer
5.29 We found that fellows were, in general, optimistic
principal research fellowships than senior
about their careers. However, we were often
fellowships, the slope of the pyramid increases
disappointed to hear that an academic position,
markedly with time. At every step, the likelihood
such as a university lectureship/readership/
of a particular fellow’s successfully progressing to
professorship (depending upon the level of
the next step is dramatically reduced.
fellowship), was not regarded as an attractive
prospect. This tendency to view an academic
5.26 As we recommend in 5.12 above, we believe that
position negatively is unhealthy and would be
the award of a fellowship should be viewed as a
of grave concern were it to become widespread.
career opportunity, and not as a career path (a
It appears to be a product of the lack of
career made up of a series of fellowships). When
engagement between fellows and their HEIs,
fellowships are viewed as an opportunity, the
and is exacerbated by a lack of management in
responsibilities of the fellow, funding agency and
some HEIs over the control of teaching loads.
host institution become clearer. The best
We detected much more positive views of a move
information we could obtain on this issue came
into an academic lectureship position in those
from the Wellcome Trust, where 32 of the current
departments with a coherent management
93 (34%) Senior Basic Biomedical Research
structure and clear distribution of lecturing and
Fellows (SBBRF) had previously held Research
administration loads for both fellows and
Career Development Fellowships (RCDFs). The
permanent staff.
success rate for progression over the years 1995-
2003 varied from year to year between 0 and
5.30 Conclusion: HEIs should develop better
83%, with around 8 SBBRF awards made per
partnerships with their fellows to boost the
year. This no doubt emphasises the person-specific
appeal of an academic position. One way for
nature of progression, and the value of publishing
HEIs to increase confidence in this career
cumulative, year-by-year statistics. In this
route would be through better management of
period, during which 82 awards were made,
research and teaching time for excellent
there were 4 examples of RCDFs who had not
researchers in HEI academic positions.
only progressed to SBBRFs, but had also
been through a renewal of the SBBRF award.
23
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
A career in industry?
cohort of talented researchers, to ensure
greater awareness of the careers open to
5.31 We note, with regret, that few fellows see a career
them. We recommend that a new, co-funded
in industry as a goal. In fact, many stated that
fellowship programme in the biomedical
such an outcome at the end of their fellowship
sciences be developed by the regional
would be viewed as a failure. This is disturbing
development agencies and/or research
given that this cohort represents some of the
councils, that would facilitate movement of
best academic scientists in the UK. There are
talented scientists between HEIs and industry.
successful industry/academic short-term fellowship
schemes, such as those run by the Royal
Career destinations
Society, that fund small numbers of secondments.
In October 2004, the BBSRC offered David
5.34 General statistics held by some funding agencies
Phillips Fellowships jointly funded with the
on the first career destinations after fellowships
British Pharmacology Society. We suggest that
were poor. This we found surprising since, in
industry needs to ensure that its attractive career
their absence, it would appear difficult to assess
opportunities, and the kudos attached to them,
the effectiveness of any scheme. A failure to
are more widely appreciated in the fellowship
obtain final reports from fellows (only 50%
community. In addition, we believe that some
received), and a lack of analysis of these by one
new form of partnership fellowship (the fellowship
research council, seems not to be best practice. A
equivalent of a Cooperative Awards in Science
coordinated, agreed strategy on good statistics
and Engineering, or CASE, studentship scheme)
gathering would be useful and would create the
should be investigated. It has been pointed out to
databases for an informative meta-analysis of
us that, for those fellows seeking a research
trends in the UK.
only career, industry is one way to achieve this.
Furthermore, industrial positions are more likely
5.35 Certainly, many early career fellows do progress
to provide flexible working arrangements, including
to university lectureships. In 1999, the Wellcome
on-site childcare, than most academic posts.
Trust examined the destinations of 66 RCDFs.
50% had taken up lectureships, 30% further
5.32 Given the advanced and extensive research
fellowships and 20% were in some other activity.
capabilities and technologies within industry, it
The BBSRC has conducted a survey over a
seems likely that the UK is not maximising the
5-year period of their David Phillips Fellows. 11
potential of this partnership at the fellowship
had obtained permanent academic posts in the
level. The bioscience industry should consider
UK, 2 had such a post overseas, 2 had fixed term
carefully the advantages that it could derive
appointments and 2 were in further training. As
from more effective partnerships with those
with the Wellcome Trust analysis, this appears to
organisations currently offering fellowship
indicate a successful scheme that achieves one of
schemes. In addition, given the new funding
its intended aims, which is to enable
powers of the regional development agencies, we
manoeuvring of young staff into academic
suggest that they consider assisting a fellowship
positions. Interestingly, of the 14 who left their
programme that links translational biomedical
5-year David Phillips Fellowship early, 6 had
research in HEIs with regional industries.
obtained permanent academic appointments
Partnership fellowships may also be the way to
overseas, 1 had moved to industry and 2 to
strengthen links between HEIs and the research
longer-term fellowships (Royal Society
institutes run by research councils and major
University Research Fellowships, URFs).
research charities, and to allow access to
specialist facilities beyond the scope of individual
5.36 Conclusion: we recommend that final reports
HEIs.
on individual fellowships should be obtained
and analysed by the funding agencies. They
5.33 Conclusion: Research councils and some
should collect, maintain and publish agreed
charities should develop better connections
data sets on the career destinations of
with industry in their fellowship programmes.
fellows. Groups such as RCUK, AMRC and the
Industry also has a responsibility to target this
Funder’s Forum could usefully coordinate
24
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
agreement on a basic template of the metrics
facilities are considered, requiring a candidate to
to be collected, and then publish period
move to qualify for a fellowship application may
overview analyses for the UK.
not always be desirable.
Mobility and gender
5.38 Fellows do move their fellowships, however.
Analysis showed that 43 MRC Fellows
5.37 Fellows had strong views on the need to balance
transferred their Fellowships during the years
differing factors in the mobility debate. Most
2000-2004, out of the total cohort of 487 Fellows 6
fellows had experience in a number of places.
who started in this period. Flexibility of
The ability to move a fellowship appears to be
fellowship arrangements is also important to
valuable, and does facilitate the securing of a
allow for maternity and paternity leave. The
permanent academic position. Mobility in the
importance of this issue can be gauged from an
early scientific career is also seen as valuable.
analysis of MRC Fellows. 25 female Fellows
However, the UK has many attractions as a place
requested maternity leave from their Fellowships
for doing biomedical training: for example, over
during the years 2000-2004, out of the total
30% of Marie Curie Fellowships are held in the
cohort of 487 who started in this period. We
UK. A world class UK department will therefore
estimate that this was likely to represent 25 out
often provide more exposure to international
of around 200 female Fellows, or around 12%.
scientists and international networking
opportunities than many USA or continental
5.39 Biomedical science has an increasing proportion
European departments. So even before issues
of women scientists and all funding agencies
such as children’s schooling, partner’s career or
track these trends. The following statistics
the need to maintain particular equipment and
illustrate the distributions:
Of 26 RCDF awards made by the Wellcome Trust in 1998/99, 12 went to women and their average age at
application was 33, very similar to that of their male (32) counterparts.
