Thanks Tom. I did think there was some recognition of the system issue in the report and was relieved there wasn’t the usual undercurrent of off loading “admin” to HEIs as a way to make Government look better.
I would love to be proven wrong, and it could be I am overly pessimistic!
A few examples that concern me - the original review treated the (then new) Trusted Research regulations as sacrosanct, rather than engaging with whether they were proportionate, direct, and clear enough. In my view, compared to similar regimes around the world, they leave universities in a state of significant uncertainty and doubt - which results in increased bureaucracy.
Then the review was harsh against university legal teams (without research contracts teams) who marked up the NIHR standard contract - without considering whether this was because the NIHR standard contract contained unreasonable clauses that are difficult for universities to accept.
And the response says that NIHR already standardises where possible - giving an impression of 'job done'. I've not even seen anyone ask the question, or a justification from NIHR, of why NIHR have different terms and conditions to UKRI - which seems a simple yet dramatic way to slash research bureaucracy in the medium term.
I wasn't part of the conversations so it's almost certain I am missing info!
Thanks Tom. I did think there was some recognition of the system issue in the report and was relieved there wasn’t the usual undercurrent of off loading “admin” to HEIs as a way to make Government look better.
I would love to be proven wrong, and it could be I am overly pessimistic!
A few examples that concern me - the original review treated the (then new) Trusted Research regulations as sacrosanct, rather than engaging with whether they were proportionate, direct, and clear enough. In my view, compared to similar regimes around the world, they leave universities in a state of significant uncertainty and doubt - which results in increased bureaucracy.
Then the review was harsh against university legal teams (without research contracts teams) who marked up the NIHR standard contract - without considering whether this was because the NIHR standard contract contained unreasonable clauses that are difficult for universities to accept.
And the response says that NIHR already standardises where possible - giving an impression of 'job done'. I've not even seen anyone ask the question, or a justification from NIHR, of why NIHR have different terms and conditions to UKRI - which seems a simple yet dramatic way to slash research bureaucracy in the medium term.
I wasn't part of the conversations so it's almost certain I am missing info!