Medical Research Funding
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07869, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the future of medical research funding in Scotland remains strong. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament understands that, for the last 100 years, the Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded research that has led to improvements in human health, boosted the economy, established jobs and sustained a competitive environment for world-class medical research in Scotland; welcomes its centenary and celebrates what it sees as the excellent research carried out by scientists in the universities and hospitals that the MRC supports; notes that, in 2012-13, the MRC awarded £74.7 million to scientists, £9.8 million of which was spent on research studentships; understands that it is currently providing £2.7 million in grants to the University of St Andrews and £45,609 to the University of Stirling, and notes that six of Scotland’s universities, including the University of St Andrews, are sharing £20 million of MRC funding to help establish a UK health informatics research centre, the Farr Institute, which is due to be operational by April 2014, will have centres in Dundee, London, Manchester and Swansea and will aim to bring together expertise in health and social and computer science from 19 universities across the UK.
17:02
I thank all the members who signed my motion in order to allow it to be debated this evening and I welcome to the gallery visitors who have an interest in medical research and science.
For 100 years, the Medical Research Council has played a vital role in the development of medical research. The MRC was established in 1913, with its main role being the distribution of medical research funds under the terms of the National Insurance Act 1911. Since then, its role has expanded greatly and last year it oversaw the distribution of nearly £770 million of funding, of which nearly £75 million was spent here in Scotland.
The Medical Research Council is a United Kingdom Government institution that operates alongside seven other research councils helping to distribute funding throughout universities in the UK. Funding from the MRC also supports development of future research leaders: in 2012-13, £9.8 million of funding won in Scotland was spent on research studentships.
MRC research has led to improvements in human health, boosted the economy, established jobs and sustained a competitive environment for world-class medical research in Scotland. The council supports 12 major partnerships with universities, the chief scientist office, UK charities and other research councils. In Scotland, institutions supported by the MRC include the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee, and the Farr institute, which will have representatives from the universities of Dundee, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, St Andrews and Strathclyde, as well as from NHS Scotland.
The number of scientific discoveries uncovered thanks to MRC funding are too numerous to mention, but there are a few that deserve proper recognition. Alexander Fleming, one of our greatest Scots, discovered penicillin while receiving funding from the Medical Research Council; of course, he went on to win a Nobel prize in medicine for that achievement. Other noted feats while working with MRC funding include Sir Edward Mallenby’s discovery of the dietary cause for rickets and the 1962 uncovering of the structure of DNA.
Hundreds of vital life-changing scientific discoveries have been unearthed by scientists and researchers using MRC funding. The importance of that institution must not be underestimated and is highlighted by the fact that 29 scientists working on MRC projects have won Nobel prizes, including eight since 2001.
In the past year, MRC scientists have made some remarkable discoveries. At the University of Dundee, an MRC research study discovered that an inexpensive drug that is used for treating gout holds promise for preventing heart disease and stroke. Researchers at the MRC centre for regenerative medicine at the University of Edinburgh discovered that leprosy bacteria have the ability to hide inside cells of the nervous system and reprogramme them to take on the properties of stem cells. That finding increases our understanding of how leprosy spreads, and it could also help scientists to improve the safety and use of lab-produced stem cells, paving the way for new treatments to repair and replace damaged tissue. Hugely important discoveries are being made in the field of human health thanks to MRC funding.
The life sciences sector makes a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. As of 2012, 15 per cent of UK life science institutions were based in Scotland, resulting in an economic contribution of £1.5 billion gross value added annually and a turnover of £3.1 billion. The MRC also collaborates with the private sector to commercialise research findings, secure income from patent royalties and create spin-out companies and well-paid jobs.
Looking at the wider research council picture, I note that Scotland punches well above its weight. UK research council funding is allocated on the basis of excellence through a competitive peer review process regardless of where in the UK it takes place. As part of the UK, Scotland’s well-developed and high-performing research base means that Scottish research institutions have traditionally performed strongly. Last year, Scotland secured £307 million or 10.7 per cent of the UK total of all research council funding—above what our population share would entitle us to. That demonstrates how well our Scottish universities are doing and the excellence of the research that they are producing.
