UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
UK Health Research Analysis
2018
2
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
© UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Published by the Medical Research Council, part of UK Research and Innovation
ISBN 978-0-903730-29-7
The text of this report and supporting data (excluding images and logos) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International (CCBY 4.0) License unless otherwise stated. The Health Research Classification System itself is open source.
You are free to use and distribute the HRCS but you should not alter it or use it for commercial benefit.
This paper was written using data obtained on 27 September 2019, from Digital Science’s Dimensions platform,
available at https://app.dimensions.ai. Access was granted to subscription-only data sources under licence agreement.
Acknowledgment should include “UK Health Research Analysis 2018 (UK Clinical Research Collaboration , 2020)
https://hrcsonline.net/reports/analysis-reports/uk-health-research-analysis-2018/”.
Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to:
UK Clinical Research Collaboration
C/O Medical Research Council,
UK Research and Innovation,
Polaris House,
North Star Avenue,
Swindon,
SN2 1FL
Further information is available via the HRCS website contact us page or by email at info@ukcrc.org
This publication is available at: https://hrcsonline.net/reports/analysis-reports/uk-health-research-analysis-2018/
Cover images © iStockphoto
3
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all organisations which
participated in this analysis, particularly those new to the
process. Coordinating so many organisations and curation of
data has been a significant challenge which would have been
considerably harder to manage were it not for the help of the
staff at each organisation in contact with us.
Particular thanks go to the Association of Medical Research
Charities (AMRC) for their help in compiling and submitting
data on behalf of their membership. Likewise, thanks to the
individuals from the UK Strategic Coordinating Body for Health
of the Public Research (SCHOPR) for their help in contacting
suitable individuals across the UK Government departments.
Finally, a huge thank you to the Health Research Analysis Forum
(HRAF) for their support and contributions to the project, report
and the HRCS as a whole.
Dr James Carter
Project Manager & HRAF Chair, MRC Evaluation Officer
Ms Emily Stevens,
Project Coordinator, MRC Data Analyst
Health Research Analysis Forum 2018
James Carter (Chair)
Medical Research Council, UKRI
Shannon Amoils
British Heart Foundation
Nicola Armstrong
Health and Social Care R&D Division, Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland
Jonathan Best
Wellcome Trust
Michael Bowdery
Health and Care Research Wales (R&D Division, Health and Social Services Group, Welsh Government)
Martin Champion
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UKRI
Tammy Cheng
Versus Arthritis
Lynne Davies
Cancer Research UK
Jocelyn LeBlanc
Association of Medical Research Charities
Sarah Qureshi
UK Clinical Research Collaboration
Julie Simpson
Chief Scientist Office, Scotland
Emily Stevens
Medical Research Council, UKRI
Jola Sysak
National Institute for Health Research
Beverley Thomas
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, UKRI
Joy Todd
Economic and Social Research Council, UKRI
With grateful support from
Naomi Beaumont
Economic and Social Research Council, UKRI
Marc Boggett
Health and Care Research Wales (R&D Division, Health and Social Services Group, Welsh Government)
Michael Cunningham
& Naomh Gallagher
Health and Social Care R&D Division, Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland
Rachel Conner
UK Strategic Coordinating Body for Health of the Public Research
Lucie Duluc
British Heart Foundation
Eva Garritsen
Association of Medical Research Charities
Joanna Jacklin
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, UKRI
Annie Sanderson
Wellcome Trust
Ian Viney
Medical Research Council, UKRI
4
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
5
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction and Purpose of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Scope of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Detailed Analysis: Research Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Geographical Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Distribution of Funding between Charity and Public Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Progress and next steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix 1 Participating organisations and qualitative submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Appendix 2 Combined UK spend breakdown by funding organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Appendix 3 Contributions of additional participating organisations to the 2018 analysis . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix 4 Additional funding sources for UK health R&D expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Appendix 5 Total UK health R&D expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Appendix 6 Total funding distribution by HCRS Research Activity sub-groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Appendix 7 Details of mapping between WHO DALY rates and HRCS Health Categories. . . . . . . . . 128
Appendix 8 Total funding distribution by UK geographical region (NUTS 1) including selected cities . . . 130
Appendix 9 Total funding distribution by organisation type; Government, UKRI or charitable . . . . . 133
Appendix 10 Changes in coding methodology and uptake of auto-coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Appendix 11 Additional methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Contents
6
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Index of Figures
Figure 1 – Combined direct spend totals for UK Health Research Analysis series (2004/05 to 2018). Data from the original HRAF
(12 funders) and total participating organisations (n=64 in 2014, n= 123 in 2018) are shown separately to allow
comparison across time. .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2 – Distribution of estimated total UK health research expenditure for 2018 by research sector. ........................................ 22
Figure 3 – Distribution of direct health research expenditure by HRCS Research Activity in 2018 .................................................. 26
Figure 4 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Research Activity across the four UK Health Research
Analyses 2004/05 to 2018 ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 5 – Distribution of direct health research expenditure by HRCS Health Category in 2018 .................................................... 32
Figure 6 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Health Category across the four UK Health Research
Figure 7 – Comparison of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) rates for the UK in 2016 and the proportion of HRCS Health Category
spending in 2018 ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 8 – Map to show regional distribution of combined research funding in the UK using NUTS level 1 codes ............................ 40
Figure 9 – Funding distribution by geographical region across the UK Health Research Analysis series 2004/05 to 2018 ..................41
Figure 10 – Distribution by city of international awards made by UK-based organisations for the UK Health Research
Analysis 2018 ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 11 – Comparison of HRCS Research Activity (upper panel) and Health Category (lower panel) for international funders (a
combined dataset of funding data from CORDIS and Dimensions) and the UK Health Research Analysis 2018
UK-only dataset. ...................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 12 – Distribution of Research Activity Spend by Charity and Public funders, as a proportion of combined
total expenditure in 2018..........................................................................................................................................47
Figure 13 – Breakdown of Health Category spending by Charity or Public funder, split by >£90m (upper panel) and <£90m
(lower panel) ........................................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 14 – Differences in the proportion of combined health research spend 2018 by HRCS Research Activity for all organisation
(123 total), HRAF funders (n=12) and non-HRAF organisations (n=111) .......................................................................114
Figure 15 – Difference in proportion of combined health research spend in 2018 by HRCS Health Category by non-HRAF (111)

HRAF (12) or all organisations (123) ........................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 16 – Flows of R&D funding in the UK, 2017. From the Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD)
2017 issued by the Office for National Statistics (Figure 4, published 14 March 2019) ............................................. 123
Analyses 2004/05 to 2018 ........................................................................................................................................ 34
7
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Index of Tables
Table 1 – Number and value of direct research awards and supportive indirect funding across the UK Health Research Analysis
series (2004-2018) ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2 – Estimates for the total UK health-relevant R&D expenditure ............................................................................................. 22
Table 3 – Total awards and expenditure for 2018 by HRCS Research Activity for all direct awards submitted to the analysis ............. 26
Table 4 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Research Activity across the four UK Health Research
Analyses 2004/05 to 2018 ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 5 – Total awards and expenditure value for 2018 by Health Category for all direct awards submitted to the analysis ............ 33
Table 6 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Health Category across the four UK Health Research
Table 7 – Funding distribution by HRCS Research Activity for the 2018 datasets ............................................................................115
Table 8 – Funding distribution by HRCS Health Category for the 2018 datasets .............................................................................117
Table 9 – Devolved administration funding for NIHR programmes ............................................................................................... 120
Table 10 – Final combined analysis totals .................................................................................................................................121
Table 11 – Breakdown of income by cost centre (academic departments), for all UK institutions available (n=204). Adapted from
HESA finance returns (Table 5b: Research grants and contracts). .............................................................................124
Analyses 2004/05 to 2018 ........................................................................................................................................ 36
8
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Executive Summary
The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) is a partnership
of the main stakeholders who influence clinical research
across the business, public and charitable sectors in the
UK. The aim of the UKCRC is to keep the UK a world leader
in clinical research. For partner organisations to be able to
effectively co-ordinate activities, accurate and timely evidence
is needed about health research supported across the UK. The
UKCRC Health Research Analysis Forum (HRAF) is comprised
of representatives from the twelve large public and charity
funders of health research, plus the Association of Medical
Research Charities (AMRC), who collectively are responsible for
periodically analysing the UK health research landscape.
This report is the fourth in the UK Health Research Analysis
reporting series; a UK-wide analysis of public and charity
funded health relevant research, produced by the HRAF since
2004, which provides the most detailed view so far of UK
research in this area. The Health Research Classification
System (HRCS) was used to categorise over 22,500 projects
supported by 146 funding organisations, corresponding to
almost £4bn of spend within the UK in 2018 (£2.5bn spent
directly on research projects and £1.4bn on infrastructure).
We also estimate a further £850m of health-relevant funding
from other sources not directly captured in the analysis, giving
a total public/charitable expenditure in 2018 of £4.8bn. This is
close to a separate estimate of the health-relevant proportion
of total R&D spend, totalling £8.6bn in 2018 (of which £4.3bn is
from the pharmaceutical private sector).
Analysis of this dataset shows that public funding for
health relevant research in the UK, both by taxation via the
Government or by donation via medical research charities,
has increased over the 14-year period. However, much of this
growth in this funding has occurred in the first five years of
reporting (2004-2009) with a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of 8.5%, and subsequently much slower growth in total
funding in real terms between 2009 and 2018 (CAGR 1.7%).
In other words, health-relevant research in the UK has had ten
years of relatively level funding across the public and charity
sectors.
Examining the breadth of research activities undertaken by
projects, and comparing 2004 and 2018 data, there has been
a decrease in the proportion of total funding for underpinning
(-12%) and aetiological (-4%) research. These fundamental
discovery activities, predominantly funded through UK Research
and Innovation and medical charities, still account for half of
publicly supported health research and have received a real
term increase in funding of £490m since 2004.
As first noted in our 2014 report, there has been a noticeable
additional investment in research activities important for
translation, i.e. research that aids translating scientific
discoveries into new treatments and healthcare benefits.
Research on detection and diagnosis, treatment development
and treatment evaluation have received an increasing
proportion of total health research spend (+10%) between
2004 and 2018 resulting in a real term increase of £548m
over 14 years. Similarly, and in part due to the evidence
provided by previous reports in this series, prevention research
has also received an increased proportion of total health
research expenditure (+3.4%, real term increase of £120m
since 2004). The funding for the earlier stages of translational
activity is shared across funders, however the majority of
clinically-relevant research topics (e.g. treatment evaluation,
disease management and health services) are supported by
Government departments and clinical professional bodies,
predominantly the Department of Health and Social Care via the
National Institute for Health Research.
Assessment of the proportion of overall spend by health
category shows relatively stable funding for many diseases
or conditions, with a quarter of expenditure on research of a
generic health relevance (i.e. applicable to all conditions or
without a specific disease focus) and almost a fifth on cancer
research. The largest growth has been in the area of infections
research (+4.5% since 2004), a steady upward trend across
the 14-year reporting period as funders begin to address the
challenges of antimicrobial resistance.
The geographical distribution of health relevant research
funding remains remarkably stable between 2004 and 2018,
with less than 1.9% variances across the 12 regions of the
UK. The largest proportion, just under one third of funding, is
allocated to London with other research-intensive areas (Oxford
and the South East, Cambridge and East of England) at 15%
and 14% respectively.
11
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
The increase in number of participating organisations beyond
the original HRAF contributors has provided a considerably
more complex dataset for analysis. With 146 organisations,
more than double since the 2014 analysis, the contributions
from these additional organisations now totals 23% of awards
submitted and 15% of the overall expenditure. In addition
to funding made within the UK, this analysis also provides
information on international funding; participating organisations
awarded an estimated £223m of expenditure to principal
investigators based outside the UK. We also estimated a total
of £254m of the health-relevant funding flows into the UK from
international organisations, overseas public bodies (mostly the
European Union) and global charities.
The UK Health Research Analysis series provide a
comprehensive update to information about UK health research.
Health and biomedical research is a vital component of the
UK science base, with a strong positive rate of return to the
UK economy1 ,and so these regular analyses provide helpful
evidence to support monitoring and strategic coordination. The
publication of an openly accessible dataset of UK public and
charity funded health research - available via the HRCS website
(www.hrcsonline.net) – also allows for the data to be re-used for
further analysis.
The HRAF will continue to promote the wider use of the HRCS
for analysing health research funding, continue to improve
the methods used to code awards, disseminate the UK Health
Research Analysis reports and provide access to the public
datasets to support strategic discussions and collaborations.
