Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature 453, 1150-1151 (2008) | doi:10.1038/4531150a
News
Payback time
The UK government has invested heavily in science. Now it's looking for a return, and some worry that the research councils are being pressured to deliver, possibly at the expense of 'blue skies' research. Geoff Brumfiel looks at the changing landscape of science funding in Britain.
British scientists have had it pretty good this past decade. Since 1998, government funding for the nation's seven research councils has nearly doubled in real terms to around £3 billion (US$5.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Several methodologies for assessing the impact of biomedical research after project completion have been derived. One of the most useful (appropriately enough) is the "payback" framework developed by Buxton and Hanney at the Health Economics Research Group at Brunel University.[1] The framework consists of a detailed questionnaire sent to principal investigators after completion of research projects seeking information on six aspects: a) knowledge production, b) use of research in the research system, c) use of research project findings in health system policy / decision making, d) application of the research findings through changed behaviour, e) factors influencing the utilisation of research, and f) health / health service / economic benefits. The payback framework was applied to over 200 completed health-related research projects supported by the Hong Kong Government in the period 1994-2003.[2] Researchers responding to the questionnaire reported that their research had generated outputs on a range of indices useful for estimating research impact. For example, the majority of researchers (>85%) reported research publications (mean of 5.4 publications per project), career advancement (34.3%), acquisition of higher qualifications (38.2%), use of results in policy making (35.4%), changed behaviour in light of the findings (49.4%), evidence of health service benefit (42.1%) and generation of subsequent research (44.9%). Payback outcomes were positively associated with the amount of funding awarded. Importantly, very few of the projects assessed generated direct economic benefit in terms of income from sale or licensing of intellectual property, which seems to be an important criteria in proposed future assessments. The benefit from investing in research can be calculated in ways other than income generated. The intangible benefits of health services research that would take the form of a healthier population creating economic benefit by increased productivity or by not taking time off work through ill health, should not be overlooked. The benefits obtained from other areas of research could be assessed in a similar way through appropriate modification of the payback questionnaire. Departments and individual researchers might benefit greatly from considering the "payback" method when assessing their own work in terms of quantifying the range of impacts their work has had and so justifying more clearly future applications for funding. References 1. Hanney S, Soper B, Buxton M: Evaluation of the NHS R & D Implementation Methods Programme. In: HSRG Research Report No. 29. Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK, 2003. 2. P Kwan, J Johnston, A Fung, D Chong, RA Collins, SV Lo. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Services Research 2007;7:121-147.