When I lodged the motion for debate, I had no idea that it would end up being debated today. Today’s white paper launch is, of course, a significant milestone in the Scottish independence referendum debate and it would be remiss of me in a debate entitled “The Future of Medical Research in Scotland Remains Strong” not to consider the issue of research funding in an independent Scotland.
National Governments fund national research. Although UK research councils support international projects, they generally provide funding only to researchers in UK institutions. In the event of independence, the Government of an independent Scottish state would become responsible for deciding how much to spend on research activity and how to distribute research funding.
I do not want to misquote the member, but he said that states primarily fund research within their own borders. How does he square that with the UK’s recent arrangement for a large amount of co-operation with Switzerland over social science research?
The minister is entirely right to say that collaborative programmes are taking place, but the total sums involved are much smaller than the sums that are spent nationally. For example, in the situation in Scandinavia, which is oft quoted by the minister and his colleagues as an example of the pooling of research funds, the total sum involved is £13 million annually, compared with the £300 million that is spent in Scotland alone. The difference in scale is substantial.
I read with interest the section in the white paper on research councils, which states:
“With independence, we would intend to negotiate with the Westminster Government a fair funding formula for Scotland’s contribution based on population share but taking reasonable account of the fact that the amount of research funding received by Scottish institutions may reflect higher or lower levels of funding.”
I have read and re-read that sentence, and I am still none the wiser as to what it means. Perhaps the minister could explain in his speech exactly what it means and answer the crucial point, which is the one that people in the sector want to know the answer to—in the event of Scottish independence, will current levels of research funding in medical research and other areas be maintained, go up or go down? That is the crucial point, and the answer needs to be made clear.
During its first century, the MRC has been at the forefront of international medical research and has contributed to some of the most significant discoveries in human history. I hope that Scotland, whatever our constitutional future, will continue to benefit from MRC funding and enjoy being part of the MRC’s next century of life-changing research.
17:09
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing it. I also congratulate the Medical Research Council on its centenary, and I acknowledge the important work that it has done over the years, and the valuable contribution that it will continue to make to science and understanding in the future.
Murdo Fraser has given a good description of the history and operation of the MRC and he noted its importance in the discovery of penicillin. I was also particularly interested in his comments on the progress in the treatment and prevention of heart attacks and strokes through the use of a common gout medicine.
The motion refers to, among other things, the University of St Andrews. As members will all know, the University of St Andrews in my constituency is the oldest university in Scotland, and is currently celebrating its 600th anniversary. It has achieved a world-class reputation through the highest standards of teaching, student satisfaction and world-class research. Indeed, researchers at the University of St Andrews have led world research in science and humanities for many years. As we speak, researchers at the school of biology at the University of St Andrews are working with colleagues in India to develop the first vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease, an epidemic of which led to the mass slaughter of livestock only a few years ago, and which has cost Scotland’s farming community hundreds of millions of pounds in the past decade. The hand, foot-and-mouth viral infection is particularly dangerous to young children, so progress towards a vaccine should be warmly welcomed.
The medical school at the University of St Andrews is highly respected and has produced countless celebrated alumni over the years, notwithstanding the fact that the university does not have the facility to be an end-to-end teaching hospital. Edward Jenner, who pioneered the smallpox vaccine, and Margaret Fairlie, who was the first woman to hold a professorial position in Scotland in the early 20th century, are alumni.
The University of St Andrews has, of course, received MRC funding. Eight awards have been made since 2010, largely for research into combating infection, alongside genetics and the immune system. As Murdo Fraser’s motion highlights, the University of St Andrews is receiving a £2.7 million package of on-going support from the MRC, and will share £20 million of funding from the MRC towards the establishment of the Farr institute, the health informatics research institute that will see the collaboration of 19 universities across these islands, including six in Scotland. The Scottish effort will be co-ordinated from Dundee, just over the Tay bridge from my constituency, and a short journey from the University of St Andrews. I welcome the establishment of the Farr institute and the sharing of expertise in the fields of health, social science, technology and medicine, and I look forward to the establishment of the facilities and the organisational structure that will emerge.