In 2002-3 the cohort of BBSRC Fellows had the following gender split:
Male
Female
David Phillips
23
7
Research Development
14
6
Professorial
3
3
For Royal Society Fellowships, which cover all areas of science (there is known to be a poorer representation of
women in the physical sciences), the averages for applications and awards per year for the period 1998-2004 were:
Applications
Awards
Male
Female
Male
Female
University Research
267
88
34
11
Dorothy Hodgkin
64
189
1
13
Industry
20
3
7
2
For MRC Fellowships, the applications and awards averages per year for the period 1998-2004 were:
Applications
Awards
Male
Female
Male
Female
Senior Non-Clinical
23
11
4
1
Career Development Award
52
31
4
4
6
This figure represents the whole cohort of MRC fellows, clinical and non-clinical.
25
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
5.40 Conclusion: flexibility in the use of a
seems to be driven by the rich employment
fellowship, and mobility after the award of a
opportunities offered by certain UK regions.
fellowship, is valuable and should be
While all HEIs receiving fellows have a
embedded in the initial conditions of the
responsibility to maintain an interest in their
fellowship.
careers, and to adopt good HR practices, that
responsibility is clearly greater in universities
Geographical distribution
with relatively high concentrations of fellows.
Our understanding is that some fellows have a
5.41 The geographical distribution of fellows in the
good relationship with the HEI and others do
UK has particular influences, outcomes and
not.
challenges associated with it. The distribution is
reasonably even, when one considers the
5.43 ‘Rationing’ the numbers of fellows in HEIs is not
number of institutions. However, there are
the answer. However, further pressure should be
concentrations of fellows in particular cities and
placed on some institutions to adopt the superior
regions. Some examples are:
HR practices operated by others. A financial
commitment to the fellowship as described in
• The 53 current MRC Career Development
our example of good practice (Appendix 1) would
Award holders have their fellowships in 23
be useful in changing attitudes and creating
different HEIs, of which the top 5 are UCL (7),
sustainability. In addition, improvement in the
Cambridge (5), Kings College London (3),
mentoring, review and appraisal systems
Edinburgh (3) and Birmingham (3).
available to fellows would improve the
• The 39 current MRC Senior Non-Clinical
situation in some of these HEIs.
Research Fellows hold their fellowships in 18
different HEIs, of which the top 5 are UCL (7),
5.44 Fellows recognise that a period spent in these
Bristol (6), Cambridge (4), Oxford (3) and The
research-intensive centres can be productive and
Babraham Institute (3).
useful for their careers. Furthermore, there is
• The Wellcome Trust’s 93 current SBBRFs are
widespread acknowledgement that a good
also spread widely, among 21 institutions.
proportion of the fellows who spend time in
However, there are concentrations. The golden
these centres are unlikely to obtain permanent
triangle of Oxford, London and Cambridge
academic positions there. Greater transparency
claims 51 of the fellows, Edinburgh and
in relation to career opportunities within certain
Dundee have a cluster of 18 and Manchester
HEIs would help make the exit from them a
has the next largest concentration.
more positive experience for fellows who are not
offered permanent positions. Indecision through
• The Wellcome Trust’s current cohort of 34
bad management creates particular difficulties
PRFs is more heavily concentrated. 25 are
for fellows in terms of career opportunities.
located in the Oxford/London/Cambridge
However, fellows also need to be clear about the
triangle and 8 in Edinburgh/Dundee. Some of
likely opportunities at key stages of their career,
this clustering is a consequence of the location
so that they may act appropriately.
of the Wellcome Trust Centres and, in fact, the
2 PRFs located outside the above areas are in
5.45 Conclusion: HEIs should aim for clarity in the
the Wellcome Trust Centres in Manchester and
terms of the fellowship agreement from the
Glasgow.
outset. There should be transparency in the
matter of career opportunities available to
5.42 This geographical spread reflects the natural
fellows, and mentoring and appraisal should
clustering of researchers in centres of excellence,
be provided either by the funding agency, host
as well as associations of fellows with existing
HEI or preferably both. Fellows, for their part,
centres or units embedded within universities.
must assume responsibility for their own
Given the number of the fellows we spoke to
career planning, and should be willing to
who have partners in science, medicine or another
undertake some (limited) activities to support
academic area, geographical clustering also
the host HEI and to develop teaching and
26
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
management skills that may be useful to
that grant? How will subsequent grants held by
them in their future careers. Experience of
the fellow be funded to exclude double counting?
communicating science to the general public
• What will be the effect of fEC sustainability on
would also be beneficial.
fellowships such as the Royal Society URFs,
which give a fixed costs grant?
EU employment directive
5.49 Under the initial fEC rules, the research councils
5.46 We believe that all holders of personal
will fund 80% of the total costs (this will take into
fellowships should submit a yearly report to the
account estates and services, and indirect costs),
funder with comment from the host HEI. Some
so that any institution applying to support a
funding agencies demand this, review the reports
fellowship must agree to meet the remaining 20%
both in the secretariat and in the awarding
of costs. This raises a number of issues. Might
committees and respond appropriately. Others
HEIs identify research-intensive staff, and seek
have no way of feeding back information to the
to recover 100% of the researcher’s salary (80%
awarding committee on the outcomes of their
of the total costs), if the researcher’s time is
decisions. We believe that such a cycle of
released to be dedicated to that project, while the
information is important. We were impressed by
HEI still receives these salary funds from
funding agencies which held yearly meetings of
HEFCE? This could provide interesting scope
fellows and used these as an opportunity for
for the universities to use these new funds in
mentoring and appraisal by external scientists
different ways. Questions then arise as to
and members of the awarding committees.
whether the fEC system negates the need for
certain mid-career break or career development
5.47 We found wide variation in the degree of
fellowships, or only makes it worthwhile for
engagement of HEIs and/or departments with
certain types of academic to apply for them.
EU employment directive regulations on staff
contracts. Many fellows were unaware of the
5.50 All funding systems influence behaviour of
implications of these employment changes in
HEIs, departments and individuals. The change
their HEIs, and most funding agencies had no
to fEC rules provides some positive opportunities
plans to address issues concerning fellowship
for fellowships and some threats. If one outcome
contracts, such as redundancy costs. This was
was to introduce realistic research positions
partly due to the almost complete absence of a
(readers and research professorships) in academic
yearly appraisal meeting for fellows in many
departments, where a major portion of a person’s
HEIs, even though the HR departments often
time would be devoted to research rather than to
professed that appraisal schemes were in place.
administration or teaching, then this could
The absence of an appraisal system could
provide an ideal opportunity for research fellows
potentially create problems in the event of a
at the end of their fellowships. That in turn would
dispute over contracts.
encourage better management partnerships
between research councils and HEIs. We note
Full economic costing
that imaginative use of fEC in the years to come
may render research-leave fellowships obsolete.
