Faraday programme / Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
[1993], ©1993
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Faraday programme / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    9/152 (page 7)
    support of its own long term goals. The work carried out at the Centre would be exploited by the customer base of the host II. 2.5 The sphere of activity of Faraday Centres would depend partly on the strategic needs identified, with advice, by the Management Group and partly on the projects specified by the II and its university or universities in making their bid. Staffing 2.6 Each Faraday Centre would have a director appointed by the host institute. It is expected that the director would also hold a university post. 2.7 There would be some core staff to meet the need for continuity. Most of the research would be carried out by the research associates on 2-3 year contracts with agreed academic goals, many of them engaged in PhD work. A typical Faraday Centre would have a staff of 30 of whom approximately 20-25 would be Faraday research associates paid slightly more than they would be under the normal research grant. 2.8 Supervisory staff would flow across the boundaries between universities and industry. Management 2.9 The Director would report to a Management Board of the Centre comprised of representatives of the university, industry, the II and the Centre itself (Final Report to the WGI, pp. 6 & 8). 2.10 The programme as a whole would be overseen by the Faraday Programme Management Group (FPMG) which would decide topic areas and award the Faraday Centre franchise. The Group would answer to the Secretary of State of the lead government department and be answerable to him for the Programme. Its membership would represent industry, the Centres, and universities. 2.11 The FPMG would in turn work alongside an Industrial Research Technology Council (IRTC), a body which the Working Group consider would be akin to the Advisory Board to the Research Councils “but operate in the industrial innovation field” (Final Report to the WGI, p.11). The precise relationship is not described. Funding 2.12 Itis envisaged that a typical Faraday Centre would require a one-off government grant of £1 million for setting up, followed by a£1.5 million annual grant for “technology development” for salaries, overheads and equipment for the 30 or so staff of the Centre. This recurrent grant would be supplemented “after a few years” by £1.5 million p.a. of collaborative projects (half from industry and half from public funds) and £2 million p.a. of projects fully funded by industry. This would give an annual turnover of £5 million p.a. (Final Report to the WGI, p.13). 2.13 The funding profile can be summarised as: establishment and basic research programme: 100 per cent public; collaborative projects: SO per cent public; 50 per cent private; private or individual projects: 100 per cent customer (public or private). Naturally the funding profile of a Centre will vary over time from predominantly public at the start to predominantly customer led (industry or Government) as the Centre develops. In addition, there will be variations between Centres because of topic, industry or technology.