As the Farr institute demonstrates, successful research depends on the co-operation of different institutions. I do not, however, believe that research should be considered in purely national terms. Research can be carried out nationally and internationally. National boundaries are no barrier to co-operation in the 21st century when instantaneous communication and the sharing of data connect people in almost every corner of the globe. Funding tends to move towards institutions that have a record of success, as the University of St Andrews demonstrates.
Funding comes from a variety of sources. For example, the MRC receives a lot of funding from the charity Medical Research Foundation, and other funding that is enjoyed by Scottish institutions comes from business, charity, the European Union and Government. In that connection, it is worth noting the 38 per cent increase in investment by the Scottish Government in research and knowledge exchange activities since it came to office in 2007. Murdo Fraser should therefore rest assured that research is safe in the hands of the Scottish Government.
Once again, I thank Murdo Fraser for securing the debate and congratulate the MRC on its centenary.
17:13
I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing this important subject to today’s members’ business debate.
I welcome the time and effort that has been put into contributing funding for medical research in Scotland because I believe that it advances our medical knowledge and technology, thereby contributing to the maintenance and importance of human health and wellbeing.
The MRC has funded research that has led to faster and more effective ways of medical research so that it can flourish at all stages—from working to understand fundamental science without having specific health questions in mind, to tackling some of the most pressing health issues that face society today.
The MRC has created and established jobs and sustained a competitive environment for world-class medical research in Scotland, which has boosted our economy and put Scotland on the medical world map. In particular I would like to mention the MRC’s strategic investment of £28 million investment in the centre for virus research in the University of Glasgow—my home town. The centre is to train scientists to tackle the health problems posed by viruses now and in the future. It has a strong collaborative network with scientists in Edinburgh, St Andrews and the rest of the UK and has produced very valuable findings. We are proud of the MRC’s achievements and wish it well in the future. I hope that it will continue its investments in Scotland.
I need to respond to a couple of comments that have been made about the future. If there is an independent Scotland, where will the research money come from, if not the UK? If there is not independence, the minister does not need to worry about that, but I would be interested to hear his answer in any case, if he has the opportunity to give it.
17:16
I congratulate the MRC on its centenary, which marks a hundred years that the MRC can reflect on with considerable pride. It is a shared history: one of close collaboration between the nations of these islands, which has a future that will continue post independence.
The funding of research is an important issue; it is important enough to have three pages dedicated to it in “Scotland’s Future”, the document that was published today, so to that extent I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. That said, it was wrong for him to make the assertion that he made—predictable though it was. Members should not just take my word for it. As Universities Scotland’s convener Professor Pete Downes stated, the research and innovation collaborative ecosystem “transcends all borders”, and it is in everyone’s interests that
“vigorous cross border collaboration is supported to continue whatever the result of the referendum.”
Tim O’Shea, principal of the University of Edinburgh, said that
“there is no reason why any form of constitutional change should preclude participation in higher order research councils.”
Professor Ian Diamond, principal of the University of Aberdeen, has stated that he
“can’t see it’s in the interests of anyone in the rest of the UK to want to exclude Scotland, nor is it in the interest of Scotland to be excluded from collaboration.”
As far as I am aware, none of those views has been expressed by people who are known to be partisan on the issue of independence. Rather, they come from academics who have taken a pragmatic and practical look at the situation.
Listening to Murdo Fraser, I had a vision of Private Frazer of “Dad’s Army” proclaiming “We’re a’ doomed!” I will resist the temptation to deploy Captain Mainwaring’s withering put-down of Private Pike by way of response to Murdo Fraser’s contribution.
The situation with medical research is rather like the situation with energy. We have a UK-wide grid network through which Scotland ensures that the lights remain on in the rest of these islands. Under devolution, Scotland exports electricity 365 days a year to England and Northern Ireland. That will continue post independence—we will not see them plunged into darkness. As good neighbours, we will collaborate because it makes sense to do so. In the same way, integrated and collaborative medical research will continue to be done, just as it is at present, between the UK and other countries, because that is the best thing—the right thing—to do.