5.48 The implications of the forthcoming fEC of
grants by government did not appear to have
5.51 Conclusion: HEIs should develop a defined
been addressed in detail by any funding agency
policy for fellows based on EU employment
in relation to fellowship schemes, though we
directives. Plans for full economic costing
accept that this is an area of rapid change and
(fEC) of fellowship grants should be carefully
development and funding agencies may now be
considered to facilitate individual research
turning their attention to it. There are a series of
career opportunities for fellowship holders
issues to be addressed here:
and active Higher Education Funding Council
• If the salary of fellows continues to be met by
(HEFC) funded researchers.
research councils, how will the fEC flow with
27
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
5.55 Conclusion: we recommend that research
The Research Assessment Exercise
fellows who hold an externally peer-reviewed
5.52 The RAE and the HEFCE research funding
independent research fellowship should be (a)
patterns have a negative effect on research
included in the 2008 RAE submission and (b)
fellows in England. Many research fellows
included in the subsequent funding model. In
funded by the best peer-reviewed agencies in the
this context, they should be treated as the
country were excluded from RAE 2000 and
equivalent of HEFC academic staff members.
subsequent RAEs. Although they are assessed as
a unit of 1.0 in the assessment part of RAE (that
is, equivalent to a permanent member of staff),
Research Councils UK (RCUK) Academic
they are treated as 0.1 of a unit when it comes to
Fellowships
the funds that flow to a HEI - and hence to a
department - from HEFCE. This had a
5.56 Launched by RCUK and the OST following the
pernicious effect on submissions to RAE 2000
Roberts’ Review, this scheme has the laudable
and on how individual fellows are treated within
ambition of easing progression, and increasing
departments and HEIs. Many young fellows
security, within research careers. The scheme will
were left out of submissions.
fund 1000 Fellowships in all disciplines over 5
years in the first instance. In September 2004,
5.53 Most English biomedical HEIs calculated,
398 were awarded to 73 HEIs for the first 2 years
perfectly logically, that unless one could judge
of the scheme. Perhaps not surprisingly, a
that the fellow was clearly of international stature
substantial fraction of these Fellowships were
(something that is difficult to do with younger
awarded for non-clinical biomedical scientists
academics), then the risks to the grading (where
working in areas categorised by the OST as
all staff entered are assessed by the same criteria)
‘medicine’, ‘life sciences’ and ‘interdisciplinary’.
vastly outweighed the possible financial benefits
There are well-established issues concerning the
that might accrue in the funding. Many research
implementation of this scheme that could
fellows were therefore not included in the RAE.
hamper its ambition. One is the fact that many of
This did not happen in Scotland because of the
the applications in the biomedical sciences will
different funding pattern there.
focus on similar areas of activity. Another is that
considerably less than 50% of fEC of these posts
5.54 A change in this pattern of assessment and
is met by the funding from OST. A full analysis
funding would have a very positive effect on the
of those appointed to this first tranche of
status of biomedical research fellows in the HEIs.
fellowships in a few years’ time will be
It would mean that the next RAE produced a
important. So far this scheme appears to have
more realistic assessment of the UK’s strengths in
had little effect on applications to the established
biomedical research, and it would be a driver for
fellowship schemes, but it is probably too early to
sustainability of the intellectual infrastructure of
draw any useful conclusions about that. If the
UK academic research. HEIs should be
scheme should suddenly cease so that no more
encouraged to submit all independent research
fellowships were awarded after the first 5 years,
fellows to RAE 2008, in the knowledge that they
that would undoubtedly add to the difficulties
will be assessed appropriately, and then funded
faced by early career biomedical scientists in
in the same way as other Category A staff.
finding tenured positions, and would add to the
pressure on other fellowship schemes.
7
The Wellcome Trust has recently announced changes to its Senior Research Fellowships in Basic Biomedical Science that are in accord with many recommendations that we
make. The changes include an announcement that renewals of this form of fellowship will be competitive and will be funded on a 50:50 partnership basis with the host HEI
for the full renewal period. The research costs have been unlinked for the renewal period and the Wellcome Trust will continue to pay these costs in full, as per the models we
suggest. The HEI will be required to guarantee at the outset that it will support renewal of the award on this shared basis. This form of funding embodies many elements of
our recommendations in terms of more effective funding partnerships, clarity of relationship with HEI and awardee at the outset and specific points for assessment of a
competitive renewal. We welcome this initiative.
28
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Models of best practice in early career
the fellowship, then we believe that a scheme
fellowship schemes7
where the HEI commits some funds to the latter
period of the fellowship is the best plan. We
5.57 In this report we have made a set of general
recommend that many fellowships should move
recommendations that we believe would
to this model.
improve present fellowship schemes and
ensure they are more fit for purpose. We
We recommend that awards be made in two
conclude with two model schemes that put our
parts, A and B.
recommendations into practice for early career
Part A
fellowship schemes. These are designed to allow
would provide the fellow’s salary and
our most promising young biomedical
minimal running (‘core’) costs sufficient to allow
scientists to develop as world-class independent
the fellow to continue experiments (currently
researchers. Such fellowships should be embarked
around £15,000 p.a.). For funding agencies with
upon after 2-6 years of post-doctoral experience.
no, or limited, grant schemes this may represent
As we have emphasised, they should be of at
the full fellowship (as in the case of the present
least 5 years in length.
Royal Society URFs).
5.58 We incorporate into one demonstration schema
Part B would take the form of a competitive
the opportunity for the fellowship to fit one of the
research grant, providing funding and running
following:
costs for other personnel and equipment. This
• a 5-6 year scheme, determined from the outset
could be of variable length and size, depending
on the fellow’s work plan, capabilities and stage of
• a 5-6 year scheme but with the possibility of
career, and range from a 3-year, project-like
renewal
grant, providing a technician or research assistant,
• a 10 year scheme from the outset with a mid-
to a full programme-like grant funding multiple
term review.
positions for 5 years. There should be sufficient
flexibility, such that modifications to the funding
5.59 This demonstration template has been formulated
are possible over the lifetime of the fellowship.
to address issues of:
Thus, rather than accumulating a set of diverse
• clarity of length, assessment points and
project grants, fellows should have a coherent
commitments from the outset
portfolio of funding provided by their main
• a length of independent research time fit for
funding agency. We have split the funding into
modern approaches in biomedical research
two parts to separate the fellow’s salary from
• a structure with built-in flexibility
other aspects of financial support. The initial
• a structure that effectively engages the fellow
portion of the Part B funding, which represents
with the HEI’s and the funding agency’s policies,
the grant costs, must be awarded along with the
financial support and forward strategies from
fellowship at the outset. We separate it in our
the outset.
scheme so that length and size of grant funding
should be flexible and may be modified
throughout the fellowship period as the research
Model 1. Funding partnership between
progresses or the fellow becomes more established.