James Carter PhD,
Chair, UKCRC Health Research Analysis Forum
Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation
12
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
1 For examples, see the “Medical Research: What’s it worth?” section of the MRC Evaluating Research Outcomes webpage:
https://mrc.ukri.org/successes/evaluating-research-outcomes/
INTRODUCTION AND
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS
14
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Introduction and Purpose of the Analysis
The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) was set up
in 2004 with the aim of establishing the UK as a world leader
in clinical research2. The collaboration is a partnership of the
main stakeholders that influence clinical research across the
business, public and charitable sectors. Part of the remit for
the collaboration was to compile new high-quality information
on the UK health research funding landscape. The aim was to
support partner organisations in developing a coherent, unified
approach to funding clinical research in the UK.
To compile funding information in a consistent format across
different health funders required a new classification system.
Established in 2004, the Health Research Classification System
(HRCS) was developed by the UKCRC’s secretariat using a
dual code system covering both areas of health and disease
(termed ‘Health Categories’, (HC)) and type of research (termed
‘Research Activity’, (RA)) to answer strategic questions about
health research investment.
Using the HRCS, the UK Health Research Analysis report3
was the first ever UK wide assessment of public and charity
funded health research. Published by the UKCRC in 2006, this
report captured data from the 11 largest public and charitable
health funders for the 2004/05 financial year. The analysis
provided a geographical overview of spending across all areas
of health research and a detailed assessment of individual
areas of health and disease and comparisons to World Health
Organisation (WHO) burden of disease across the UK.
This first UK Health Research Analysis has been widely cited,
providing the basis for high level strategy discussions4 and
several joint funding initiatives5. Its success prompted a series
of subsequent reports; first an assessment of other medical
charities commissioned by the Association of Medical Research
Charities (AMRC)6 in 2007, a follow-up nationwide UK Health
Research Analyses in 2009/107 and a third nationwide analysis
in 20148. Each iteration increased the scope and scale of the
assessment, introducing new analyses (e.g. total UK health
R&D expenditure, quantifying sources of indirect support for
health research) and increasing the number of participating
organisations (up to 64 funders in 2014).
This analysis is the fourth in the UK Health Research Analysis
series and its primary aim continues to be to provide detailed
information about public and charity funded UK health
research projects. The 2018 analysis has gained the widest
participation in the exercise to date, with submissions from
146 organisations9 connected to health and biomedicine. The
increase in participation is coupled with an increase in scope to
awards made internationally by UK-based organisations as well
as a more detailed assessment of awards made to UK-based
organisations from overseas.
This report and analysis were compiled by the Medical
Research Council (MRC), overseen and approved by the Health
Research Analysis Forum (HRAF)10 on behalf of the UKCRC.
2 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) http://www.ukcrc.org/
3 UK Health Analysis (data from 2004/05), published 2006 by UKCRC http://hrcsonline.net/uk_health_research_analysis_report_2004_05/
4 The HRCS was used to highlight the characteristics of UK health research in the UK Government’s review of publicly funded healthcare research chaired by Sir
David Cooksey and published in 2006; DOI 10.1136/bmj.39059.444120.80
5 For example, the UKCRC’s own public health research group, and evidenced in the first nationwide prevention research collaboration, the National Prevention
Research Initiative (NPRI)
6
From Donation to Innovation (data from 2004/05), published 2007 by UKCRC http://hrcsonline.net/uk_health_research_analysis_from_donation_to_innovation_
report_2004_05/
7 UK Health Research Analysis 2009/10, published 2012 by UKCRC http://hrcsonline.net/uk_health_research_analysis_report_2009_10/
8 UK Health Research Analysis 2014, published 2015 by UKCRC http://hrcsonline.net/uk_health_research_analysis_report_2014_web/
9 13 HRAF members, plus 86 AMRC members (excluding HRAF) and 47 other organisations
10 UKCRC delegated responsibility for the continued governance of the HRCS and production of subsequent analysis to the HRAF, following disbanding of the UKCRC
secretariat in 2007/08. The HRAF consists of representatives from the twelve original funders participating in the 2004/05 and 2009/10 analyses and AMRC
15
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
16
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Scope of the Analysis
Participating organisations
Health relevant research and development activity in the UK
benefits from funding provided by the public11, charity12 and
private sectors. This report focuses on the details of public and
charity funded UK health research and sets this in the context
of an estimate of the total funding available for health research
in the UK.
One of the objectives of the Health Research Analysis Forum
(HRAF) was to widen participation in the analysis to deliver
greater representation of funding across disease areas,
research activities, and geography. Although the 2014 analysis
estimated that over 90% of UK health relevant expenditure
had been captured, the inclusion of more UK funders adds
reassurance that the analysis is as robust as possible and
provides a dataset that can be explored in more detail by
others asking specific questions about particular disease areas.
Overall, we approached 288 organisations all of whom were
connected to health, healthcare or biomedical research:

• 13 HRAF member organisations

• 142 members of the Association of Medical Research
Charities (AMRC) - itself a HRAF member – were
approached by AMRC, 87 of whom agreed to join the
analysis.

– This represents 62% of AMRC membership but
~97.5% of total UK expenditure.

• 58 non-AMRC charities were approached independently
by the project management team, 9 joined the analysis.

• 40 UK Government and other publicly funded
organisations were also approached independently,
25 joined the analysis.

• 31 professional organisations, primarily Medical Royal
Colleges, were also approached independently,
12 joined the analysis.
In total, 146 organisations – half of the total number of
organisations approached - agreed to participate in the analysis.
Of these, 23 provided qualitative-based submissions and 123
provided both a narrative text and data for the analysis.
A full list of participating organisations with a narrative
explanation of their role and involvement in health research can
be found in Appendix 1, with details of funding submitted to
the analysis in Appendix 2.
Data Criteria
Data included in the main analysis
The criteria for expenditure data to be included in the main
analysis broadly match those of previous reports:
• Research is funded by a participating organisation
• Research is of health or biomedical relevance
• The award must be active in the calendar year 201813
We have made a distinction between grants focused on directly
supporting specific research programmes and projects14
and funding that supports more indirect aspects such as
infrastructure (which may include administration, building
maintenance or support for national facilities). While both types
of support are essential for health research our main analysis
focuses on the directly funded, usually peer reviewed, research
where funding can be directly attributed to a set of clearly
defined research objectives. Such awards can be classified
using the HRCS by type of research activity and area of health
or disease i.e. directly funded research, training awards and
projects, plus clearly defined programme and unit awards
(direct awards only).
Our assessment of overall UK investment in health-relevant
research includes the data gathered on indirect funding –
infrastructure, training, equipment - which cannot be easily
coded using the HRCS.
As an additional feature of this analysis, not seen in previous
UK Health Research Analyses, we have also performed the
same analysis on awards made by UK funders to organisations
outside the UK, alongside awards made within the UK by
organisations internationally. While the focus of the analysis
remains within the UK, the question of how the UK contributes
to global research is becoming increasingly important.
However, it is important to note that our geographical analysis
focuses on the primary location where the award is made,
usually the Principal Investigator’s host organisation. As
research is often collaborative, this does not necessarily fully
reflect where the research funded by the award is taking place.
17
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Data included in the assessment of indirect funding and
total health R&D estimation:
By definition it is not possible to attribute indirect funding to
particular health areas in a meaningful way. This is usually due
to the nature of the funding itself or the detail on an award level
being too far removed from the details of the research being
supported to be easily coded using the HRCS or indeed most
other classification systems. To inform discussion of this type
of funding, individual Indirect awards are sub-classified using
broadly defined criteria:
• Infrastructure funding
– Capital Infrastructure – building construction,
maintenance and core costs
– R&D Support for NHS Providers – principally Clinical
Research Networks15
– Administrative Support – including library funding and
publication costs
– R&D resources– this includes supportive funding for
cohorts, data repositories to ensure the resource is
managed and available for use in research
• Personal funding – supporting individual researchers
– Individual salary support (separate to project costs)
– Costs relating to attending meetings
– Membership of professional bodies
• Training and Studentship funding
– Studentships, fellowships, scholarships and other
training where no research objectives are available
and therefore are not eligible for core HRCS analysis
– This includes aggregated awards for multiple student-
ships, where details of the individual student projects
being funded are unavailable
• Unclassified / other award funding
– Any other funding submitted for the analysis which
cannot be quantified under the HRCS or otherwise
categorised as above.
Details of the indirect expenditure captured by this analysis can
be found in Appendix 2 on page 120.
In addition to this indirect support via the participating
organisations, we have also collated data on other health-
relevant spending to produce an estimated value for total
public/charitable health R&D expenditure for 2018. This
estimation come from a variety of sources, but includes
• Higher education funding councils quality-related (QR)
funding to universities
• Other sources of NHS funding for research
• Support for full economic costing
Full details of this assessment can be found in Appendix 4.
Scope of the Analysis
18
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Data excluded from the analysis
The primary exclusion criterion for this report remains research
which is not considered health research relevant. In ex-
panding the organisations involved in this analysis, we re-visited
the definition of ‘health relevancy’.
For this analysis we have included any type of funding for
research where health is a consideration, either as an indicator
or direct outcome of the project (e.g. impact of pollutants
on disease). We would generally exclude funding for topics
where the health component is only implied or a long-term
consideration. For example, climate change will have eventual
health impacts but not all climate change research would be
considered health relevant.
Similarly, what is considered research has also required
some clarification. This analysis used any funding that asks a
question or poses a theory and seeks to answer it. Therefore,
any evaluation, comparison, trial or assessment of services,
interventions or methodologies would all be considered
research here, even if conducted outside the usual academic
setting. This means funding for healthcare services or support
groups would not be considered research unless they also seek
to advance knowledge of the disease or service provided (else
this analysis would include the entire NHS budget).
Given these two definitions, there are still areas of UK health
research not covered by this analysis:
• Industry funded research
– The private sector remains the largest source of
undefined health research funding not captured by this
analysis, due to the lack of publicly available data.
– We can therefore only estimate the amount of industry
funded research based on other sources (e.g. ONS)
• Research funded by other organisations not
included in the analysis, including:
– the remaining medical charities that are members
of AMRC
– research funded by other not-for-profit organisations
– research funded by other aspects of UK Government,
including local authorities
– research funded within devolved NHS Trust budgets
not administered through NIHR
• Research taking place in the UK funded by
non-UK organisations
– While we have made some comment on how funding
enters the UK from external sources (see page 44),
international funding into the UK is excluded from the
main analysis in this report.
Scope of the Analysis
19
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Combined spend analysis
The combined database from all participating organisations
(123/146 funders) contains 21,749 awards with a combined
spend within the UK of £3.96bn in 2018. Much of this spending
(a total of £2.56bn) is from the 18,307 awards that directly fund
research. The total for spend across indirect awards (3,442
awards) was £1.40bn.
Overall the value of funding submitted for the analysis in 2018
has doubled since 2004 and increased by 18.7% since 2014.
Direct funding for health research in 2018 totals £2.56bn.
This compares with £1.24bn in 2004/0516 and £1.87bn in
2009/1017 and £2.16bn in 201418 (see Figure 1 and Table 1
for details).
To remove changes introduced by adding new participating
organisations over time, we have also assessed the
contributions from the original 12 HRAF organisations
separately. Having done this, we still observe an overall
increase in health research expenditure. The Compound
Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)19 of HRAF funder expenditure
was 4.1% between 2004 and 2018. However, the intervening
CAGR between reports is more variable, with a sharp increase
between 2004 and 2009 (8.5%) followed by a modest rate
of 1.6% from 2009 to 2014 and 1.8% from 2014 to 2018. In
effect, health research has received level funding for the last
ten years.
New funders to the UK Health Re-
search Analysis series
Both the 2014 and 2018 analyses have included data from
organisations beyond the original 12 HRAF funders20. In 2014
the participation of the 52 additional funding organisations
who did not participate in the 2009/10 analysis added 2,238
awards and £137m (plus £28m in indirect supportive funding)
in real terms to the analysis. Our latest report includes 111
additional organisations21, outside of the HRAF, adding 4,244
awards and £393m in research spend and a further £230m on
indirect funding active in 2018.
A full breakdown of all funding organisations by award numbers
and award value can be found in Appendix 2. However,
throughout this report we make comparisons with previous
reports in the series, which given the variation in participating
organisation could lead to conclusions drawn from variances
in funders, not funding. To counter this we assessed how the
contributions from new participating organisations influenced
the HRAF vs all organisation comparisons. A more detailed
explanation of this process can be found in Appendix 3.