Is Murdo Fraser really predicting that those who have devoted their lives to finding cures for debilitating or life-threatening conditions would be party to undermining the quest for those cures just because Scotland votes for independence? That is—to be frank—daft. There will be a refreshed relationship but, generally speaking, in practical terms little would change.
At the moment, public funding for university research across the UK is delivered through block grants from the funding councils of each country, which are paid for through devolved budgets, along with competitively awarded grants from the UK’s shared research councils, which are funded through taxation. Post independence, the Government will seek to continue the common research area approach, albeit that we would, instead of paying our share through UK tax take, negotiate a share based on population percentage that takes account of the level of research funding coming to Scotland. I certainly had no problem understanding that section of “Scotland’s Future”.
To be fair, there is a degree of uncertainty for research. The Government is supportive of the European Commission’s ambition for “A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth”, which would see researchers, research institutions and businesses engage better across borders.
Were we to remain in the UK, we might conceivably, by virtue of the Tories’ plans for an in/out referendum on EU membership, find ourselves on the outside looking in as that sensible approach is developed. That is perhaps something for people in the research community to think about as they ponder how to cast their vote in next year’s referendum.
I conclude by pointing out that today’s debate takes place on the day that the cancer mortality in Scotland statistics for 2012 were released. They show that, over the past 10 years, cancer mortality has fallen by around 11 per cent. A number of things have contributed to that decrease, not least of which is the research into cancer that is being conducted around the world, throughout Europe and across the UK. Right at the heart of that has been the work that is done at Ninewells hospital by Professor Alastair Thompson of the University of Dundee’s clinical research centre.
When I and my Dundee-based colleagues Joe FitzPatrick and Shona Robison visit that centre next month to see for ourselves the progress that is being made in tackling the scourge of cancer, we will do so with an eye to the future, rather than to the present or the past, and with the understanding that the work that is being done in Dundee will continue—and, indeed, flourish—following a yes vote next year.
17:20
It is very clear indeed that these days, in a world in which global competition among universities is intensifying by the day, individual institutions are increasingly judged—not just by their students and staff, but by the outside world—on the quality of their research facilities and on how well advanced they are in promoting collaborative thinking and in being able to develop knowledge exchange. That is a slightly different issue from funding.
We are rightly celebrating the centenary of the Medical Research Council, which has made such extraordinary provision throughout the UK, including in Scotland’s universities and teaching hospitals. Over its life, the Medical Research Council has supported no fewer than 29 Nobel prize winners and has ensured that many of our Scottish institutions have been at the cutting edge of scientific and technological developments.
The Haldane principle, which has underpinned the funding arrangements since 1918, has ensured that while remaining a publicly funded body the council can operates at arm’s length from the Government, so that scientific decisions can be made on an independent basis and according to criteria that will reap the biggest returns from medical research that is directed at improving health outcomes. That principle has formed the basis for the council’s current strategic direction, which comprises four aspects: identifying the research that delivers the best return; ensuring that more people can access the benefits of research; helping the UK to compete globally; and providing the best support to individual scientists.
What happens in medical research not only has major implications for the ability of our universities, hospitals and related centres to attract top-class students and staff. It also has direct effects on the local economy—and on the national economy—and the creation of jobs. Universities in all their guises contribute £6.3 billion to the economy and somewhere in the region of 142,000 jobs. A very high percentage of that relates to medicine and related sciences—probably somewhere in the region of £96 million.
The fact that Scotland has been able to punch so well above her weight in receiving funding from the research councils tells its own story. Over the past few years, on average Scotland has received around 13 per cent of research funding, despite the fact that it has around 8.5 per cent of the UK’s population. For medical research funding, the figure has been closer to 17 per cent. That represents a significant sum of money, but it is also a sign of the distinguished reputation that Scotland enjoys, especially for medical research.