HEI and funding agency
5.60 The establishment of a working relationship, and
5.61 The scheme set out in Model 1 illustrates how the
an understanding, between the HEI and the
funding and decision points might best be
funding agency over milestones in the award and
arranged. The key aspects are as follows:
the responsibilities of each partner is critical.
• The fellowship is for 6 years in the first instance,
If the fellowship does not require a firm
but can be extended or renewed for a maximum
commitment from the HEI to deliver a
of 10 years.
permanent contract for the holder at the end of
29
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
• The HEI agrees at the start of the fellowship to
5.62 We would emphasise that this model ensures
fund 50% of the salary costs of the fellowship in
clarity in terms of responsibilities and decision
years 5 and 6 if the fellowship is not extended
points. An upfront, co-funding commitment
or renewed. If the fellowship is extended or
from the HEI places greater pressure on it to
renewed, then the HEI agrees to fund 50% of
mentor, appraise and support the fellow, and it
the salary costs in years 9 and 10, or ideally a
places an increased responsibility on the fellow
tenured appointment.
to contribute more widely within the HEI and so
•
gain a greater skills and knowledge base over the
The review period is agreed by all parties at the
fellowship period. It introduces transparent
outset to start at a defined date in late year 4,
milestones and deadlines, and should also drive
with a decision at the end of year 4 as to
a sustainable plan within the HEI and/or
whether the fellowship is to be extended or
department cost centre for managing the
renewed. There should be a history of appraisal
portfolio of fellowships. It is fully compatible
within these first 4 years. If the outcome of the
with EU employment directives and adaptable to
review is that the award will not be extended,
fEC. More advanced schemes such as those
then the salary funding for years 5 and 6 is
represented by professorial/principal fellowship
shared by the funding agency and the HEI. An
schemes are considered to be important and
important feature of this model is that
should be maintained. These may provide the
in these circumstances, the fellow has 2 years of
continued career for a few of the 10-year fellows
full funding in which to find further employment.
emerging from the above scheme, or may be
awarded at other points in researchers’ careers
for specific reasons.
Fellowship Part A Salary
6 year
10 year
Fellowship Part A Core costs
6 year
10 year
Fellowship Part B Grant (variable length)
1
6 YEAR E
0
YEAR E
AW
RE
V
A
I
R
E
N
N
D
W
D
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Key to Funding Source:
Institution
Funding Agency
Model 1. Funding partnership between HEI and funding agency
30
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Model 2. Fellowship plan with all funding
Renewals and extensions
from the funding agency
5.64 All renewals should be competitive with new
5.63 We firmly believe that the HEI should make
awards.
some commitment to a fellowship plan that
involves salary, core support for the fellow and a
5.65 Models that use the concept of an extension
separate grant coming from the funding agency,
to the fellowship rather than a renewal of the
as in Model 1. In cases where the funding agency
fellowship have much to commend them.
decides not to ask for this commitment, then we
believe best practice dictates Model 2 (Figure 2),
5.66 Publication of statistics will facilitate an informed
where the agreed review point is late in year 3
view of the likelihood of an extension or renewal,
with a decision point on whether there is to be an
as mentioned elsewhere.
extension at the start of year 4 (again, giving
the fellow whose fellowship is not being
5.67 In relation to this type of model and on the
extended close to 2 years to find his or her next
issue of extensions to fellowships, we noted that
appointment).
CR-UK awards fellowships competitively to
both HEIs and their own Institutes out of a
fellowship budget. Fellows in HEIs can apply for
renewals and this is dealt with as a competitive
renewal. However, in the event of a fellow
working in one of the CR-UK Institutes wishing
to renew, then this is only possible if the fellow
is supported by the Institute Director and the
latter agrees to pay for the renewal out of the
Institute’s baseline funds. This appears to be an
excellent example of good practice in an agency
which has fellows in HEIs as well as in their own
institutes.
Fellowship Part A Salary
5 year
10 year
Fellowship Part A Core costs
5 year
10 year
Fellowship Part B Grant (variable length)
1
5 YEAR E
0
YEAR E
AW
RE
V
A
I
R
E
N
N
D
W
D
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Key to Funding Source:
Funding Agency
Model 2. Fellowship plan with all funding from the funding agency
31
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
32
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Appendix 1 - Focus group reports
In 2004 we held focus group meetings with cohorts of
• Does he/she get a formal yearly appraisal?
65 research fellows from 9 HEIs: the Universities of
• If he/she has taught, what level was this at and
Aberdeen, Bristol, Cambridge, Dundee, Edinburgh,
how much?
Manchester, Oxford, Sheffield and Sussex.
• Does he/she feel in contact with the funding
The following discussion topics were used in the focus
agency?
groups as possible areas, or questions, to explore with
• Is the funding agency providing all the
the fellows (not in any order of importance):
requisites for his/her research? Is the provision
of running money and research assistance
• Why this career route?
adequate?
• In retrospect, was the fellowship the right career
• What would make his/her fellowship better and
move?
more effective?
• Is the fellow involved in any teaching,
• What generic issues can he/she identify that we
administration or management, and has any
should take into account in our investigation?
formal training been provided?
• What more could the funding agency do to
• What are the long-term career aspirations of the
improve the fellowship and his/her experience
fellow and what does he/she want to do next?
and career plans?
• Does the fellow consider him/herself to be a
• What more could the host institution do to
suitable candidate for work in industry?
improve the fellowship and his/her experience
• How important is tenure?
and career plans?
• What was his/her previous experience?
• What are the good aspects of the fellowship,
• Did he/she move from another institution?
that should be preserved and enhanced?
From abroad?
• What, if any, are the disadvantages of holding a
• Does the fellow feel under pressure to move
fellowship?
between institutions?
At least 7 fellows were involved in each focus
• If with a partner, are there ‘partner
group’s analysis of the issues confronting
employment issues’ in the debate over career
fellowship holders. The fellows covered the full
track?
range of age, experience and seniority of
• Can the fellow provide any personal
fellowship type. Many fellows had moved
information about his/her work-life balance
between institutions, some were educated abroad
(partner’s career, mortgage, children)?
and had been attracted to the UK by the
• Does the fellow have an expectation that their
fellowship schemes. A number also had partners
career will work out all right?
in science and there was a good gender balance.
•
We found the fellows to be well informed about
How important is salary?
the relevant schemes, and many offered the view
• How important is support and security?
that the independence of our review, and the
• What are his/her expectations in relation to the
generic issues being addressed, enabled a more
various fellowship schemes?
open analysis of their HEIs, their funding
• Has the institution handled the fellowship well,
agencies and themselves.
both at department and at university level?