Scope of the Analysis
20
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Scope of the Analysis
Report
# of
Funders
# Direct
Awards
% growth
vs previous
report
Direct
(real
terms)22
% growth
vs previous
report
Indirect
(real
terms)
Total
(real
terms)
2004/05
(12)23
9901
0.0%
£1.24bn
n/a
n/a
£1.24bn
2009/10
12
11482
+16.0%
£1.87bn
+50.3
£0.94bn
£2.81bn
2014 (HRAF)
12
12696
+10.6%
£2.02bn
+8.1
£1.01bn
£3.03bn
2014 (All)
64
14934
+30.1%
£2.16bn
+15.4
£1.04bn
£3.20bn
2018 (HRAF)
12
14064
+10.8%
£2.17bn
+7.3%
£1.17bn
£3.33bn
2018 (all)
123
18307
+22.6%
£2.56bn
+18.7%
£1.40bn
£3.96bn
Table 1 – Number and value of direct research awards and supportive indirect funding across the UK Health Research
Analysis series (2004/05 to 2018)
£3bn
£2 .5bn
£2bn
£1 .5bn
£1bn
£0 .5bn
0
Total direct spend£1 .24bn
£1 .87bn
£2 .02bn
£2 .17bn
2004/5
2009/10
2014
2018
£136 .9m
£393 .1m
UK Health Research Analysis
Figure 1 – Combined direct spend totals for UK Health Research Analysis series (2004/05 to 2018) . Data from the
original HRAF (12 funders) and total participating organisations (n=64 in 2014, n= 123 in 2018) are shown separately
to allow comparison across time
■ HRAF organisations
■ Non-HRAF organisations
21
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Estimation of total health-related research performed by UK institutions
Since 2009, the UK Health Research Analysis reports have
provided estimates for the total health related research and
development expenditure by UK public, charitable and private
sector institutions for 2018. Calculation of this estimate takes
a “top down” approach using information on total research and
development activity across the research performing sectors
and then determining how much would be considered health
relevant. This estimation is based on information compiled by
the Office for National Statistics and used to estimate annual
UK Gross Expenditure in Research and Development (GERD), full
details of which can be found in Appendix 5.
The totals for research performed in the business, private
not-for-profit (PNP), university and public research institute
sectors for 2018 are displayed in Figure 2 and Table 2 below.
The combined total expenditure estimated for these four
research sectors is £8.64bn, which to set this in context is
approximately 25% of the £34.8bn estimated total expenditure
of R&D performed in the UK.
Indirect funding assessment
In total £1.40bn of health relevant funding was reported
as indirect funding. Most of this funding is classified as
Infrastructure (£1.13bn, 81% of indirect total), which includes
large capital support funds such as:
• Medical Research Council (MRC)’s core support for the
Francis Crick Institute
• Cancer Research UK (CRUK)’s support for its cancer
research institutes
• Wellcome’s support for the Sanger Institute
• Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)-funded
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
Clinical Research Network.
The remaining 19% of indirect funding is divided between
£171m in funder specific or unclassified awards, training and
studentships (£85m) and personal awards supporting individual
researchers (£8m).
The 2009/10 Health Research Analysis was the first to
introduce an assessment of indirect funding, with a total of
£827m (£944m in real terms). In 2014 indirect funding from the
HRAF funders totals £952m (£1.01bn in real terms). The 2018
total for indirect funding was £1.40bn, of which £1.17bn is
attributed to HRAF funders. This is an increase of £451m (48%)
in real terms since 2009/10.
Assessment of additional funding sources – such as the
Charities Research Support Fund (CRSF), support for health
research from UK devolved administrations and NHS support
for clinical academics – was carried out in both 2014 and 2018.
These sources of funding, outside of the funding collected in
our analysis, are estimated to add a further £849.7m to the
support for health research in the UK (see Appendix 4 for
more details).
Scope of the Analysis
22
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Performing Sector
2014 estimate (revised)
2018 Estimate
Difference
Spend
(real
terms)
% of total
Spend
% of total
Spend
%
Business
£4.37bn
51.7%
£4.34bn
50.2%
-£0.03bn
-2.0%
University
£2.89bn
34.2%
£3.15bn
36.4%
£0.26bn
+4.6%
Public Sector Research Institutes
£0.77bn
9.2%
£0.61bn
6.7%
-£0.17bn
-8.6%
Private Non-Profit
£0.42bn
4.9%
£0.58bn
6.7%
£0.16bn
2.1%
Total
£8 .44bn
100%
£8 .67bn
100%
£0 .23bn
-
Table 2 – Estimates for the total UK health-relevant R&D expenditure
Business
50%
University
36%
Public Sector
Research Institutes
7%
Private
Non Profit PNP
7%
Figure 2 – Distribution of
estimated total UK health
research expenditure for
2018 by research sector
Scope of the Analysis
11 In this report “Public” refers to mainly UK Government funding provided via UK Government departments (e.g. Department of Health and Social Care) and
non-departmental public bodies (such as UK Research and Innovation).
12 In this report “Charity” refers mainly to funding provided by organisations that are members of the Association of Medical Research Charities, although there are
other UK non-profit private organisations supporting health relevant research.
13 The analysis is designed to provide a snapshot of research that was ‘live’ (i.e. funded research was taking place) at any point on or between the 1st of January and
31st of December 2018. Note that the earliest analyses (2004/05 and 2009/10) used expenditure information for financial years, but for the 2014 analysis it was
agreed to standardise on a calendar year so that all awards were active in exactly the same time period.
14 While it is recognised that what we refer to in the UK Health Research Analyses as direct awards also include elements of indirect costs (e.g. salaries, full
economic costing contributions), this is generally not easily separated from the overall award value.
15 Note that support for the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) was not consistently classified as infrastructure in the 09/10 analysis but has been exclusively
assigned to the indirect assessment in this report series since 2014.
16 GDP real terms adjustment is 1.288 vs 2018 values (100%). Original value in 2004/05 report = £965m.
17 GDP real terms adjustment is 1.142 vs 2018 values (100%). Original value in 2009/10 report = £1.636bn
18 GDP real terms adjustment is 1.065 vs 2018 values (100%). Original value in 2014 report = £2.03bn
19 CAGR is the rate of return required for an investment to grow from its beginning balance to its ending balance, assuming that the profits from each year are re-
invested each year (compounded). This is used to give an average annual growth rate for a defined period.
20 A total of 29 AMRC medium to smaller charities also participated in the Donation to Innovation report and thus have 2004/05 data available. Of these 20
participated in the 2014 analysis and 21 participated in the current analysis in 2018.
21 Including 50 of the 52 new participants from 2014.
22 In this report previous analysis figures are expressed in real terms (i.e. 2018 prices) using the UK GDP deflator data as at December 2018. Full details of the
calculations can be found in the Methods chapter. https://bit.ly/2S1zGpM
23 Only 11 funders feature in the original 2004/05 report. Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis) joined the HRAF group for the 2009/10 report and provided
retrospective data for the 2004/05 reporting period.
METHODOLOGY
24
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Methodology
Data collection and classification
123 participating organisations submitted information relating
to 22,591 awards. This included 841 awards made outside
the UK, to a total value of £223m. Of the awards made within
the UK – and the focus of this analysis –18,308 awards were
considered direct awards, i.e. awards directly contributing
towards research, and were fully coded using the HRCS and
subject to validation prior to inclusion in the main analysis.
A further 3,442 awards were classified as indirect awards,
i.e. awards supporting research, for use in the separate
infrastructure assessment. However, of these 3,442 indirect
awards 1,016 had sufficient information to show they were
health relevant, but insufficient information to HRCS code or
classify within our indirect funding assessment.
Data validation for direct awards constituted the
following checks:
• The data must match the basic inclusion criteria
for the analysis.
• The award had sufficient detail to allow accurate
HRCS coding.
• The award had sufficient detail to allow accurate
calculation of an annualised value for activity in the
2018 reporting period.
• De-duplication assessment to ensure any matching
awards submitted by multiple funders (e.g. co-funded
awards) only reported each funder’s contribution.
Each funder was responsible for extracting the necessary data
for its health relevant research portfolio to be categorised
using standardised HRCS coding. Full details of this process
are available on the HRCS website (www.hrcsonline.net) but
to summarise, each award was assigned up to two Research
Activities (four for large programmes) according to the type of
research performed and up to five Health Categories related
to the disease or condition of interest. Fully coded data was
returned using a standard format and each funder has provided
a commentary describing any changes or caveats pertaining to
their data submission.
Since the last analysis in 2014 a new methodology for
classification using HRCS has become available. Subscription
to the Digital Science Dimensions platform24 (www.dimensions.
ai) allows access to automated HRCS coding (“auto-coding”) for
awards based on their publicly available titles and abstracts.
There is also a coding support tool for manual input of titles
and abstracts to allow some limited coding of non-public award
data. Several funders with access to Dimensions have switched
from manual coding to auto-coding for their 2018 submissions;
a factor which must be considered when attempting to
compare the resulting analyses with past submissions. A more
detailed discussion of manual vs auto-coding comparisons can
be found in Appendix 10.
Finally, to obtain a value for the award in our reporting period of
2018, we used a calculation of the overall award value based on
the award’s duration within the 2018 calendar year or an actual
expenditure value if available. This is consistent with methods
used for previous reports, to ensure the values presented here
are our best estimates for expenditure in 2018. Please note
that all comparisons with previous report data uses a ‘real
terms’ value, adjusted for inflation.
Further details can be found in the expanded methods section,
Appendix 11. This includes:
• Further details on the data analysis methods used.
• Oversight and Ownership of the data.
• Understanding the Health Research Classification System
• Understanding the results of the analysis
We recommend those unfamiliar with the HRCS read this
section carefully before reviewing the rest of this report.
We also strongly recommend speaking with the project
management team directly before undertaking further analysis
using the 2018 public dataset, which is made available via the
HRCS website under a creative commons licence.
24 Digital Science. (2018-) Dimensions [Software] available from https://app.dimensions.ai. Last accessed on 27-09-2019, under licence agreement. For more
information contact info@dimensions.ai
DETAILED ANALYSIS:
RESEARCH ACTIVITY
26
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Distribution of funding across
Research Activities in 2018
The distribution of the collective research portfolio for the 18,307 awards made within the UK by all 123 funding organisations
across the eight major HRCS Research Activity groups is shown in Figure 3.
Research Activity Group
# of awards
Spend
% of total
1 Underpinning
3,007
£555m
21.7%
2 Aetiology
6,144
£784m
30.6%
3 Prevention
988
£151m
5.9%
4 Detection and Diagnosis
2,047
£270m
10.5%
5 Treatment Development
2,236
£306m
11.9%
6 Treatment Evaluation
1,771
£249m
9.7%
7 Disease Management
953
£103m
4.0%
8 Health Services
1,160
£143m
5.6%
Grand total
18,307
£2.56bn
100%
Table 3 – Total awards and expenditure for 2018 by HRCS Research Activity for all direct awards submitted
to the analysis
Proportion of total spendHRCS Research Activity
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1
Underpinning
2
Aetiology
3
Prevention
4
Detection &
Diagnosis
5
Treatment
Development
6
Treatment
Evaluation
7
Disease
Management
8
Health
Services
£555m
£784m
£151m
£270m
£306m
£249m
£103m
£143m
Figure 3 – Distribution of direct health research expenditure by HRCS Research Activity in 2018
27
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Underpinning and Aetiology
Half of all funding is concentrated in Underpinning and
Aetiology (21.7% and 30.6%, respectively). Underpinning
focuses on understanding normal biological, psychological
and socioeconomic processes which forms the basis for
subsequent research, whereas Aetiology looks at the risks,
causes and development of disease. Both Underpinning and
Aetiology are considered together as areas of basic research,
although not all such research is laboratory based; research
activity subgroups include coding options for methodology and
research design, population surveillance and infrastructure
support. For example, most epidemiological studies will be
coded under Aetiology.
Prevention
Prevention constitutes 5.9% of funding and is focused on
primary preventions (i.e. direct interventions to prevent disease)
and to promote wellbeing (i.e. indirect interventions to reduce
the risks of ill health). Areas of research coded to Prevention
include vaccines and preventative medicines alongside
behavioural and environmental interventions, from initial
conception to translational activity.
