Centre for Policy Research in Science and Medicine (PRISM)

BackgroundA major and recurring challenge facing those involved in science and science policy is how best to spend research money. This was the founding rationale for the programme of research that the R&D Directorate (R&DD) of the Department of Health (England) (DH) has supported over the past three years in the form of the Policy Research Unit on R&D Policy (‘the Unit’), and it remains the fundamental research question for the refocused and rebranded Unit that we propose in this document, to be known as the Centre for Policy Research in Science and Medicine (PRISM).AimsPRISM will build on RAND Europe’s international reputation in the emergent field of the ‘science of science’, will deliver rigorous evidence to NIHR on the further development and implementation of its research strategy as set out in Best Research for Best Health, and provide further impetus to the science of science policy in the UK, Europe and internationally. In the coming years the fiscal climate is likely to be increasingly tight and it will be all the more important that research spending is used in the most effective way and that the benefits of this spending are understood. At a time when the research strategy of the NIHR is likely to be revisited to assess progress thus far and the most promising future directions, access to objective and independent analysis will be of particular importance.The aims of PRISM are to support the decision making and strategy development of DH R&DD and NIHR, and to provide thought leadership in the field of research policy.Plan of InvestigationAlthough a nascent area of investigation, understanding what works in research funding is arguably at a point where the primary objective is not solely to make the case for research funding, but also to improve the effectiveness and value for money of such funding. Although this argument has been made a number of times (Smith 1987; Comroe and Dripps 2002; Grant, Green et al. 2003), recently it has been endorsed by both government and nongovernment reviews of the UK health and science research systems. For example, Cooksey concluded: “‘Research on research’ should help to inform policy decisions on how limited resources can deliver new knowledge where it is most likely to have substantial impact in addressing unmet medical needs. Such research will take time to come to fruition and impact on policy, but we believe, ultimately, it will play a vital part in determining the allocation of scarce resources to the most productive areas of health research”. More recently, a report by the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK (CASE) concluded “The UK government should build the evidence base necessary to inform its thinking on the impact of the research base”.This requires a better understanding of research performance and, more importantly, the drivers of improved performance. At a conceptual level, we need to understand what factors lead to research success. For example, what kind of science, what kind of scientists, what kind of setting and what kind of funding mechanism are most successful in promoting the translation of research from bench to bedside? We also need to develop innovative approaches and methodologies for answering these questions.Research on science policy can be grouped into three types of studies. The first type aims to inform the formulation of R&D strategies and includes field reviews and future studies such as foresight. The second type aims to reduce uncertainty in, and to support, today’s decision making through rigorous policy analysis. The third type of study is research evaluation, which can be both summative and formative. All three combine to provide a rigorous methodology for exploring science policy, and its effectiveness, in depth.Specifically RAND proposes two workstreams, each managed by an identified stream leader:• Supporting NIHR. This will be very similar to the existing Advice stream.• Science of science. This will be a continuation of the R