In total we interviewed 65 fellows holding the
• Has he/she had any formal career advice?
following types of fellowships, which span the
33
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
research councils and medical charities and
were compared to those of nearby, clinically
include a few (3) named university fellowships:
qualified scientists. Such enhanced funding is
important for fellows coming from abroad. Host
Royal Society University Research Fellowship
institutions did not generally attempt to moderate
Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship
the salary scales defined by the Wellcome Trust,
MRC Career Development Fellowship
but instances were reported to us in which the
MRC Senior Research Fellowship
fellow was not allowed to accept some other
BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship
fellowships’ full salary, since this was outside that
Wellcome Trust Research Career Development
particular university’s agreed pay scale. One
Fellowship
difficulty is that few universities have been able to
Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship
match the higher salaries offered by some funding
Wellcome Trust Senior Basic Biomedical
agencies, and many fellows faced a reduction in
Research Fellowship
salary at the end of their fellowships.
Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship
BHF Fellowship
The length of the fellowship, and the manner and
Lister Fellowship
timing of any renewal, were major issues. There
CR-UK Career Development Fellowship
was a unanimous view that the career
Named university fellowships
development fellowship or early career
fellowship forms of funding, lasting 3 or 4 years,
Summary of findings from focus groups
were inadequate and no longer fit for purpose (in
terms of length, independence and ability to
Strengths of fellowship schemes
recruit and retain staff). Some fellows even
expressed the view that they ‘encouraged a
Fellowship schemes were seen as a superb
short-term view of research and discouraged long
opportunity for a protected research period to set
term thinking’. A 5-year duration would make the
up one’s own laboratory and to compete
award more attractive, more productive and lead
internationally. Fellows often used phrases such as
to more positive outcomes. Holders of senior
‘an opportunity to do world class research’ or ‘the
fellowships thought that the 5-year periods were
freedom to succeed’.
appropriate, and considered the opportunity for
renewal a positive feature. However, at the end of
Views about the prestige of such fellowships
the second term, future prospects were described
varied. Some thought that career development
as ‘grim’. The possibility of being awarded a
research fellowships were not very prestigious
principal or professorial fellowship, or some
given their number; others viewed fellowships at
further fellowship, now appeared remote
all levels as highly prestigious.
to them, although most fellows considered that
historically, this was a pathway for a reasonable
Fellows valued flexibility in use of funds,
number of researchers. The pyramid structure of
mobility of fellowships within the UK and the
some fellowship schemes was recognised as
possibility of renewal. A safety net, in the event of
inevitable, but the present arrangements had
fellowships not being renewed, was important to
created a bottleneck of researchers with restricted
them.
options. Royal Society Fellows felt that the
potential longer term of their fellowship was more
Opinions over salaries varied. All agreed that UK
realistic in terms of career planning. In this
academic salaries are generally seen to be poor
context, fellows consistently stressed or emphasised
(and particularly so in Oxford and Cambridge),
the difficulties of managing the final part of their
and hence inhibit the transfer of staff from
fellowships. More flexible, ‘sunset’ arrangements
particular parts of the UK (due to mortgage
were needed.
issues) or from abroad (where salaries tend to be
more competitive). The enhancement of salaries
Release from teaching and administration was
by the Wellcome Trust provided its fellows with a
viewed as a considerable bonus and was a
sense of self-worth, particularly when the salaries
recurring theme. The issue of the teaching
34
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
burden was felt most strongly in universities such
regarded as very useful in focusing the overall
as Oxford and Cambridge which lack unified
aims of the project, and ensuring appropriateness
departmental and/or divisional control of the
within the remit of the funding agency. The
teaching load. Many fellows expressed willingness
short Royal Society application was liked and
to teach more if they could be assured of coherent
considered appropriate since the fellowship
teaching management within their university and
mainly funds the individual.
if, in return, they were given appropriate status
• Running costs: most fellowships provide some
and opportunity within the university system.
support, but the Royal Society does not fully
fund laboratory running costs or associated
All fellows, even those with early career fellowships,
staff. This was set against the fact that these
felt that they were already independent
fellowships were potentially renewable (with a
researchers. All wanted to continue as research-
high success rate), and one comment was that
intensive staff, and would only move into an
this form of support could be ‘regarded as a
academic position if it was attractive, and usually
valuable preparation for the real world’. In
after all other avenues had failed. Virtually all
contrast, the support provided by most other
participants wanted to remain within an academic
schemes was regarded as critical for specialist
environment.
equipment provision and speed of start-up.
In retrospect, virtually all fellows believed that the
Relationships with the host department and
fellowship had been the right career move, even
institution
though problems were identified with some of the
fellowship schemes, and there was concern about
We analysed the views of the 65 fellows
overall job security.
interviewed and found large variations in the
relationship that fellows enjoy with their host
Comparisons between schemes
HEI. This variation has little to do with the
seniority of the fellowship held. Rather, it is a
The group format of the discussions allowed us to
difference between HEIs in their treatment of the
gather some of the fellows’ perceptions of the
same type of fellowship. In universities where the
various schemes, and to make comparisons
pre-clinical and clinical biomedical sciences are
between them. A number of points emerged from
organised in smaller departments, these
such comparisons:
differences sometimes existed within the same
• Contact with the funding agency: the Wellcome
university and were not unified by higher
Trust maintains contact through meetings and
structures (divisions and/or schools) within those
personal contact with staff running the schemes.
universities. In essence, only in some HEIs were
BBSRC Fellows also had useful contact through
fellows treated as full academic staff. It is
meetings and assessments, while MRC Fellows
important to note that this pattern of treatment
had little contact. Royal Society Fellows had
was independent of differences in funding of
very variable responses to this issue. Small-scale
fellows by HEFCE and Scottish Higher
annual meetings of fellows on similar types of
Education Funding Council (SHEFC), as we
fellowship (with past fellows) were felt to be
found examples of good practice in both Scotland
useful.
and England.
• Selection of candidates: the Wellcome Trust and
MRC interview candidates, but the Royal
The following varied enormously between
Society does not. Fellows felt that this difference
departments or institutions, from being entirely
in approach was good and allowed selection of
absent, to being present in a transparent, well-
different types of candidates. Most fellows agreed
structured form:
that the form of interview, and the collective
• induction to university
expertise of the interview panel, were good at
• space, refurbishment and maintenance support
the Wellcome Trust and BBSRC but less so at
• training for teaching
the MRC. Preliminary application forms were
• mentoring
35
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
• career advice
were variable. Dedicated email contact with the
•
MRC was thought by many to be unsatisfactory.
inclusion in departmental meetings
The Royal Society has a website, a newsletter and
• access to research students and internal funds
meetings but does not provide a mentoring
• clarity of promises from the host department
scheme.
when sponsoring the application
• status: some fellows are treated as full
Some fellows had provided annual reports that
academic members of department while others
were considered at committee meetings, and had
are treated like post-doctoral researchers
received feedback (e.g. BBSRC Fellows). Other
fellowships required reports but provided no
• teaching expectations
feedback to fellow or host department, and some
• appraisal and promotion
fellows were only required to give a final report
• definition of status (e.g. for purposes of external
(e.g. Wellcome Trust Training Fellows). There was
and internal examining of undergraduates,
an almost universal feeling that feedback is, or
MScs and PhDs)
would have been, very helpful.