Detection/Diagnosis,
Treatment Development and
Treatment Evaluation
Collectively these three research activity groups cover areas
of translational research, building on previous underpinning/
aetiological research to develop new procedures to monitor
and treat disease. Detection and Diagnosis (10.5%) focuses
on biomarker discovery and development, the use of new
diagnostic technologies and population screening. Treatment
Development (11.9%) begins the translation of basic research
into experimental medicine in preclinical settings and/or model
systems, while Treatment Evaluation (9.7%) involves testing and
evaluation of interventions in human clinical/applied settings,
such as therapeutic trials.
Disease Management
and Health Services
Research in the processes of healthcare will most commonly
be coded to one or other of these research activities. Disease
Management (4.0%) covers research on individual patient needs
and practitioner experiences, including research into quality
of life, disease self-management and palliative care. Health
Services (5.6%) examines healthcare at an organisational level,
including service provision as well as welfare, economic and
policy issues.
Detailed Analysis: Research Activity
28
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Changes in Research Activity 2004/05 – 2018
Before interpreting the changes in distribution of total UK
funding, it is important to note that due to the overall increase
in research expenditure no one HRCS Research Activity group
shows a decrease in overall funding in real terms. Since 2004
the funding captured by this analysis has increased by £1.32bn
(from £1.24bn to £2.56bn), and within each research activity
group this has resulted in an increase of between £71m to
£353m in spending.
In comparing the distribution of research activity funding in
2018 to previous UK Health Research Analyses there has been a
noticeable shift in the proportion of total expenditure, primarily
from basic discovery research to research with an intent to
translate (see Figure 4 and Table 4).
The proportion of funding for the research activity groups
(1 & 2) which equate to basic discovery research have both
decreased, the proportion of Underpinning research has fallen
consistently across each successive analysis, falling by 11.9%
from 2004 to 2018. Similarly, the proportion of Aetiology
research has also reduced by 4.1% in the same period, albeit
with less consistency between reporting periods.
Research Activity Groups 3 to 8 have all increased as a
proportion of total spend from 2004 to 2018, although the
main increases are observed in Prevention, Detection and
Diagnosis and Treatment Development (+3.4%, +5.3% and
+3.3%, respectively). Increased proportion of total spend
in Treatment Evaluation, Disease Management and Health
Services25 has been more modest over the 14 years, and with
effectively zero growth between 2014 and 2018.
One noted outlier to this apparent upward trend is observed
within Treatment Development, which saw a small decrease
in proportion of total spend (-1.1%) between 2014 and 2018,
despite the increased contributions from additional funders
such as Innovate UK. Upon investigation the cause was the
inclusion of MRC-administered awards made under the UK
Regenerative Medicine Platform (UKRMP) with a value of
£10m in 2014. The UKRMP was a joint venture established in
2013 by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) and the MRC to address the key translational
challenges of regenerative medicine. Awards made under this
scheme had a considerable focus on Treatment Development
via pre-clinical assessment and testing of stem cells and other
cell/gene therapies. A new tranche of £17m to support second
phase activities (UKRMP2) will support further work in this area
from 2018-2023, however most of this funding has yet to be
announced/awarded and is therefore absent from this analysis.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 4 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Research Activity across the four UK Health
Research Analyses 2004/05 to 2018
■ 2004/05 ■ 2009/10 ■ 2014 ■ 2018
Proportion of total spend1
Underpinning
2
Aetiology
3
Prevention
4
Detection &
Diagnosis
5
Treatment
Development
6
Treatment
Evaluation
7
Disease
Management
8
Health Services
29
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Trend assessment; focus on translational research
The data collected across the four UK Health Research Analysis
reports have shown that while there is continued willingness to
invest in basic discovery research – increasing in real terms and
still accounting for half of all research activity - the growth in
health research funding is disproportionately in favour of more
translationally orientated research activities. These changes
appear to be shared across multiple funders and time periods,
suggesting this transition is part of a shared, national shift in
policy. These changes can probably be traced to the influential
review of UK health research funding conducted by Sir David
Cooksey in 200626 - which used data from the original UK
Health Research Analysis 2004/05 as part of its evidence base -
and its recommendation that increases to health research fund-
ing should focus on “translating ideas from basic and clinical
research into the development of new products and approaches
to treatment of disease and illness”.
Research in Prevention was highlighted in the 2004/05 analysis
as under-funded and this evidence was used to help make the
case for establishing the National Prevention Research Initiative
(NPRI). Founded in 2004, the NPRI combined 16 funding
partners from government departments, research councils and
charities to promote research into chronic disease prevention,
resulting in £34m across 74 projects supported from 2005-
201427. This investment has contributed to expenditure for
prevention research increasing five-fold from a low base of
£30m in 2004/05 to over £151m in 2018. Continued interest
in supporting prevention research and building on the co-
ordinated NPRI approach has resulted in a new cross-funder
initiative, the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP)
announced in 2017, with a value of more than £50m.
The first UKPRP awards will start in 2019, so do not contribute
to this analysis but will assist in continuing to grow capability in
this important area in the future.
The drivers of translational research funding fall across
multiple sectors and organisations. Industry has for some time
shifted away from fully in-house discovery to collaboration and
licencing from academia and biotech SMEs. From the public
sector, the MRC budget for directed translational research
(i.e. calls and schemes with inherent translational intent,
such as the Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme and
Confidence in Concept) has risen from <£10m per annum in
2008/09 to >£70m in 2017/18, as noted in a newly published
evaluation of translational research28. Similarly, the creation of
NIHR Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) and more recently
Invention for Innovation (i4i) has also driven translational
research funding. Innovate UK has seen considerable growth
in expenditure, from a budget allocation of £440m in 2012/13
to over £1bn in 2017/1829. While not all of Innovate UK’s
research expenditure is health-related, the organisation
supports a number of key biomedical initiatives, such as the
Cell and Gene Therapy and Medicines Discovery Catapults.
Finally enhanced translational funding from medical charities
has further supported this funding environment, such as
Wellcome’s Innovation Division or CRUK’s Drug Development
Units. Collectively, the influence of the Cooksey Review and
subsequent interest in enhancing the bench-to-beside pathway
of medical research has resulted in a significant shift towards
directed translational funding.
Detailed Analysis: Research Activity
Table 4 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Research Activity across the four UK Health
Research Analyses 2004/05 to 2018
Research
Activity Group
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
Difference
Spend
(real
terms)
% of
total
Spend
(real
terms)
% of
total
Spend
(real
terms)
%of
total
Spend
% of
total
Value
%
1 Underpinning
£418m
33.6%
£515m
27.6%
£489m
22.7%
£555m
21.7%
£137m
-11.9%
2 Aetiology
£431m
34.7%
£594m
31.8%
£632m
29.3%
£784m
30.6%
£353m
-4.1%
3 Prevention
£31m
2.5%
£70m
3.7%
£113m
5.2%
£151m
5.9%
£120m
3.4%
4 Detection and Diagnosis
£65m
5.3%
£137m
7.3%
£220m
10.2%
£270m
10.5%
£204m
5.3%
5 Treatment Development
£107m
8.6%
£200m
10.7%
£281m
13.0%
£306m
11.9%
£199m
3.3%
6 Treatment Evaluation
£103m
8.3%
£160m
8.5%
£209m
9.7%
£249m
9.7%
£145m
1.4%
7 Disease Management
£29m
2.3%
£60m
3.2%
£86m
4.0%
£103m
4.0%
£74m
1.7%
8 Health Services
£58m
4.7%
£133m
7.1% 25
£126m
5.8%
£143m
5.6%
£85m
0.9%
Grand total
£1 .24bn 100% £1 .87bn 100% £2 .16bn 100% £2 .56bn 100% £1 .32bn
-

30
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Detailed Analysis: Research Activity
Changes in funding distribution by Research Activity sub-group
Assessment of the Research Activity sub-groups shows that
the changes in funding seen at overall group level is largely
mirrored within sub-groups. Notable exceptions to this are:
• The reduction in Underpinning (33.6% in 2004/05, 21.7%
in 2018) is almost exclusively due to the most commonly
used code, 1 .1 Normal biological development and
functioning. The proportion of research coded as 1.1
has decreased by 12.1% since 2004/05, including a
decrease of 0.8% since 2014.
• The proportion of research coded Aetiology has
decreased when comparing 2018 with 2004/5 (-4.1%).
This is largely due to the most common sub-groups within
Aetiology, 2 .1 Biological and endogenous factors and
2 .2 Factors relating to the physical environment,
which decreased by 2.9% and 1.8% respectively.
Although spend in these categories has decreased
as a proportion of overall spend, spend in real terms
has increased since 2004/05 with 2 .1 increasing by
£284m and 2 .2 increasing by £41m. We see a different
change when comparing 2018 to 2014, where in this
period overall spend in Aetiology has increased by 1.3%,
almost exclusively due to a 1.0% (£125m) increase in
2 .1 and 0.3% (£27m) increase in 2 .6 Resources and
infrastructure.
• Since 2004/05 research in Prevention, Detection and
Diagnosis and Treatment Development has increased
in its proportion of total funding by 3.4, 5.3 and 3.3%
respectively. The largest increases are seen in the
subgroups 3 .1 Primary prevention interventions to
modify behaviours or promote well-being (+1.5%),
4 .1 Discovery and preclinical testing of markers
and technologies (+3.2%) and 5.1 Pharmaceuticals
(+1.7%). Since 2014, Prevention and Detection and
Diagnosis continued to increase (+0.94% and +0.32%)
however Treatment Development decreased (-1.09%).
Research in Treatment Evaluation, Disease Management
and Health Services showed small increases in
proportional funding (1.1-1.7%) with largely positive
proportional changes in subgroups. For example, 7 .1
Individual care needs increased by 0.92% since
2004/05, with a funding increase of £41m in real terms.
• A further observation is that in 7 of the 8 research
activities sub-groups for ‘Resources and Infrastructure’
(codes 1 .5, 2 .6, 3 .5, 4 .5, 5 .9, 7 .4 and 8 .5) have
increased since 2004/05 (0.3 to 1.7%). In total, this
accounted for a funding increase of £277m in real terms.
This suggests a greater focus on investment in resources
and infrastructure earlier in our reporting period, with
these structural, long term investments then supporting
other research activities later in our reporting period.
A full table of these data can be found in Appendix 6.
25 Expenditure on Health Services saw a significant increase in 2009/10 vs 2004/05 which appears not sustained into 2014 and 2018. This was due to the inclusion
of funding for the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) into the direct analysis in 2009/10, which in subsequent reports have been assessed separately as
indirect supportive funding.
26 Sir David Cooksey, December 2006. “A review of UK health research funding” DOI 10.1136/bmj.39059.444120.80
27 National Prevention Research Initiative Report (2015) “Initiative outcomes and future approaches” https://bit.ly/2mXspvD
28 MRC Translational Research Evaluation 2008-2018, published September 2019 https://bit.ly/2AW3wEz
29 See Innovate UK annual reports. https://bit.ly/2SdIoRS
DETAILED ANALYSIS:
HEALTH CATEGORIES
32
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Distribution of funding across Health Categories
There are 21 distinct Health Categories used in the HRCS, of
which 19 relate to a specific area of health or disease. The
health categories cover both normal function and disease
state. For example, studies of liver diseases, such as cirrhosis,
and normal hepatic function will both be coded under Oral and
Gastrointestinal. It is also important to consider that many
research projects span a range of health categories, where
multiple codes can be applied to each award (5 maximum). For
example, studies of sexually transmitted diseases will often be
classified as both Infection and Reproduction.
The two remaining health categories are used slightly
differently. The Disputed Aetiology and Other category is used
for diseases of unknown or disputed aetiology or research that
is not applicable to the other health categories30, and Generic
Health Relevance is used for studies that are applicable to all
diseases and/or general health. Generic Health Relevance can
therefore cover a wide range of research types, from basic
cell and molecular biology to geographical evaluation of health
services and is often used in coding for large programme
awards with a broad research remit.
The distribution of direct research expenditure by HRCS Health
Category is shown in Figure 5 and Table 5, below.