For 100 years, Scotland has been richly rewarded for pioneering research that has been done in the name of outstanding medical scientists, including Professor Sir David Lane, and for being in the forefront of institutional developments, such as the £10 million new facility at Glasgow’s Southern general hospital, where we are leading the fight against diabetes, rheumatology and cardiovascular disease. That strength comes from the large and highly integrated UK research base, which has afforded sizeable economies of scale and the opportunity for collaboration across international boundaries.
Following today’s publication of the Scottish Government’s white paper, the people of Scotland will need to study the facts on both sides of the debate on a host of issues, of which university research funding is just one. Will an independent Scotland or the UK better safeguard the future of Scotland’s university research investment and provide the greatest success for bodies such as the MRC?
Last week, Professor Wolf, the director of medical research at the University of Dundee, threw doubt on an independent Scotland, but other academics say that perhaps things would be better in an independent Scotland. The public have to make a judgment on that—that is what the debate is all about. I urge the Government to think carefully about the implications for the actual source of funding. The issue is not just about collaboration and scientific investigation; it is also about funding. We have to listen carefully to what academics are saying about where the money will come from.
It is important that we celebrate 100 years of the Medical Research Council, which has done a fantastic job. It has a distinguished 100-year history, and it will continue to be one of the strongest building blocks for the future.
17:25
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Medical Research Council on funding 100 years of life-changing discoveries.
Everyone is aware of the important work that is being undertaken across the spectrum of medical research in Scotland’s universities and specialist research centres. It ranges from world-class cutting-edge scientific research, such as that conducted by the centre for regenerative medicine at the University of Edinburgh, to research that examines broader issues, such as the study of social and environmental influences on health that is taking place in the social and public health sciences unit, which is based in the University of Glasgow.
Those are but two examples of a range of outstanding medical research. Much of the work is funded by the public sector, and a significant proportion of that funding comes from the MRC. That funding, along with direct funding from the Scottish Government and from charitable organisations—not least, the Wellcome Trust—is attracted to Scotland because of the world-class researchers who have chosen to live and work here and to utilise the world-class facilities that we have in, and can attract to, our universities and research centres. As Murdo Fraser’s motion notes, the funding figures in the area of medical research are impressive. As in many other areas of intellectual and applied research, in the domain of medical research Scotland’s universities certainly punch above their weight.
As Murdo Fraser said, on the day on which the Scottish Government’s comprehensive prospectus for Scotland under independence has been published, it would be remiss of us not to respond to those who question the future of world-class medical research in our universities and research centres in an independent Scotland.
Opponents of independence ask us to believe that the world-class research and our world-class researchers will simply cease to attract research awards from the current UK-wide research councils, including the MRC, the day after independence. We are asked to believe that those research councils, whose commitment is to fund the medical research that is most likely to deliver critical results and save lives, will for some reason decide to turn their backs on some of the world’s best researchers and research institutions regardless of the costs that that would impose on those whose lives could be transformed by the work. Moreover, by doing so, the councils would be opting to write off many years of investment in contributing to the excellence that those research centres now demonstrate. That is simply not a credible argument and just does not stack up.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I would like to continue.
Research in all areas, and most certainly medical research, is about excellence and collaboration. The best world-class research projects cross boundaries, whether those boundaries are disciplinary, linguistic, institutional or national. With independence, the Scottish Government will seek to maintain a common research area with the rest of the UK, including shared research councils, access to facilities and peer review to the benefit of Scotland and the rest of the UK. Crucially, that will benefit those whose futures depend on the research that is undertaken in our universities as well as those further afield in the UK, in our EU partner countries and across continents, as research increasingly becomes truly internationalised.
My view is that the most significant threat to the excellence of our university research, in medicine as in many other areas, is not independence but the increasingly restrictive immigration policy of the Tory-led Westminster Government, which is already seriously undermining the ability of our universities and leading research institutes to attract world-class talent to Scotland to pursue research. That—not independence—is the real threat to Scotland’s research capacity.