Many fellows from different universities were
MRC annual reports were a useful exercise for
critical of the central university finance,
the fellow and helped shape future research ideas.
administration and HR offices, many of which
The Wellcome Trust Senior Fellow annual report
lacked an understanding of UK fellowship
was seen as much less arduous but still useful and
schemes and their status. This directly affected the
necessary. The lack of detailed justification
fellows’ ability to operate as principal
required by the Wellcome Trust on issues such as
investigators, and hence curtailed their
spending was welcomed. CR-UK Fellows felt that
independence. In addition, we heard of large
the office had a good knowledge of them and
differences in the treatment of individuals whose
their fellowship plans and activities.
fellowships were explicitly given to relieve them
of normal duties and a new parallel position funded
Contact with other fellows was useful. The
(e.g. Lister Fellowships). Some HEIs honoured
BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust provide useful
these conditions and some did not.
annual meetings for fellows. The Lister Institute
of Preventive Medicine was highly praised,
Fellows raised the issue of their ‘returnability’ for
providing annual meetings for both current and
the RAE, although many had no idea of the
past fellows, together with an annual visit from
details. Some had been informed that they could
the secretary to discuss progress.
not be ‘returned’ in the exercise as they were not
HEFCE-funded.
The character of the person in the secretariat
running the personal awards was a major
influence on the success of schemes. Frequent
Relationships with the funding agency
changes of personnel in that role, for whatever
The level and effectiveness of contact varied
reason, had a powerful negative effect on
enormously and no doubt was a reflection of both
communication and confidence.
the particular funder and the fellow. Those in
Career expectations
receipt of Wellcome Trust Fellowships were
particularly complimentary about its
Most fellows were optimistic about their career
commitment to its fellows. It was stated that the
prospects, even those in HEIs that offered them
Trust was very efficient in response to any queries
little hope of a guaranteed post. Most were
and ready to give advice and help where
optimistic about getting a job if their research was
necessary. Those that attended the annual
productive, although they recognised that this
meetings found them very useful. The MRC was
might involve moving institution. However, a
seen as ‘relatively helpful’, although a recent high
university lectureship was often stated as no
staff turnover had caused some problems.
longer being attractive at the end of a fellowship.
Provisions made for fellows to contact the funder
Again, discrepancies between university and
36
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
certain fellowship pay scales became a real issue
awarding a fellowship should be based on
by the end of a fellowship.
scientific merit of the applicant and host
environment. Some fellows felt that mobility
A small group of more mature fellows - often,
criteria in the application process discriminated
though not exclusively, working in certain
against scientist couples and those with children.
Cambridge and Oxford departments - were more
demoralised and frustrated about their career
Suggestions as to how host institutions could
expectations. They were delighted by their
improve fellowships
funding and colleagues, but found their inability
to engage with the university over longer term
• Ensure clarity in sponsorship level at outset of
planning depressing.
application
• Be realistic about the number of fellows taken
We noted that although all fellows were much
on, and make clear what the rules of appointment
exercised by the difficulties they might face, or
and support of renewal are at the outset
are facing, at the end of their fellowship, they
• Formally review expectations and commitments
were largely ignorant of important issues such as
2 years before the end of the fellowship
EU employment directives. At the time of the
• Put in place a mechanism for dealing with
focus groups, these issues did not appear to be
recruitment of PhD students and submission of
discussed in many universities at a level that
grant applications towards the end of the
engaged those affected by them.
fellowship, to prevent fellows from having to
wind down their research groups
We specifically explored the possible career route
offered by industry at the end of a fellowship. We
• Adopt realistic salary scales that are
found only one fellow who was even entertaining
internationally competitive
this as an option, and one other who had moved
• Develop a scheme to facilitate the transition,
from industry to the fellowship. Essentially, the
after review, from a fellowship to a university
fellows aimed to continue working in an academic
post, with appropriate mechanisms for bridging
environment. Most had no contact with industry,
gaps and levels in salary
although a few fellows felt that the skills acquired
• Develop a long-term strategy that allows
during a fellowship might be useful for industry,
connection and synergy between the research
or for founding a company. This disappointing
areas of fellows and the future likely teaching
and worrying aspect of the career path of fellows
needs or strategic developments within the host
is best summed up by a comment that ‘landing a
HEI
job in industry would be seen as a failure at the
end of this fellowship’.
• Underwrite 2 years’ salary beyond the end of
the fellowship
Mobility issues
• View themselves as in partnership with the
funder, and recognise fellowships as an
Some funding agencies state explicitly that they
important contribution to the career of the
prefer candidates to move in order to take up a
individual - not just as a contract salary
fellowship, while others allow fellowships to be
• Recognise fellows as a specific group that make
awarded in the same institution. The fellows
an important contribution to the university
appreciated that there are obvious benefits from
• Ensure that fellows are given the appropriate
changing environments, but had concerns that
status
personal circumstances sometimes made this
difficult (finding employment for a partner, or
• Ensure that central services departments
providing schooling for a young family, were
(finance, administration and HR) recognise the
issues for almost every fellow). It was felt that not
status of fellows
wanting to move should not count against an
• Either formalise the appraisal scheme or
applicant for a fellowship, and that the criteria for
abolish it
37
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
• Recognise and adhere to rules of the
• If necessary, decrease the number of awards
fellowship concerning teaching and
and increase the length to at least 5 years for
administration loads.
those given to younger scientists
• Prevent fellows being restricted in their ability
Suggestions as to how funding bodies could
to build research groups by allowing other
improve fellowships
grant applications where appropriate
•
• Develop systems for dealing with applications
Ensure consistency and transparency in pay
from scientist couples
scales between fellows
•
• Provide flexibility in grant fund spending, both
Help to bring pressure on host HEIs to fulfil
in terms of timing in the fellowship period and
their obligations
virement between headings
• Allow salary components to be added to grants
• Build in some form of safety net to all personal
as in the USA. This would allow grants to
awards at fellowship level
supplement the difference between fellowship
funding and university pay scales, making
• Provide feedback on fellows’ progress
transfer to university posts easier
• Provide clear guidance on expected maximum
• Allow salaries to be added to programme
contribution to teaching and administration
grants, making ‘rolling fellowships’ a viable option
• Remove the requirement to move between
• Ensure that salary scales are independent and
institutions
not subject to change by the host institution
• Award fellowships on scientific merit and
• Fund individuals NOT sponsors, as funding of
promise alone, but require input, even financial
the latter leads to exploitation of schemes for
input, from the university
glorified post-doctoral researchers
• Organise regular, small scale meetings of past
• Consider the length of some fellowships in
and present fellows on similar types of fellowships
relation to preclusion from departmental
• Consider a mentoring scheme.