Generic health relevance
Cancer and neoplasms
Infection
Neurological
Cardiovascular
Mental health
Inflammatory and immune system
Metabolic and endocrine
Musculoskeletal
Reproductive health and childbirth
Oral and gastrointestinal
Respiratory
Eye
Stroke
Renal and urogenital
Injuries and accidents
Skin
Congenital disorders
Blood
Disputed aetiology and other
Ear
Proportion of total spend
HRCS Health CategoryFigure 5 – Distribution of direct health research expenditure by HRCS Health Category in 2018
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
33
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
Health Category
# of awards
Spend
% of total
Blood
98
£12m
0.5%
Cancer and neoplasms
3,312
£483m
18.9%
Cardiovascular
1,637
£156m
6.1%
Congenital disorders
133
£13m
0.5%
Disputed aetiology and other
72
£10m
0.4%
Ear
105
£10m
0.4%
Eye
349
£33m
1.3%
Generic health relevance
3,382
£625m
24.4%
Infection
2,107
£346m
13.5%
Inflammatory and immune system
760
£99m
3.9%
Injuries and accidents
117
£17m
0.7%
Mental health
1,149
£155m
6.1%
Metabolic and endocrine
533
£78m
3.0%
Musculoskeletal
538
£57m
2.2%
Neurological
2,094
£248m
9.7%
Oral and gastrointestinal
421
£48m
1.9%
Renal and urogenital
342
£25m
1.0%
Reproductive health and childbirth
416
£55m
2.1%
Respiratory
359
£47m
1.8%
Skin
116
£13m
0.5%
Stroke
267
£30m
1.2%
Grand total
18,308
£2 .56bn
100%
Table 5 – Total awards and expenditure for 2018 by HRCS Health Category for all direct awards
submitted to the analysis
34
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
Changes in Health Categories 2004/05 to 2018
Broadly the funding landscape for HRCS Health Categories
remains relatively stable across the 14 years from earliest
analysis in 2004/05 to the latest in 2018. As a proportion
of overall funding available, only six Health Categories saw
variations above ±1% (see Figure 6 and Table 6).
Generic Health Relevance remains the largest area of research
funding in 2018 (£625m, 24.4%). While the amount of funding
has almost doubled in real terms (from £313m in 2004/05)
the proportion of total funding in this area has only decreased
by 1% since 2004/05. Generic Health Relevance is used when
research is applicable to all areas of health and wellbeing
(e.g. assessment of A&E service provision) or does not have
a specific disease or condition of focus, which frequently
includes Underpinning research activity. Therefore, the small
proportional decrease in Generic Health Relevance funding
may be linked to the variations seen in Research Activity and a
prioritisation of more specific translational research areas with
a more specific disease focus.
Cancer and neoplasms remains the second highest funded
Health Category, with an increase in real terms funding of
£231m since 2004/05. Proportionally, there has been a small
decrease of 1.4% since 2004/05, although this appears to be
largely within the last four years (-1.0% since 2014). Cancer
Research UK is by far the largest single funder of Cancer
research (45%) and has maintained its level of funding (after
accounting for changes in funding related to the founding of the
Francis Crick Institute31) across the 14-year reporting period.
There does not appear to be one single contributor to this
decrease in proportion of total cancer spend and is therefore a
potential trend that requires close monitoring in the future.
The third largest Health Category, Infection, shows the most
significant change over the 14-year reporting period. The
proportion of total funding has increased by 4.5% (from 9.0% in
2004/05 to 13.5% in 2018) with a real terms funding increase
of £233m, more than triple the value first reported in 2004/05
(£112m vs £346m in 2018). The increasing prioritisation of
research on antimicrobial resistance alongside the inclusion
of additional organisations with a strong focus on infectious
diseases (such as Innovate UK and DFID) accounts for some
of this trend, although a focus on overseas development
assistance (ODA) funding will also be contributory.
The classifications of Neurological and Mental Health within
the HRCS require some explanation before any conclusions
on funding distributions can be drawn. HRCS Neurological
refers to research conducted directly on the nervous system
and the brain - the wiring - which includes neurodegenerative
conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and dementias.
HRCS Mental Health refers to research into cognition and
behaviour which includes depression, addiction, schizophrenia
and a range of other disorders classified by the patient’s mental
state, cognitive ability and behaviour. While this segregation
is useful for analyses of this type to differentiate research in
different contexts, the public view of what constitutes mental
health is broader; many charities and even other classification
systems consider dementias to be within ‘mental health’
groupings. As a result, it is often helpful to view these health
categories together.
In this analysis the proportion of Neurological funding has
decreased by 1.9%, falling from 11.6% in 2004/05 to 9.7% in
2018, whereas Mental Health funding has increased by 1.8%,
from 4.3% to 6.1%. In both categories real terms funding has
grown by similar amounts (£104m and £101m respectively). If
viewed collectively, these two Health Categories have doubled
in funding over 14 years with almost no change in combined
proportion of total funding. This is likely to increase beyond
2018, with the creation of the £290m UK Dementia Research
Institute (only £4m of which was active in 2018) forming a key
hub for work in both Neurological and Mental Health research.
The Health Category with the largest proportional decrease is
Inflammatory and Immune System, used to identify research
with a focus on the normal function of the immune system
and auto-immune diseases. The proportion of total funding
decreased by 2.0% since 2004/05 (5.9% to 3.9%), but
Inflammatory and Immune System has still seen an increase in
real terms funding of £26m over this period.
Only one category, Ear, showed a decrease in real terms
funding over 14 years; from £15.6m in 2004/05 to £10.0m in
2018. Funding for this Health Category - which is focused on
research into hearing and hearing loss - is relatively volatile and
from only a relatively small number of awards, making it difficult
to determine if this is a genuine trend.
35
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
■ 2018
■ 2014
■ 2009/10
■ 2004/05
Figure 6 – Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Health Category across the four UK Health
Research Analyses 2004/05 to 2018
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Stroke
Skin
Respiratory
Reproductive health
and childbirth
Renal and urogenital
Oral and gastrointestinal
Neurological
Musculoskeletal
Metabolic and endocrine
Mental health
Injuries and accidents
Inflammatory and
immune system
Infection
Generic health relevance
Eye
Ear
Disputed aetiology and other
Congenital disorders
Cardiovascular
Cancer and neoplasms
Blood
Proportion of total spend
36
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) comparison
There are multiple factors that influence the level of research
funding in any area, including scientific opportunity, research
workforce capacity, ‘researchability’ or tractability, burden of
disease and fund-raising potential. Burden of disease is a factor
that has previously been used as a comparator for research
investment across different diseases. There are many metrics
to assess burden of disease such as incidence, prevalence,
mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay. Comparison
with each of these can lead to different interpretations about
the appropriate relationship with research funding levels.
Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) are frequently used as a
measure of burden of disease. DALYs are calculated by combin-
ing two established metrics; years of life lost from mortality
(YLL)32 and years lost due to disability (YLD)33 . The former uses
incidence of disease and life expectancy at death as a measure
of mortality whilst the latter adjusts prevalence for the severity
of disease as a measure for morbidity. The resulting figure is
the total number of years lost (i.e. 1 DALY = one lost year of
‘healthy’ life). The DALY rate used in this analysis is the propor-
tion of DALY for a particular health category relative to the
DALY total for the UK.
Health Category
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
Differences
Spend
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(real
terms)
%
Spend
%
2018
vs
04/05
2018
vs
2014
Blood
£12.4m
1.0%
£14.4m
0.8%
£14.3m
0.6%
£11.6m
0.5%
-0.55%
-0.21%
Cancer and neoplasms
£252.m
20.3% £366.3m 19.6% £428.3m 19.8% £483.4m 18.9%
-1.40%
-0.98%
Cardiovascular
£87.1m
7.0%
£134.5m
7.2%
£147.5m
6.8%
£156.5m
6.1%
-0.90%
-0.73%
Congenital disorders
£8.9m
0.7%
£6.6m
0.4%
£14.1m
0.6%
£12.6m
0.5%
-0.23%
-0.16%
Disputed aetiology and other
£2.1m
0.2%
£17.8m
1.0%
£14.5m
0.6%
£10.5m
0.4%
0.24%
-0.26%
Ear
£15.6m
1.3%
£6.3m
0.3%
£13.1m
0.6%
£10.0m
0.4%
-0.87%
-0.22%
Eye
£10.9m
0.9%
£16.1m
0.9%
£24.2m
1.1%
£32.6m
1.3%
0.40%
0.15%
Generic health relevance
£313.1m 25.2% £453.1m 24.2%
£509.m
23.6% £625.5m 24.4%
-0.77%
0.83%
Infection
£112.3m
9.0%
£202.6m 10.8%
£241.7m
11.2% £346.2m 13.5%
4.49%
2.32%
Inflammatory and immune system
£73.m
5.9%
£91.2m
4.9%
£91.3m
4.2%
£98.6m
3.6%
-2.02%
-0.38%
Injuries and accidents
£2.9m
0.2%
£6.6m
0.4%
£10.m
0.4%
£16.7m
0.7%
0.42%
0.19%
Mental health
£53.2m
4.3%
£102.2m
5.5%
£119.6m
5.5%
£155.0m 6.0%
1.77%
0.51%
Metabolic and endocrine
£35.6m
2.9%
£51.6m
2.8%
£64.3m
2.9%
£78.0m
3.0%
0.18%
0.06%
Musculoskeletal
£37.6m
3.0%
£52.2m
2.8%
£62.5m
2.9%
£57.2m
2.2%
-0.79%
-0.66%
Neurological
£143.6m
11.6%
£183.8m
9.8%
£206.9m
9.6%
£248.5m 9.7%
-1.85%
0.11%
Oral and gastrointestinal
£17.5m
1.4%
£34.2m
1.8%
£42.m
1.9%
£47.8m
1.9%
0.46%
-0.08%
Renal and urogenital
£10.9m
0.9%
£15.6m
0.8%
£21.1m
0.9%
£24.6m
1%
0.09%
-0.02%
Reproductive health and childbirth
£25.2m
2.0%
£46.7m
2.5%
£51.1m
2.3%
£54.9m
2.1%
0.12%
-0.22%
Respiratory
£11.8m
0.9%
£32.4m
1.7%
£36.3m
1.6%
£46.6m
1.8%
0.87%
0.14%
Skin
£6.m
0.5%
£9.3m
0.5%
£14.m
0.6%
£13.4m
0.5%
0.04%
-0.13%
Stroke
£11.1m
0.9%
£25.2m
1.3%
£30.8m
1.4%
£30.2m
1.2%
0.29%
-0.25%
Total
£1 .24bn 100% £1 .87bn 100% £2 .16bn 100% £2 .56bn 100%
Table 6 –Funding distribution for all contributing organisations by HRCS Health Category across the four UK Health
Research Analyses 2004/05 to 2018
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
37
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
Figure 7 presents a comparison of the proportion of research
funding in 2018 across the health categories (all 123 funders)
against the latest UK DALY rates (2016) from the WHO Global
Burden of Disease Project. The Health Categories have been
combined as necessary to allow appropriate comparison with
the WHO Global Health Estimates (GHE) disease coding system
used for DALY data. Details of this disease mapping process
are available in Appendix 7. It is important to note that three
health categories, Inflammatory and Immune System, Generic
Health Relevance and Disputed Aetiology and Other have no
equivalent GHE codes and are omitted from this comparison.
Therefore only 71% (£1.82bn) of spend is represented here.
Correlation analysis shows relatively poor matching of the
UK’s burden of disease in DALY rates and the research funding
available (Spearman’s coefficient 0.66). Cancer received
both the highest proportion of 2018 spend and highest DALY,
with comparable proportions. Most Health Categories show
research funding is lower than the comparative burden of
disease, with difference being significant for the categories
Musculoskeletal, Respiratory, Oral and Gastrointestinal and
combined group Blood/Cardiovascular/Stroke.
In contrast Metabolic and Endocrine, Reproductive Health and
Childbirth and Infection all show a higher proportion of research
funding than the corresponding UK DALY ranking. Infection
showed the largest difference, reflecting a general trend for
increased Infection funding, which rose by £90m between
2014 and 2018. This can largely be attributed to the top three
funders (MRC, DHSC and Wellcome), with their contribution
increasing from £178m to £247m. The remainder is due to new
funders in Infection joining the analysis, such as the Department
for International Development.
Cancer and neoplasms
Blood/Stroke/Cardiovascular
Mental health
Musculoskeletal
Respiratory
Neurological
Oral and gastrointestinal
Infection
Renal and urogenital
Metabolic and endocrine
Ear/Eye
Reproductive health and childbirth
Congenital disorders
Skin
Injuries and accidents
Figure 7 – Comparison of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) rates for the UK in 2016 and the proportion of HRCS
Health Category spending in 2018
■ Proportion of 2018 total spend
■ UK DALY rate (2016)
Proportion
Aligned HRCS Health Category0
5%
10%
15%
20%
38
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Detailed Analysis: Health Categories
(DFID) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA). An increase in the number of awards submitted by
Innovate has resulted in their contribution to Infection funding
increasing from £7.9m to £24.3m between 2014 and 2018.