Once again, I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing forward the issue for debate. I also congratulate the MRC on the vital role that it has played in the past 100 years, and I look forward to the next 100 years of its work.
17:29
As others have done, I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing the motion to the chamber. I also congratulate the MRC on 100 years of a job well done—I am sure that it will have another 100 years to excel in what it does.
It is worth while talking about the environment in Scotland under which the MRC operates. Five of Scotland’s higher education institutions are in the top 200 institutions in the world. That is the equivalent of how Japan performs with two and a half times Scotland’s population. Seven of Scotland’s universities are in the top 50 worldwide. That places Scotland 50 per cent above the average for research citations every year globally. Indeed, we are ranked first relative to our gross domestic product. That is a remarkable performance.
I hear that the MRC gives Scotland approximately 14 per cent of available moneys vis-à-vis 8.5 per cent of the population. That is clearly based on the size and excellence of the research base that exists in Scotland. It is not a pat on the head for Scotland; it is a toughly fought-for, toughly competed-for and well-won research shilling. I was at the science in Parliament event at Our Dynamic Earth recently and spoke informally to some MRC people. They made it clear to me that they award funding based on excellence and potential for results, and nothing else.
Collaborative working represents the real opportunities irrespective of Scotland’s constitutional situation. I will say a little more about the UK’s extending collaborative work and the Swiss National Science Foundation’s partnership deal with the UK, which will mean that, on one application form, Swiss institutions can get up to 30 per cent of all research funding.
I have a quote from Paul Boyle, the gentleman in charge of the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK, in relation to that deal:
“Opening up national project funding to international co-investigators is a simple and effective way of encouraging such collaboration and I am therefore pleased to sign this joint statement, which I hope ... will be the first of several with other sister agencies internationally.”
In other words, that is the direction of travel for the UK, and I have no doubt that it will be the direction of travel in partnership with Scotland once we are independent.
On international collaborative working, we also have the European horizons 2020 project, which makes €70 billion available for research and development. A prerequisite of getting that funding is three member states of the European Union signing up to apply for it. Given the close relationship, partnerships and collaborative work that already exist between Scottish higher education institutions and others elsewhere in the UK, with independence we would only have to find one final partner to get a larger slice of that €70 billion R and D budget. That means that independence could make it easier for research funding.
One of the points that Bob Doris is missing is that we might not be in the European Union and, therefore, not qualify for such a partnership. That is an issue.
I am sorry that Mr Malik would rather play politics than discuss the fine work of the MRC. I point out that the only danger to Scotland’s membership of the European Union is staying in a UK that might leave it. No one has suggested that an independent Scotland would leave the EU, unless Mr Malik is the lone voice suggesting that.
I will tell members about a huge opportunity for the MRC in future: the loosening of the restrictive visa policy in the UK. That is one way of creating opportunity, but there is no sign of it happening just now. I am sure that an independent Scotland would take a much more proactive view.
Mr Malik and I were in Kurdistan during the summer. While I was there, I met the Kurdish minister for health. He told me that he and his civil servants were unable to get visas to come to the UK and, as a result, Kurdistan has signed a partnership deal with Germany as a European Union partner on medical advancement and the training of doctors. I am sure that the MRC could have sealed the deal in relation to that project, but restrictive practices at a UK level prevented that from happening.
This is not a debate about independence, but I point out to Murdo Fraser and others that the MRC will revel in the additional possibilities and the potential that independence will bring. I look forward to that happening in the near future.
17:35
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate, which has provided us with a timely opportunity to celebrate Scotland’s long-standing contribution to the world of medical research.
The commitment of all who carry out that research in Scotland has, of course, immeasurably improved the health of people in Scotland and internationally. Mr Fraser mentioned distinguished recipients of research funding, including Sir Alexander Fleming. The MRC supported him as it has, over the years, supported many others at some point during their careers. I am sure that we would all wish to join in not only celebrating the MRC’s centenary but recognising its continuing significant investment in Scotland.