student schemes and grant applications,
because of the possibility that the fellowship
might finish before the studentship/grant
38
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Appendix 2 - Meetings with funding agencies
After our initial meetings and consideration of the
We noted that while most of the funding agencies
issues from the fellows’ focus groups, we met
recognised there were alternative career paths
representatives of a variety of funding agencies in
from student to senior researcher, only a few
2004. We debated our preliminary conclusions, heard
appeared to have a holistic view of their
views on their fellowship schemes and how they were
individual funding schemes. Moreover, we were
operated, and discussed any policy matters that they
struck by the absence of an integrated view of the
had under discussion. The agencies were the
funding of individuals within the UK biomedical
Wellcome Trust, BHF, MRC, BBSRC, CR-UK,
field. Given the importance of this research area
AMRC and the Royal Society. We also contacted a
to the UK academic and industrial infrastructure,
number of other charities and funding agencies over
there is a surprising lack of strategic information
specific issues.
on the numbers of individuals funded at the
various levels in this system. Many people spoke
Summary of findings from funding
about ‘the pyramid’ model that defined the career
agency meetings
path of researchers in the biomedical sciences, yet
we found that some funding agencies could not
Fellowships in the context of career structures
easily provide statistics that defined their
contribution to the different levels of the pyramid.
The biomedical charities, research councils and
It would seem desirable to have a UK overview
the Royal Society fund a spectrum of personal
of this pyramid shape, the reasons for it and the
awards at the postgraduate and post-doctoral
pressures on it.
levels, and at the three major levels of fellowships:
early, mid- and late career. Smaller charities in the
The why of fellowships
biomedical sector often concentrate on one of
these activities - sometimes at the fellowship level.
Some agencies had a clear view of why they fund
All funding agencies believed that their fellowships
personal awards at the fellowship level, while
were highly prestigious and much valued.
others appeared to be much less clear. The
What is the shape of the ‘career pyramid’ in UK academic personal research awards - and why?
39
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
reasons given by the former varied from general
The how of fellowships
capacity building in the biosciences, to the wish of
some smaller medical charities and patient groups
Funding agencies such as CR-UK declared that
to attract good scientists to research their disease
they had made it their policy not to present
of interest. Sometimes a mix of strategic planning
individuals with a view of their fellowships as a
and sheer quality of applicant influenced the
career path. Rather, CR-UK had accepted that a
funding agency’s portfolio, as in the case of the
fellowship appointment was a career opportunity.
BHF, which had a defined geographical strategy
The Royal Society’s fellowship programme was
within the UK but also supported individuals.
also designed to present career opportunities to
There was a view that medical charities might
exceptional scientists. The MRC appeared to
fund fellowships out of habit. AMRC’s view was
view its fellowship programme as a career
that the habit was changing and that charities
pathway rather than as a career opportunity, even
were questioning the reason why they were
though the progression route was a very steep
continuing to use fellowships as a method of
pyramid. Most funding agencies allowed some
funding research. We sometimes noted a variety
possibility of renewal of the award. The BBSRC,
of opinions within the funding agencies as to the
however, was clear that one focus of a David
overall philosophies they adopted to fellowships.
Phillips Fellowship was to facilitate a permanent
Some staff held the view that the best scientists
position in academia or industry. Its staff were
will come to the top, come what may. Others in
satisfied that the length of the appointment fitted
the same agency had rather more enlightened
the purpose of the award.
views on their responsibilities to the system and,
in particular, towards the treatment and training
The length of a fellowship appointment depended
of post-doctoral researchers (the early career
on the purpose of the award and, although they
fellowship ‘feeder layer’). The development of
were constantly under review, many agencies
scientists in their early post-doctoral years is
were satisfied that the award lengths were
critical if we are to ensure that the best scientists
currently about right.
do enter these fellowship cohorts. In the same
context, some identified a need to ensure that
Funding agencies varied as to whether they
senior scientists with fellowships take seriously
maintained a specific fellowship (and/or studentship
their responsibilities to staff in their own groups.
or training) committee, or merely brought
committees together for selection or interviewing.
Concentration of resource for added value, versus
It was noticeable that those with dedicated
a completely responsive pattern, influenced
committees (or a core membership) often, but not
agencies to differing extents. The BHF saw that
always, used this structure to assess, mentor and
their personal awards at the highest level (BHF
provide feedback to the fellows, as well as to
Professors) allowed them to build infrastructure
monitor the statistics and outputs of the schemes.
and capacity around these individuals, hence
enabling their objectives of excellence in heart
Assessment of fellows and fellowships
disease research and medical care. The Wellcome
Trust Centres, and the natural concentration of
Most of the agencies we spoke to were in a
many of their fellows into the highly funded
process of either assessing their fellowship
universities, provided similar examples. CR-UK
schemes, or considering such an assessment.
had developed policies to deal with the career
There appeared to be a number of drivers for this
development of its fellows both within CR-UK
assessment (including financial, ‘about time’ and
Institutes and in universities. A general point
‘effectiveness’ issues, and mergers). An
made by many agencies was that capacity
in-depth review of BHF research funding was
building was part of their science strategy. The
conducted about 3 years ago, and one of the key
need to populate areas quickly, and to re-populate
themes that emerged from that review was a need
important but unfashionable areas, gives the
for emphasis on individuals. CR-UK completely
targeted fellowship an important role.
reviewed its fellowship schemes after the
40
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
formation of the charity from the Imperial Cancer
fellows by most agencies, sometimes formally,
Research Fund and Cancer Research Campaign a
sometimes informally.
few years ago. The staff presented a very coherent
view of the philosophies behind their schemes,
Relationships with host HEIs
and what they wanted from fellows. They had
also developed new guidelines on renewals and
The relationship with HEIs was a major issue for
on the management of fellows both inside and
all funding agencies. In general, the agencies
outside their own institutes.
confirmed our conclusion that widespread
differences in attitude and management exist
The pattern of holding, publishing and using
between universities, and even between
year-by-year statistics on fellowship numbers
departments within the same university. Getting
varied widely between the funding agencies, as
universities in general, and some in particular, to
did the reporting and assessment requested (and
take more responsibility for the careers of fellows
obtained!) by the different funders from their
was a major issue for nearly all funding agencies.
fellows and HEIs. We were surprised by the
We found that most agencies echoed our views on
general lack of full statistical data on fellowship
the need for better partnerships and how to
awards, progression and subsequent career paths.
