This Review sets out to propose a structure for the funding arrangements for the whole spectrum of health research, with the objective of obtaining the maximum benefit from research success and, where possible, eliminating duplication of effort. The Review found, however, that the UK is at risk of failing to reap the full economic, health and social benefits that the UK's public investment in health research should generate. There is no overarching UK health research strategy to ensure UK health priorities are considered through all types of research and there are two key gaps in the translation of health research: (i) translating ideas from basic and clinical research into the development of new products and approaches to treatment of disease and illness; (ii) implementing those new products and approaches into clinical practice.The Review also found that the wider funding arrangements for supporting translation of ideas from conception to practice could be more coherent or comprehensive and, where arrangements exist, they do not function well. The Review identified cultural, institutional and financial barriers to translating research into practice in the publicly funded research arena. But it also found that, in the private sector, the pharmaceuticals industry is facing increasing challenges in translating research into health and economic benefit. The Review has sought to make recommendations that will increase the translation of R&D into health and economic benefit for the UK, both in the public and private sectors. The Review recommends that the Government should seek to achieve better coordination of health research and more coherent funding arrangements to support translation by establishing an Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR).

This issue of the newsletter 'Research Matters' includes articles on modernising medical careers, Diabetes Research Public Symposium, UK health research funding, as well as final reports and funded research.

This report sets out the findings of a study funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to map the landscape of funding for research in work and health in the UK since 2015. This study responds to results of Health is everyone's business consultations by the DHSC and Department for Work and Pensions and aims to help all stakeholders better understand the existing work and health research funding landscape. Methodologically this study entailed desk research to identify and review publicly available databases and information requested from key funders, and semi-structured interviews with work and health researchers and funders. This report is likely of interest to research funders, researchers and policymakers as well as those working in research or healthcare provision related to work and health.

The Science and Technology Committee today agrees with, and commends, the scientific vision for the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, but expresses reservations about the project's location. It says the case for the centre's central London location near St Pancras station was not overwhelming and it could have been sited elsewhere. The advantages of co-location with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links, which the Committee accepts play a fundamental role in the centre's vision, come at a price: extra construction costs; a site incapable of expansion; and the concentration of medical sciences in the 'golden triangle' in the south of England. On the issue of funding, the Committee's concerns about the project's costs were assuaged by evidence from the Government that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management structure, the committee was told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. The Committee is sympathetic to the local community's concerns about the project, and recognises attempts made by the centre's management to engage with the local community, but says it is saddened that efforts have not been as successful as they might have been. One way some benefit could accrue back to the local community is to ensure that the land released from the National Temperance Hospital site (the original site intended for the UKCMRI) is used for housing, including social housing.

More than 95% of the £2 billion of public funding for medical research each year in the UK is allocated by peer review. Long viewed as a respected process of quality assurance for research, grant peer review has lately been criticised by a growing number of people within the scientific community and without. Detractors highlight its perceived inefficiency, and structural flaws that compromise its effectiveness in allocating funding. This report presents the findings of a wide-ranging literature review to evaluate these criticisms. It concludes with a short discussion of simple modifications to the peer review process that might help to address some of them. The research for the report was conducted with funding support from RAND Europe's Health R & D Policy Research Unit with the Department of Health (England). It is available in English only.

This report finds that the UK has an excellent research base but is still failing to maximise its potential by translating research into wealth and health. The road to economic recovery will depend, in part, on exploitation of the UK's research base, which in turn requires efficient translation to generate returns on investments. Some areas of bioengineering, such as stem cells, have clearly benefited from strong Government leadership and support, backed up by generous levels of funding from both the public and private sectors. Others, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, are less well supported and funded. This is curious when GM crops are considered by the Government to be safe and offer potential benefits. GM crops are certainly the poor cousin in the bioengineering family, and we strongly urge the Government to signal its support for GM crops as well as improving the regulatory situation in Europe. Regulation of bioengineering is complex and researchers have found that regulations inhibit research and translation, either because of regulatory complexity (stem cells) or a flawed operation of the regulatory process (GM crops). There are good indications that the UK is learning from past experiences in bioengineering when handling new emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology. The Government and Research Councils have recognised the value of synthetic biology early, and are providing funding. The Committee is also concerned that while research is well funded there is not enough forethought about synthetic biology translation, for example developing DNA synthesis capability, which would provide the UK with an excellent opportunity to get ahead internationally. If this is not addressed, synthetic biology runs the risk of becoming yet another story of the UK failing to capitalise on a strong research base and falling behind internationally.

The Cooksey Review ("A review of UK health research funding", ISBN 9780118404884), published in December 2006, was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine the best design and institutional arrangements for a new single funding system for UK health research. The Committee's report supports the decision by Sir David Cooksey to broaden his review beyond its original terms of reference to make wider recommendations for the UK health research framework, for example relating to healthcare treatment priorities, as well as outlining a number of tasks for the Office of Science and Innovation to address. The Review found that although good progress has been made in some areas, further work is needed to ensure that publicly-funded health research is carried out in the most effective and efficient way and to facilitate translation of research findings into health and economic benefits. Amongst its recommendations, the Review proposed that a new body should be established, the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR), as the central co-ordinating body for all health research carried out by the NHS and the Medical Research Council. The Committee raises some concerns that although the pharmaceutical sector is of great importance, allied health research such as medical engineering and technology, preventive and public health research should not be overlooked. It also calls on the OSCHR to operate as a light touch organisation that does not complicate the existing successful administrative mechanisms of the Medical Research Council. More information on the Cooksey Review can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/cooksey_review/cookseyreview_index.cfm

One of the tasks of the Committee has been to scrutinise the relevant, major appointments by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Based on a single evidence session, the aim has been: to satisfy Parliament that the post has been filled by someone of sufficient calibre; identify their views and principles; and alert them to the interests and concerns of the Committee. This report concerns Sir John Chisholm who was appointed as Chairman of the MRC in October 2006. The Committee have serious reservation as to whether he is the right person to guide the MRC Executive through the coming period of change.

In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments apply.