The UK Public Accounts Committee¡¯s is right in one respect about the strategic direction and accountability of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

Despite overseeing nearly half of the government¡¯s ?20.4 billion R&D budget, the report, published last week, noted that UKRI lacks clear, measurable objectives and performance indicators. Its internal ¡°balanced scorecard¡± tracks over 100 metrics, but none are published, making it difficult to assess whether the funder is delivering value or aligning with government priorities.

The committee of MPs calls on the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to set between six and?10 KPIs for UKRI, in areas such as private R&D investment and the commercial application of research. Crucially, it calls for these KPIs to be specific, measurable and time-bound, so that both government and the public can track whether UKRI is making meaningful progress. Without such clarity, the report warns, it¡¯s impossible to judge performance or to hold UKRI accountable for delivering on its remit.

While academics expect to enjoy a lot more academic freedom than these recommendations will afford them, I think there is some merit to this.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

UKRI uses public money to fund academic research, to which extent researchers are public servants and ought to be accountable to public institutions. They ought to prioritise research that has the potential to positively impact the British public.

Academics have a habit of forgetting this. For example, as remarks in his 2019 book Ethics and Public Policy: A Philosophical Inquiry, philosophers thrive on what Freud called the ¡°narcissism of minor differences¡± because there¡¯s no pressure for them to agree on any practical outcomes. As a result ¨C and despite the rise of the impact agenda over the past 15 years ¨C philosophy isn¡¯t very useful when it comes to practical questions of policy or social relevance.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

It is easy to overinterpret this observation. It certainly doesn¡¯t mean, for instance, that the humanities should be culled. On the contrary, I lament the closure of humanities and social science departments and cuts to research funding ¨C such as the recent news about cuts to PhD funding by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

We need to recognise that quantitative scientific methods aren¡¯t sufficient, particularly for understanding what works in evidence-based policy (which overemphasises randomised controlled trials). Metascience, medical humanities and digital humanities are prime examples of fields that can make tremendous contributions to the public good.

Rather than cuts, my to the Public Accounts Committee¡¯s call for evidence earlier this year advocated for public funding to become more strategic. And the committee seems to have followed that recommendation. The problem is that MPs appear not to have heeded my warning that top-down overstrategising ¨C such as through KPIs ¨C could stifle innovation.

While UKRI would certainly benefit from setting broad, flexible strategic priorities, there should still be ample opportunity for funding to be shaped from the bottom up by the research community. Academics ought to be accountable to public priorities, but we must also recognise that they are very well positioned to conceptualise innovative research and to help shape those priorities.

That means that UKRI must continue to listen to academics, not just politicians. Funding that claims to be ¡°responsive mode¡± must genuinely stay responsive, allowing applicants to propose research topics and justify their significance.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

In addition to an overemphasis on top-down research priorities, the commercial agenda recommended by the Public Accounts Committee is concerning. This is a return to the infamous early days of the impact agenda, when ¡°impact¡± was defined extremely narrowly in terms of commercial value. This is based on a shallow understanding of how research creates value. If strictly enforced, it could halt some extremely valuable research that can¡¯t be easily quantified in monetary terms ¨C and humanities and social science will certainly suffer the most.

The committee insists that the UK must continue investing in risky R&D ¨C and the recent increase of the budget for the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the high-risk scientific funder, suggests that the government agrees. But if UKRI follows their recommendations, risky research with long-term benefits but few short-term ones will be curtailed.

Aria notwithstanding, large national research funders like UKRI should support a pluralistic vision of impact that combines strategic priorities with space for bold, exploratory inquiry in all fields. Politicians, meanwhile, must resist the temptation to manage research as if it were a business investment portfolio.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

The problem is that MPs¡¯ natural inclination to prioritise financial returns on public investment may have been reinforced by sector institutions¡¯ tendency to promote research in commercial terms in order to win funding and political support. This strategy might have backfired.

If academics want to avoid being boxed in by narrow definitions of value, they must reclaim the conversation about what research is for. That means articulating the public value of their work in richer, more diverse terms.

It also means doing so in the right forums, when and where politicians may be listening. In that regard, it is sadly notable that I was one of just or academic institutions to bother submitting written evidence to the Public Accounts Committee¡¯s call for evidence.

Engaging with policymakers is yet another thing to do. But if more of us had taken a little time to reiterate the folly of focusing exclusively on the financial returns of research, who knows how many responsive mode grants and studentship that might have saved.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

B.V.E. Hyde is a philosopher of science and public policy at the University of Bristol and Bangor University, with a research affiliation at Durham University.