achieve these, possibly through more explicit
All agencies maintained some record of the
financial commitments. It was recognised that a
gender balance of candidates and awards. The
few UK centres of excellence provided such a
Royal Society, BHF and CR-UK track all the
rich environment for researchers that, even if
individuals they fund, but the data is not
subsequent relocation to a permanent position
published. We found that the BBSRC provided a
elsewhere was inconvenient, the opportunity to
very complete set of data on its fellowship
work in one of these institutions during the
schemes from its establishment in 1995, coupled
fellowship period made the experience
with a detailed analysis of the first career
worthwhile. It could, however, be made much
destinations of the fellows.
more worthwhile if all HEIs adopted transparent
best practice while the fellows were in the
The level of connection between the funding
institutions.
agency and the fellow during the award varied
enormously. Some agencies, such as CR-UK and
The fellow’s responsibilities
BBSRC, provided a mentor for their early career
fellows and regular residential networking
The responsibility of the fellows to attend to their
meetings. The Wellcome Trust also held annual
own career development was raised by many in
meetings for its fellows. In addition to personal
funding agencies and echoed our committee
contact, some agencies required a formal annual
discussions. While there was much good practice
report which was assessed by the fellowship
identified and examples of individual excellence,
committee. BBSRC fellows were required to
there was also an underlying lack of attention
submit annual reports and to attend a mid-term
among fellows to this issue. The fact that many
review, with feedback provided on both. This
fellows saw their fellowship as an escape from
form of monitoring did lead to action: both
involvement in university teaching, administration
BBSRC and CR-UK had withdrawn awards
and training was worrying. Even more surprising
during the fellowship period. MRC held
to us were the examples of fellows who refused
meetings for its fellows and used final reports
the training offered by their funding agencies and
only to the secretariat. Some funding agencies
HEI, and even refused to give assistance to those
obtained less than 50% of the requested final
agencies in terms of committee membership and
reports from their fellows. Given that these are
refereeing.
personal awards designed for career development,
these would seem to be important outcome
Confounding factors
measures. The possibility (and likelihood) of
renewal of the fellowship was discussed with
The medical charities, with their different objectives,
41
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
have the potential to energise and renew the UK
The funding agencies were aware of a changing
fellowship system. We detected a view that many
environment that might affect the pattern of
of the confounding issues that could inhibit
fellowship funding. fEC of grant awards, the OST
continued fellowship support were issues for OST
Academic Fellowships introduced after the
and the HEFCs, not for the charities. The
Roberts’ review and EU employment directive
responsibility of the medical charities to fund
legislation, were all on the horizon. Many felt that
medical research rather than universities, versus
fEC was the right way to go and there may be
the responsibility of government and government
inevitable impacts on fellowships. However, none
agencies to fund both, was a point often raised by
described definite plans to deal with these issues
many of those we consulted.
yet.
42
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Appendix 3 - Academy of Medical Sciences Academic
Careers Committee (non-clinical) membership
Professor Keith Gull CBE FRS FMedSci
Professor Barry Furr OBE FMedSci
(Chairman)
Chief Scientist and Head of Project Evaluation,
Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and Professor of
AstraZeneca plc, Macclesfield
Molecular Microbiology,
University of Oxford
Professor Gillian Griffiths FMedSci
Wellcome Trust Senior Fellow and Professor of
Dr Andrea Brand FMedSci
Experimental Pathology,
Director of Research in Developmental Neurobiology,
University of Oxford
University of Cambridge
Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell FRS FMedSci
Professor Richard Denton FRS FMedSci
Pro-Vice-Chancellor,
Professor of Biochemistry and Former Dean of Medical and
University of Manchester
Veterinary Science,
University of Bristol
Professor Patrick Vallance FMedSci
Registrar of the Academy; Head, Division of Medicine,
Dr Anne Donaldson
University College London and Chairman,
Royal Society University Research Fellow and Senior
Academy of Medical Sciences Academic Careers
Lecturer,
Committee (clinical)
University of Aberdeen
Secretariat
Dr Darrell Evans
Ms Emma Bennett
Senior Lecturer in Anatomy,
Academic Careers Officer
Brighton and Sussex Medical School
43
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
44
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
Appendix 4 - List of those consulted during the review
Professor Colin Blakemore FRS FMedSci,
Dr Ian Lyne,
Chief Executive,
Head of Postgraduate Training and Fellowships,
Medical Research Council
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council
Professor Mary Bownes,
Head of Studentships and Fellowships,
Mrs Brenda Mortimer MBE,
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Head of Council Secretariat and Liaison Branch,
Council
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council
Dr Joan Box,
Clinical Research Strategy Liaison Manager,
Dr Sohaila Rastan FMedSci,
Medical Research Council
Director of Science Funding,
The Wellcome Trust
Professor Sir Richard Brook,
Director
Dr Frances Rawle,
Leverhulme Trust
Head, Research Career Awards,
Medical Research Council
Mrs Jean Cater,
Early Career Fellowships,
Professor David Read FRS,
Leverhulme Trust
Biological Secretary and Vice-President,
The Royal Society
Dr Diana Dunstan,
Director of Research Management,
Professor Ian Roberts,
Medical Research Council
Faculty of Life Sciences,
University of Manchester
Ms Diana Garnham,
Chief Executive,
Professor Robert Souhami CBE FMedSci,
The Association of Medical Research Charities
Director of Clinical Research and Training,
Cancer Research UK
Ms Bryony Gill,
Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe,
Professor John Tooke FMedSci,
University of Leeds
Dean,
Peninsula Medical School
Ms Clare Glen,
Head, Research Support Section,
Dr Mark Walport FMedSci,
The Royal Society
Director,
The Wellcome Trust
Sir Charles George FMedSci,
Formerly Medical Director,
Dr Tanya Whitfield,
British Heart Foundation
Department of Biomedical Science,
University of Sheffield
Dr Candace Hassall,
Scientific Programme Manager, Basic Sciences,
Dr Sally Woodward,
The Wellcome Trust
Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Physiological
Sciences streams,
Dr Fiona Hemsley, Head of Institutes and Personal
The Wellcome Trust
Awards Funding,
Cancer Research UK
We were given much assistance, advice and information
by formal and informal contact with academic and
Professor Raymond Hill FMedSci,
administrative staff at many Higher Education
Executive Director, Department of Licensing and External
Institutes, Regional Development Agencies and at the
Higher Education Funding Council for England and
Research
the Scottish Funding Councils for Further and Higher
Merck Sharp and Dohme
Education.
45
T h e F r e e d o m t o S u c c e e d
The Academy of Medical Sciences
10 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AH
Tel: 020 7969 5288
Fax: 020 7969 5298
Email: apollo@acmedsci.ac.uk
Web: www.acmedsci.ac.uk
Date of publication: July 2005