While comparisons with such data are interesting, there are
some important caveats which should be considered. Firstly,
the burden of a disease is dependent on severity, duration
and risk of premature mortality but this will not automatically
correlate with the research costs involved. For example,
research into Injuries and Accidents is part of HRCS coding
and includes external injuries (fractures, burns and poisons)
and intervention studies to prevent future accidents. This
represents a very small proportion of research funding but
the loss of life or quality of life through disability is
considerable (6.8%).
Secondly, the relationship of UK research to global health
issues is an important issue. While the UK’s burden of disease
due to infections is relatively low (4.1%), the global DALY loss
due to infection is significantly higher (17.7%) and the UK
research base is a key international resource for providing new
avenues for treatments. With the looming threat of antimicrobial
and the related risks of emerging diseases and pandemics,
maintaining a research level above current disease burden
conditions seems prudent given the potentially catastrophic
impact of current antibiotics becoming obsolete.
Thirdly, while both HRCS and GHE disease classifications show
similarities, the mapping is imperfect. In particular, there is
no suitable GHE classification for funding assigned to HRCS’s
Inflammatory and Immune System, Generic Relevant Health and
Disputed Aetiology and Other, so 28.7% (£735m) of research
funding is not included in comparison with DALY rates. There is
also no method to determine GHE classification for the £1.4bn
in indirect funding listed in this analysis. This report has clearly
shown that the majority of health research funding is still
focused on basic science and the infrastructure to support it.
While the ultimate goal is to solve societal health problems,
the focus of funding towards developing the capacity/capability
to perform research is as important as the burden a specific
disease may have on the UK population.
Finally, the outcomes resulting from research are often
unexpected, particularly so for basic/fundamental or discovery
science. Experience shows that research has wide spill-over
benefits to areas beyond that originally envisaged. A good
example of this is the recent introduction of the first CAR-T cell
therapies for cancer, an approach built on fundamental studies
of the immune system and methods for the genetic engineering
of cells, that has made cancer immunotherapy a reality. An
analysis of the economic benefits of medical research in the
UK estimated a total returned investment of around 25p per
year for every £1 spent34. 15 to 18p of this value, calculated
in a 2016 study funded by the MRC, was shown to be positive
spill-over impact in the private sector. These results highlight
the importance of tracking progress, productivity and quality
of research, not only focusing on the details of applications
funded. Managing the composition of research portfolios at
the outset (inputs) as well as better understanding how
this work translates into impact (by examining outputs and
indicators of progress) are both important aspects of
co-ordinating health research.
30 Examples of disputed aetiology include myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Other category is also used for other social
service research for at risk groups, such as young people at risk of domestic violence, and studies of animal welfare.
31 In 2014, the proportion of Cancer research funding provided by CRUK was 63%, however the formation of the Francis Crick Institute in 2015 was facilitated by the
merger of both CRUK’s London Research Institute (LRI) and MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). Due to the nature of this analysis the research
at LRI attributed to CRUK is now attributed directly to the Crick, which provided a further 7% of Cancer research funding. This research would be partly supported
through CRUK core support contribution, which in 2018/19 was £54m. See the appropriate funder sections of Appendix 1 – Participating organisations and
qualitative submissions for further details on Crick core contributions.
32 YLL = Number of Deaths x Life Expectancy at age of death.
33 YLD = Prevalence x Disability Weighting (a measure of disease severity)
34 For links to the research papers on economic benefits, see the “Medical Research: What’s it worth?” section of the MRC Evaluating Research Outcomes webpages:
https://mrc.ukri.org/successes/evaluating-research-outcomes/ .
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
40
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Geographical Distribution
The regional distribution of health research funding across the UK
The compilation of portfolio data centrally provides an opportunity to map the directly funded research of participating
organisations by geographical location within the United Kingdom (see Figure 8 and Figure 9 below).
As with previous analyses, London still accounts for just under one third of UK health research spend, with the South East (including
Oxford), the East of England (including Cambridge) and Scotland (including Edinburgh) sharing a further 40% of UK funding (between
11% and 15% each).
fig 8 map
Dundee 1 .7%
Edinburgh 5 .2%
Newcastle Upon Tyne 2 .2%
Leeds 1 .9%
Sheff eld 1 .4%
Nottingham 1 .4%
Leicester 1 .1%
Cambridge 13 .3%
Oxford 10 .7%
London 31 .8%
Southampton 1 .4%
14 .3%
2 .8%
2 .5%
6 .5%
1 .0%
11 .3%
14 .9%
3 .8%
2 .4%
4 .1%
4 .6%
Glasgow 3 .5%
Belfast 0 .9%
Manchester 3 .5%
Birmingham 2 .6%
Cardiff 1 .7%
Bristol 2 .5%
Liverpool 2 .6%
Exeter 0 .8%
Figure 8 – Map to show regional distribution of combined research funding 2018 in the UK using NUTS level 1 codes
41
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Geographical Distribution
East
Midlands
East
of England
London
North
East
North
West
Northern
Ireland
Scotland
South
East
South
West
Wales
West
Midlands
Yorkshire
and The
Humber
■ 2004/05 ■ 2009/10 ■ 2014 ■ 2018
Proportion of total spendFigure 9 – Funding distribution by geographical region across the UK Health Research Analysis series
Comparison across the four UK Health Research Analysis
reports show that the distribution of health research spend in
the UK is stable, with less than ±2.0% variation in 14 years.
All regions saw an increase in funding in real terms of actual
expenditure. The East Midlands was the only region to show
the proportion of funding to decline over the 14 years (4.4% to
2.8%, -1.6%), although expenditure in real terms still increased
by £16.3m during this period. The East of England has seen a
+1.9% increase in proportion of funding since 2014 however
this is due to changes in how Wellcome Trust have attributed
awards made to the Sanger Institute, growing from £8m in
2014 to £50m in 2018.
This trend is replicated at the city level, where funding has
increased in real terms since 2004/05 and with less than
±1.9% variation in proportion of funding over 14 years. Both
Liverpool and Oxford have shown the largest proportional
growth since 2004/05, the former by ~0.5-0.7% per report),
the latter by ~1% per report to 2014 but no change 2014 to
2018. The largest proportional decrease since 2004/05 was
in Manchester (-1.8%, -1.1% occurring between 2009/10 and
2014). However, some cities did experience a decline in funding
since 2014, the most significant being in Dundee (+£17.5m in
real terms since 2004/05, but -£4.4m since 2014).
It is important to note that this analysis looks at only the lead
institution for each award funded. As research projects are
rarely carried out by a single institution, these results show a
simplified version of a more complex picture of collaboration
across the UK. For example, larger awards are more likely to
involve a range of institutions, often distributed across the UK,
which would not be represented using this method.
Methodology caveats aside, the regional distribution of health
research funding - particularly the clustering around London,
Oxford and Cambridge - is not surprising. All three have a long
history of research as well as a considerable capacity and
infrastructure to support a high proportion of the UK’s research
funding.
For example, the Medical Schools Council 2018 survey of
clinical academic staffing levels mirrors our findings in that
the number of clinical academics in the UK has also remained
stable over the last 14 years, with approximately a third located
in London. In addition, HESA data show that roughly a third of
UK HEI expenditure through biomedically-relevant departments
occurs in London-based institutions. It is logical to expect that
health relevant research is conducted in institutions that are
active in this field and where medical schools can train and host
clinical academic staff.
Likewise, proximity to the funder may be a factor. A larger
proportion of spend from non-HRAF funders is concentrated in
London (45.5%) compared to HRAF members (29.9%), however
the difference between the combined total and HRAF is small
(2.4%), largely driven by The Francis Crick Institute. Indeed,
several of the non-HRAF funders are either located in the capital
and/or have a specific remit to fund London institutions (e.g.
hospital charities). A complete breakdown of this regional data,
including by selected cities can be found in Appendix 8 .
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
42
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
International funding outside the UK by UK organisations
Research is an international endeavour and researchers will
routinely collaborate across national borders. The same is
true of research funding. UK-based organisations support
international researchers via a range of different mechanisms,
including direct research funding. International researchers also
benefit from UK-funded research as co-applicants on awards,
as members of networks and consortia, and indirectly through
research where their country will benefit from the findings.
This analysis focuses on awards made directly to a researcher
where the host institution is located outside the UK. This
keeps the methodology for analysis consistent with the
UK-based analysis; the focus of this report series – but will
be an underestimate of overall UK health research funding
expenditure made overseas.
Overall, only 37 of the 123 organisations supplied us with data
with at least one overseas award. In total, 841 overseas awards
made to 66 different countries were submitted to the analysis
with a total value in 2018 of £223m (for a geographic display by
city, see Figure 10).
The recipient country with the most funding was the United
States of America, with 38% of international funding (£84m
from 115 awards), although £29m of this is due to a single
award; Wellcome Trust’s 2018 contribution to The Combating
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator
(CARB-X) programme in collaboration with the Biomedical
Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
both within the US Department of Health and Human Services,
and Boston University. The second largest recipient country by
funding was Switzerland (£45m from 38 awards), due to the
headquarters of several international organisations being based
in Switzerland, including Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative
(DNDI), Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) and, of course,
the World Health Organisation (WHO). A table of expenditure by
recipient country is available in Appendix 8 (ii).
Figure 10 – Distribution by city of international awards made by UK-based organisations for the UK Health Research
Analysis 2018

Note: Bubble size indicates relative value.
Geographical Distribution
43
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Geographical Distribution
International funding into the UK
As an analysis of UK-based organisations funding predominantly
within the UK, this report does not include an exhaustive
analysis of research funding being awarded to UK-based
researchers / institutions from international sources. This is
partly due to very limited availability of such award information.
Access to the subscription Dimensions platform shows 8,426
awards active in 2018 made by funders outside the UK to
UK-based institutions. Using our methodology for 2018 value,
we estimate a total spend from these awards in 2018 to be
£4.4bn. However, many of these awards have UK institutions
as one of many partners and therefore much of this funding
may not be spent within the UK. To match the methodology for
our main geographic distribution analysis, we examined awards
where a UK institution was the primary institution; 4,178 (with
£1.2bn spend in 2018). As a proxy for health-relevance, we
used the presence/absence of HRCS auto-coding; this is not
definitive and has some caveats attached (see Appendix 10
for a broader discussion of this process) but does provide us
with the most directly accessible method of sampling from a
large dataset. Of the 4,178 UK-funded awards only 940 had
complete HRCS auto-coding. The estimated expenditure from
these 940 awards was £245m. We therefore estimate that
approximately 21% of total research funding from outside the
UK is of health relevance.
However, a significant part of the data from Dimensions
originates in the European Union’s CORDIS database36. Indeed,
of the £245m identified as health-relevant, internationally-
sourced UK health research funding more than 90% is from
European sources; 54% directly from the European Commission
and a further 38% via the European Research Council. We have
access to CORDIS data directly allowing a more detailed view
of where EU funding is being distributed. From this analysis we
found 10,896 records of EU projects active in 2018 associated
with 2,622 unique UK-based recipients with a total spend in
2018 of €1.27bn (£1.12bn)37. As a proxy for health relevance,
we found 1,876 records – made to 397 unique UK recipient
institutions with total spend in 2018 of £236m - were matched
and fully HRCS auto-coded on Dimensions. Of these, 790
records (£154m spend in 2018) had the UK institution as either
host institution or coordinator, suggesting that UK researchers
had a particularly key role in the EC-funded project.
To maximise the accuracy of the available international health
research data, we combined directly collated CORDIS data of
all UK recipients with the remaining non-EC awards with UK
primary institutions from Dimensions (215 with spend in 2018
of £17.8m) to create a combined total of £254m in spending.
The HRCS auto-coding then allows us to compare the type of
research being funded by international sources with our main
2018 analysis dataset:
• By HRCS Research Activity, a higher proportion of
overseas health research funding is for Underpinning
(+8.8%) but lower for Aetiology (-6.0%). Funding for
research in Prevention was proportionally higher for
international funders (+3.2%) while funding for
Treatment Evaluation was lower (-4.0%). See Figure 11
(upper panel) below.
• By HRCS Health Category, a higher proportion of overseas
health research funding is for Infection (+7.5%) and
Neurological (+3.2%), and a lower proportion of overseas
research funding is for Cancer and neoplasms (-7.1%) and
Cardiovascular (-3.1%). See Figure 11 (lower panel) below.
International awards – just as those from domestic
organisations – are won in open competition and as such
the type of research funded tends to amplify UK strengths.