In addition to the many remarkable examples of research that have been cited in the course of this evening, I would like to mention a few more that I feel merit recognition. In doing so, I recognise that Mr Campbell mentioned the Farr institute and highlighted that research transcends all boundaries, whether those boundaries are those of Scotland or the UK, as was noted by Bob Doris and others.
It is invidious to pick out only a few examples of successful research in Scotland, but the Scottish Government’s chief scientist office enjoys an enduring and productive partnership with the MRC. The two organisations have for many years co-funded two research units—one in the area of hearing and the other in social and public health sciences—and, in 2008, jointly established the Scottish collaboration for public health research and policy. Of course, the current MRC chief executive officer, Professor Sir John Savill, was also the Scottish Government’s health directorate’s chief scientist in recent years.
Beyond those close collaborations, we also recognise the success of the nine additional MRC-funded centres and institutes across Scotland, including the protein phosphorylation unit in Dundee, the centre for virus research in Glasgow and the centre for regenerative medicine in Edinburgh, mentioned already, which hosts an impressive seven MRC-funded centres.
The MRC also takes the lead on a number of funding initiatives involving many key partners in health research funding, covering areas such as prevention research, lifelong health and wellbeing, infection research and, more recently, health informatics.
Its ability to pull together funding organisations into effective partnerships is to be commended, and, of course, it is important to remember the contribution of the NHS and charitable funders.
My colleague the Minister for Public Health recently announced the successful applicants for partnership funding with Alzheimer’s Research UK and Prostate Cancer UK, and made a call for applications in collaboration with muscular dystrophy charities.
Leading on from the success of those, the chief scientist office is now working with a number of other funders, including the Stroke Association, to develop similar partnerships that allow Scottish researchers to access more significant funds than each funder alone would be able to provide.
The debate has reflected the broad consensus on much that is in the motion. That said, the felicitous timing of the debate has meant that, inevitably, we have occasionally strayed into more contentious waters. I hope that it is not too uncharitable of me to wonder whether that was at least partly in Mr Fraser’s mind from the outset of the debate, even if he did not know when he lodged his motion on what date the debate would take place. However, even when we come to discuss the broader issues of research funding in the context of something as contentious as independence, there is more common ground than some speakers cared to acknowledge.
It is worth stressing that the funding that the MRC has invested in Scotland historically and at present is a clear recognition of the quality of our research in the sector. The fact that Scotland secures more than her population-based share of funding is a source of pride because, as Mr Fraser said, that funding is awarded on the basis of the excellence of the institutions and individuals concerned, regardless of where they are located. The grants are not acts of charity; they are recognitions of excellence.
Mr Malik asked where the money will come from to fund research councils in the future, given that it currently comes via the UK Government. I can answer that directly only by saying that the moneys will come from the same place as they ultimately come from now, which is in good share from Scottish taxpayers. With Scotland’s whole budget—as opposed to the share that is currently devolved—in Scotland’s hands, there will be nothing to stop Scotland paying into shared research councils.
The minister is absolutely right—the debate is not about whether there would or would not be research funding but about how much there would be. In the context of independence, we must debate whether we get a bigger share by being part of the UK and whether an independent Scotland would have difficulty in securing such an amount. That is confusing in the white paper.
The relevant section of the white paper is pretty unambiguous. It says that, with independence, the Government will ensure that levels of investment in university research are maintained at current levels at least. I cannot say what funding levels future UK Governments would allocate, but I can say that, if such decisions were made in this place rather than another place, they would be in our hands rather than somebody else’s hands.
It is important to add that none of that precludes the existence of shared research councils. The white paper, which was launched today at Glasgow science centre, outlines our vision of an independent Scotland that works closely with our neighbours. Given our competitive strengths and the many cross-border research collaborations and partnerships that exist, there are clear benefits—not just for us but for the wider medical research community—of maintaining a common research area with the rest of the UK.
I thank Mr Fraser again for this helpful debate. I add my congratulations to the MRC on 100 years of funding valuable research that has dramatically improved the lives of individuals not just in Scotland or the UK but across the world.
Meeting closed at 17:43.