However, the funding priorities of international funders will not
necessarily align strategy in the UK. For example, the ERC
awards (38% of funding) has a strong emphasis on fundamental
research, with more than 80% of funding within Underpinning
and Aetiology.
Note that due to both the difficulty in assigning research
spend to geography and the use of HRCS auto-coding as a
proxy for health-relevancy, we do not wish to over-interpret
these data. However, our analysis suggests that around 20%
of overseas research connected to the UK is health-relevant
and this represents 9% of UK’s total health research. This
funding is predominantly from the European Union and shows
some similarities with domestically-supported research
but has a greater focus on fundamental underpinning and
prevention research and a greater emphasis on infection and
neuroscience. If UK researchers were to no longer be able to
access European Commission funds it would create shortfalls in
health research funding in general and these areas in particular,
therefore requiring additional support streams to maintain the
current balance of funding.
44
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
1
Underpinning
2
Aetiology
3
Prevention
4
Detection &
Diagnosis
5
Treatment
Development
6
Treatment
Evaluation
7
Disease
Management
8
Health Services
HRCS Research Activity
Proportion of total spendFigure 11 – Comparison of HRCS Research Activity (upper panel) and Health Category (lower panel) for international
funders (a combined dataset of funding data from CORDIS and Dimensions) and the UK Health Research Analysis
2018 UK-only dataset
Stroke
Skin
Respiratory
Reproductive health and childbirth
Renal and urogenital
Oral and gastrointestinal
Neurological
Musculoskeletal
Metabolic and endocrine
Mental health
Injuries and accidents
Inflammatory and immune system
Infection
Generic health relevance
Eye
Ear
Disputed aetiology and other
Congenital disorders
Cardiovascular
Cancer and neoplasms
Blood
HRCS Health CategoryProportion of total spend
■ UKHRA 2018 analysis ■ Combined CORDIS/Dimensions data
Geographical Distribution
■ Combined CORDIS/Dimensions data ■ UKHRA 2018 analysis
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
35 The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) codes are an agreed geographical classification system provided by EuroStat, the statistical office of
the European Union and used by a range of Government agencies including the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS).
36 Of the 8,426 awards in Dimensions, 6,415 (76%) are from the European Union. By the 2018 value of these awards, this proportion is higher; £4.17bn, 94% of the
£4.44bn total.
37 Exchange rate of 1.1305, based on ONS yearly average for 2018 https://bit.ly/2YNcL7D
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING
BETWEEN CHARITY AND
PUBLIC SECTOR
46
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Distribution of Funding between Charity and Public Sector
The current analysis increased participation from 64
funders in 2014 to 123 funders in 2018, with the inclusion
of UK Government departments beyond DHSC, a range of
professional associations (such as medical Royal Colleges)
and a substantial number of medical charities, many of them
members of the AMRC.
For the purposes of this analysis, public funders were split
into two groups; UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other
Government and Public Bodies. UKRI includes the Research
Councils as reported in previous analyses - MRC, BBSRC,
EPSRC, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC) and Arts and Humanities
Research Council (AHRC) - plus Innovate UK38 and Science and
Technology Facilities Council (STFC). The ‘Government’ group
is primarily the UK Health Departments, but also includes the
various learned societies and professional organisations not
classified as charities. Funding of direct research in 2018 from
Charities and not-for-profits totalled £1.11bn (44%). Funding
from UKRI totalled £986m (39%) and Other Government and
Public Bodies contributed £460m (18%).
Distribution of research activity funding by charity or public sector
The distribution of combined total funding by research activity
is shown in Figure 12 below. A full breakdown of the data can
be found in Appendix 9.
The majority of Charitable spend is in Underpinning and
Aetiology (27% and 37%, respectively), with approximately a
quarter of spend in Detection and Diagnosis and Treatment
Development (10% and 14% respectively) which is consistent
with determining the causes of disease and developing new
strategies for both early diagnosis and novel treatments.
Similarly, UKRI funding also supports Underpinning (25%) and
Aetiology (34%), slightly less than a quarter on Detection and
Diagnosis (10%) and Treatment Development (12%)39, with a
slightly higher proportion of spend in Prevention than charities
(6.8% vs 3.0%, respectively). Overall, rank correlation analysis
shows that both charities and UKRI share very similar priorities
in research activity funding (Spearman’s rank = 0.98) which is
consistent with both organisation groups focusing both on basic
science and early stage translational activity.
In contrast funding from other Government and public bodies
is rarely in Underpinning or Aetiology (10%). Instead, funding is
spent on Treatment Evaluation (28%), Health Services (17%) and
Disease Management (14%), Detection and Diagnosis (13%) and
Prevention (11%). This profile reflects the significant contribution
of DHSC (80%) and the devolved health departments (9.2%) to
the ‘other Government’ category, and their focus on applied
health and care research.
47
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
The distribution of combined total funding by health category is
shown in Figure 13 below. A full breakdown of the data can be
found in Appendix 9.
UKRI supports the majority of Generic health relevance
research (52.0%, £325m), which is often used in conjunction
with Underpinning in studies of basic biological processes.
Funding for Infection research is a somewhat shared priority,
with bulk of spend attributed to the MRC (31%, £108m),
Wellcome Trust (31%, £106m) and DHSC (10%, £34m).
Charities support the majority of funding for Cancer and
neoplasms (73%, £353m), primarily from Cancer Research UK
(45%, £219m) although 18 of the medium to smaller charities
also have a predominantly cancer-based portfolio. Similarly,
66% (£104m) of Cardiovascular funding is from charities, the
majority from the British Heart Foundation (55%, £86m).
The health categories where other Government and public
bodies contribute the largest spend are Injuries and accidents,
Renal and urogenital, Stroke and Reproductive health and
childbirth. In general, Government support across the
health categories is slightly more diffuse, with 15 of the
21 health categories receiving 2% or more of the total
expenditure, compared to just 12 health categories for UKRI
and 7 for charities.
While some specific health categories may be favoured by one
funder type, in general all three groups distribute their funding
in a similar way. Correlation analysis shows that when funding
for health categories is ranked by amount funded, charities,
UKRI and other Government organisations tend to prioritise in a
reasonably similar way (Spearman’s coefficient 0.81 to 0.93)40.
The reasons for this correlation are unclear but may relate to
similar strategic priorities in public funding and/or the capacity
for funding in certain areas.
Proportion of total spend1
Underpinning
2
Aetiology
3
Prevention
4
Detection &
Diagnosis
5
Treatment
Development
6
Treatment
Evaluation
7
Disease
Management
8
Health Services
HRCS Research Activity
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
■ Charities and not-for-profit
■ UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
■ Other Government and public bodies
Figure 12 – Distribution of Research Activity spend by Charity and Public funders, as a proportion of combined total
expenditure in 2018
Distribution of Funding between Charity and Public Sector
Distribution of health category funding by charity or public sector
48
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Distribution of Funding between Charity and Public Sector
38 Note: in 2014, Innovate UK was included in the ‘other Government’ category, but became part of UKRI in 2018.
39 The inclusion of Innovate UK contributes a third (4%) of UKRI’s spend on Treatment Development. The overall distribution for UKRI in 2018 (12.0%) remains similar
versus RCUK and Innovate UK in 2014 (12.5%).
40 This correlation is slightly weaker than observed in the 2014 analysis (0.91 to 0.97) which may be a result of the increase in funders, representing a wider range of

strategic priorities and capacities.
Generic health
relevance
Cancer and
neoplasms
Infection
Neurological
Cardiovascular
Mental health
Inflammatory and
immune system
£0m
£200m
£400m
£600m
■ Charities and not-for-profit ■ UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) ■ Other Government and public bodies
Metabolic and endocrine
Musculoskeletal
Reproductive health
and childbirth
Oral and gastrointestinal
Respiratory
Eye
Stroke
Renal and urogental
Injuries and accidents
Skin
Congenital disorders
Blood
Disputed aetiology and
other
Ear
Figure 13 – Distribution of Health Category spending by Charity or Public funders, split by >£90m
(upper panel) and <£90m (lower panel)
£0m
£20m
£40m
£60m
£80m
49
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
NEXT STEPS
50
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Next steps
Progress and next steps
In 2014 we set several objectives for completion by the next analysis, all of which have been met by completion of this report:
• Widening participation
• Encouraging use of the analysis, including identification of research shortfalls
• Expanding data sharing
• Review of the HRCS
• Progression of automated coding
• Widening the participation beyond core health and biomedicine
One of the main aims for this analysis was to expand the
scope to any organisations which may support health-related
research. However, to do so required a considerable amount
of administrative effort to identify organisations, establish
suitable points of contact with knowledge of the organisation’s
funding and to collate information on funded research which
did not necessarily fit the ‘classical research grant’ format.
Almost three hundred organisations across the public and
charitable sectors were contacted with almost half participating
with either data or qualitative submissions. Indeed, the initial
enquiries with new organisations provided an excellent forum
for discussion which shaped our definitions of ‘health’ and
‘research’, the requirements for qualitative submissions and
ultimately the report itself.
Next steps
The expansion of the 2018 analysis has provided a significant
boon to the resulting analysis and dataset. This report provides
a process for acquiring details of health research funding
from organisations where health is only one topic in a broader
funding portfolio, including information not available anywhere
else. Its public collation for this analysis allows additional usage
without the burden to the participating organisations. The data
collection process has also expanded the awareness of the
report to those with an interest in health research, which we
hope will encourage wider distribution of this report and its
findings to a new readership.
The most common reasons from the 143 organisations
contacted but not participating were due to a lack of response
to initial emails or calls or concerns over public availability of
data. Unfortunately, there is little we can do to alleviate these
issues, beyond continued enquiries and reassurances over
data protection concerns. However, several organisations
declined our invitation due to a lack of capacity to source
the required data for the analysis in the time provided. This
was partly due to the timing of the submission period in Q1
of 2019, building to both the financial year end and additional
workload caused by on-going Brexit negotiations. However, one
critique of the participation process was the complexity of the
submission spreadsheet, particularly for smaller organisations
which do not retain a dedicated grants management system.
We would recommend that future analyses provide a simplified
system to capture the key elements required for the analysis
(award value, duration, location and sufficient information to
HRCS code) which would be better suited to organisations
outside of biomedicine and/or without a central repository of
award information.
51
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Next steps
• Encouraging further use of the analysis
The primary aim of the UK Health Research Analysis report
series is to track health research funding to establish a
distribution across time, geography and the focus of research.
With this fourth report we have a 14-year view of health
research funding, which shows that the additional investment
in the early period quickly reached a plateau and that there
has been only modest growth in public and charity funding in
the past ten years (which followed the economic crash in
2008/09). The reports have also shown a change in the type
of research being funded, such as the increased funding for
translational research topics, as well as a growing investment in
infection research.
Use of the previous analyses has been extensive and we have
made all the underlying data openly accessible to support
further re-use and analysis (see below). One such example is
the use of UKHRA data by the Academy of Medical Sciences in
their “Improving the health of the public by 2040” report from
2016, which provides key recommendations to “fully address
the many complex health challenges the UK population will
face in the next 25 years”. The 2014 analysis provided a key
evidence base for the current research landscape.
Next steps
As the number and range of participating organisations grows,
so the UK Health Research Analysis can also grow in terms of
recognition and onward use. Both the previous analyses and
the HRCS continue to be used and referenced by a range of
stakeholders, nationally and internationally, and the HRAF will
encourage further uptake with the addition of the 2018 analysis
and dataset.
• Expanded data sharing and reuse
In addition to the report, the UK Health Research Analysis series
also publishes a complete public dataset. This allows for a
replication of the report findings and further, more bespoke
analysis. As with the 2014 report, the 2018 dataset contains
titles and abstracts, which allows for custom searches and
the opportunity for text mining for specific terms or keywords.
This is exemplified in a 2017 report published by Marie Curie,
an AMRC member charity with a focus on care and support for
people living with terminal illness, which made extensive use
of the 2014 analysis data. The report - “Does current palliative
and end of life care research match the priorities of patients,
carers and clinicians?” - focused on Research Activity Code 7.2
End of life care for palliative care research and fulfilled one of
the main aims behind making data from the UK Health Research
Analyses publicly available; to identify discrepancies in research
need versus expenditure and encourage new collaborations to
promote funding for these research gaps.
The introduction of new data protection legislation in May 2018
has renewed the interest in what research data are held by
organisations. While this did present additional concerns for the
2018 analysis, most funders are aware of the need for greater
data transparency and have adjusted internal data protection
policies accordingly.
Next steps
The introduction of interactive dashboards to visualise the
public datasets is new to the 2018 analysis but provides a more
user-friendly format to compare and contrast the results of this
latest analysis. We would aim to provide similar visualisations
for the previous analyses, alongside a combined dataset
to allow direct side-by-side comparisons of health research
funding across the 14-year reporting period.
52
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Next steps
• Review of the HRCS
Following the 2014 analysis, a full review of the HRCS was
conducted by the HRAF, including stakeholder surveys from
coders, report end users and the wider health and biomedical
funding community. This resulted in a new website for the HRCS
along with an update and expansion to the guidance
for application.
In addition, the HRAF assessed report efficacy, to establish if
increased report frequency would be beneficial. Analysis shows
that it is productive to continue this exercise every 4-5 years,
as this provides enough time to detect changes in research
portfolios. More frequent analyses may not be cost effective.
Next steps
The HRAF now records feedback from the HRCS community
routinely, to allow for periodic assessment and further review
as new research terms rise in prominence. As data from the UK
Health Research Analyses continue to be collated, we will seek
to perform further internal assessment to ensure the HRCS and
the report series remain fit for purpose.
• Automated coding
The costs of compiling information for this analysis continue
to decline as the tools to code and analyse have improved. In
particular, the launch of Digital Science Dimensions platform41
including the machine learning-based HRCS auto-coding has
transformed this kind of analysis.
The HRCS is an open source system, but the HRAF has worked
closely with Digital Science in the early stages of auto-coding
development. Following the release on Dimensions we have
conducted a variety of assessments to compare traditional
manual coding with auto-coding (see Appendix 10). As an
independent private sector organisation, the HRCS auto-coding
is only available via subscription to the wider Dimensions
platform, although these proprietary tools are offered free
to smaller charities. This puts some financial limits on the
availability of auto-coding, but with almost half of awards in
the 2018 analysis fully or partially auto-coded, there are
clear advantages in terms of report costs to the use of
such methods.
Next steps
While the development of new technologies presents challenges
for analysis, the HRAF encourages the use and further
development of new tools which aid in the collation of research
data and provision of HRCS coding. Publication of the 2018
analysis dataset provides a new resource to further develop
auto-coding algorithms, and the HRAF endeavours to support
any organisation, whether public or private, that supports these
efforts to make funding data more accessible.
41 Hook et al. - “Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation” - Frontiers in Research Metrics Analytics, 23 August 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/
frma.2018.00023
APPENDICES
54
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Participating organisations and
qualitative submissions
Part One – Organisations participating in the Analysis 2018
Organisation
Submission
Type
Group
Page
no
Academy of Medical Sciences
Data
Multiple
Independent
85
Action Medical Research
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
Action on Hearing Loss
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
Alcohol Change UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
Alzheimer's Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
Alzheimer's Society
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
Anthony Nolan
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Data
UKRI
UKRI
69
Asthma UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
Association of Medical Research Charities
Text only
Charity
HRAF member
58
Ataxia UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
92
UK Atomic Energy Authority
Text only
Public
Other Public (BEIS Partner)
84
Autistica
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Data
UKRI
HRAF member & UKRI
93
Bloodwise
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
Bowel Cancer UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
Bowel Disease Research Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
BRACE
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
Brain Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
Breast Cancer Now
Data
Charity
AMRC member
93
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
Data
Charity
AMRC member
94
British Council for Prevention of Blindness
Data
Charity
AMRC member
94
British Heart Foundation
Data
Charity
HRAF member & AMRC member
59
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Data
Charity
AMRC member
94
British Lung Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
94
British Scoliosis Research Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
94
British Sjögren's Syndrome Association
Data
Charity
AMRC member
94
British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Text only
Professional Body
Independent
85
British Skin Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
Cancer Research UK
Data
Charity
HRAF member & AMRC member
60
Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
Chief Scientist Office, Scotland
Data
Public
HRAF member & UK Government
60
Childhood Eye Cancer Trust
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
Children's Liver Disease Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
Chronic Disease Research Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
Coeliac UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
Council of Deans of Health
Text only
Professional Body
Independent
87
Crohn's & Colitis UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
95
55
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Organisation
Submission
Type
Group
Page
no
Cystic Fibrosis Trust
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
DEBRA
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Text only
Public
UK Government
75
Department for Education
Text only
Public
UK Government
76
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Data
Public
UK Government
76
Department for International Development
Data
Public
UK Government
77
Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland
Data
Public
UK Government
75
Department for Transport
Data
Public
UK Government
77
Department for Work and Pensions
Data
Public
UK Government
78
Department of Health and Social Care
Data
Public
UK Government
66
Diabetes Research & Wellness Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
Diabetes UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
Duchenne UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
Dunhill Medical Trust
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
Economic and Social Research Council
Data
UKRI
HRAF member & UKRI
62
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Data
UKRI
HRAF member & UKRI
61
Epilepsy Action
Data
Charity
AMRC member
96
Epilepsy Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
97
Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine
Text only
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges 89
Faculty of Public Health
Text only
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges 87
Fight for Sight
Data
Charity
AMRC member
97
Food Standards Agency
Data
Public
UK Government
78
Friends of EORTC
Data
Charity
AMRC member
97
Garfield Weston Foundation
Text only
Charity
Independent
105
Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity
Data
Charity
AMRC member
97
Guts UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
97
Guy's and St Thomas' Charity
Data
Charity
AMRC member
97
Health and Care Research Wales (R&D Division,
Health and Social Services Group, Welsh Government)
Data
Public
HRAF member & UK Government
63
Health and Safety Executive
Text only
Public
UK Government
79
Health and Social Care R&D Division, Public Health Agency,
Northern Ireland
Data
Public
HRAF member & UK Government
64
Health Education England (Department of Health and
Social Care funded)
Data (from DHSC) Public
UK Government
66
Heart Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Innovate UK
Data
UKRI
UKRI
71
JDRF
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Kidney Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Leuka
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Leukaemia & Lymphoma NI
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
LifeArc
Text only
Charity
Independent
105
Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Macmillan Cancer Support
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Macular Society
Data
Charity
AMRC member
98
Marie Curie
Data
Charity
AMRC member
99
Medical Research Council
Data
UKRI
HRAF member & UKRI
99
Medical Schools Council
Data
Professional Body
Independent
88
Medical Research Foundation
Data
Charity
Independent
106
Medical Research Scotland
Data
Charity
AMRC member
99
Appendix 1
56
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Organisation
Submission
Type
Group
Page
no
Meningitis Now
Data
Charity
AMRC member
99
Meningitis Research Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
MHA Care Group
Text only
Charity
Independent
106
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Text only
Public
UK Government
80
MND Association
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
Moorfields Eye Charity
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
MQ: Transforming Mental Health
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
MS Society
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
Multiple System Atrophy Trust
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
Muscular Dystrophy UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
National Centre for the Replacement,
Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
Data
UKRI
UKRI
70
National Institute for Health Research
(Department of Health and Social Care funded)
Data (as DHSC)
Public
HRAF Member (& UK Government)
66
National Physical Laboratory
Text only
Public
Other Public (BEIS Partner)
81
Natural Environment Research Council
Data
UKRI
UKRI
69
Newlife The Charity for Disabled Children
Data
Charity
Independent
106
North West Cancer Research
Data
Charity
AMRC member
100
Northern Ireland Chest Heart and Stroke
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Nuffield Council of Bioethics
Text only
Professional Body
Independent
107
Nuffield Foundation
Data
Charity
Independent
107
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s
Services and Skills (Ofsted)
Text only
Public
UK Government
82
Orthopaedic Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Ovarian Cancer Action
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Pancreatic Cancer UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Parkinson's UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Pharmacy Research UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Prostate Cancer UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
101
Public Health England
Text only
Public
Other Public (DHSC Partner)
82
Research England
Data
UKRI
UKRI
72
Royal Academy of Engineering
Data
Professional Body
Independent
86
Royal College of General Practitioners
Text only
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
88
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Text only
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
89
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Text only
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
90
Royal College of Pathologists
Text only
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
90
The Royal College of Radiologists
Data
Professional Body Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
91
Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Royal Osteoporosis Society
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
The Health Foundation
Data
Charity
Independent
105
The Lullaby Trust
Data
Charity
AMRC member
103
RS Macdonald Charitable Trust
Text only
Charity
Independent
107
Sands
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Sarcoma UK
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Data
UKRI
UKRI
73
Solving Kids' Cancer
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Sparks
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Appendix 1
57
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Organisation
Submission
Type
Group
Page
no
Sport England
Text only
Public
Other Public (DCMS Partner)
83
Stroke Association
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Target Ovarian Cancer
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
Tenovus Cancer Care
Data
Charity
AMRC member
102
The Brain Tumour Charity
Data
Charity
AMRC member
103
The Cure Parkinson's Trust
Data
Charity
AMRC member
103
The Francis Crick Institute
Data
Multiple
Independent
104
The Royal College of Anaesthetists
Data
Charity
AMRC member
103
The Urology Foundation
Data
Charity
AMRC member
103
Tourettes Action
Data
Charity
AMRC member
103
UK Clinical Virology Network
Data
Professional Body
Independent
91
UK Space Agency
Data
Public
Other Public (BEIS Partner)
83
Versus Arthritis
Data
Charity
HRAF member & AMRC member
67
Wellbeing of Women
Data
Charity
Independent
104
Wellcome Trust
Data
Charity
HRAF member & AMRC member
68
Welsh Government Office for Science
Data
Public
UK Government
74
Wessex Medical Research
Data
Charity
AMRC member
104
World Cancer Research Fund
Data
Charity
AMRC member
104
Worldwide Cancer Research
Data
Charity
AMRC member
104
Yorkshire Cancer Research
Data
Charity
AMRC member
104
Appendix 1
Part Two – Individual organisations; qualitative submissions
and coding approaches
As both the number and diversity of organisations participating in this analysis has grown, we sought a short narrative from each
participatory organisation. This provided an opportunity to acknowledge the role of each organisation, their broader contribution
to the wider research environment, and their connection to the areas of health and biomedical disciplines. This has allowed a small
number of organisations to participate even where their contribution to health research is un-quantifiable and no data are available.
58
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Health Research Analysis Forum (HRAF)
Association of Medical Research Charities
The Association of Medical
Research Charities (AMRC)
was established in 1987
and is the UK’s national
membership organisation for health and medical research
charities. AMRC supports its members to deliver high-quality
research for patient and public benefit. One of AMRC’s priorities
is to demonstrate the value of the medical research charity
sector to the public and policy-makers using data about
research activity and impact as an evidence base. AMRC
coordinated the 2018 submission to the UK Health Research
Analysis on behalf of its members for a total of 91 charities
submitted data on grants active in 2018 according to the
criteria set by UKCRC. These 91 charities account for 62%
of AMRC members but 97.5% of AMRC member’s total UK
expenditure in 2018 (£1.277bn vs £1.310bn). All grants were
sent to be auto-coded through the Digital Science Dimensions
platform with the exception of three charities who provided
manually coded grants. Any awards that failed to auto-code
were checked manually for inclusion in the indirect analysis.
More information on individual charities can be found in the
AMRC member directory.
Appendix 1
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
The Biotechnology
and Biological
Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC) is
part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), a non-departmental
public body funded by a grant-in-aid from the
UK government.
BBSRC invests in world-class bioscience research and training
on behalf of the UK public. Our aim is to further scientific
knowledge, to promote economic growth, wealth and job
creation and to improve quality of life in the UK and beyond.
We support research and training in universities and
strategically funded institutes. BBSRC research, and the
people we fund, are helping society to meet major challenges,
including food security, green energy and healthier, longer
lives. Our investments underpin important UK economic
sectors, such as farming, food, industrial biotechnology
and pharmaceuticals.
Medical research and development is outside of the remit of
BBSRC and consequently the majority of BBSRC awards are
found in the basic research categories ‘Underpinning’ and
‘Aetiology’. BBSRC supports ‘Bioscience for Health’ providing
sustained research investment to improve health and wellbeing
across the life course, reducing the need for medical and social
intervention. Fundamental bioscience is vital to revealing the
mechanisms underlying normal physiology and homeostatic
control during early development and across the lifespan into
old age. The Bioscience for Health priority aims to achieve
a deep, integrated understanding of the ‘healthy system’
at multiple levels, and of the factors that maintain health
and wellness under stress and biological or environmental
challenge. BBSRC’s vision for research and innovation in
Bioscience for Health is set out in a Strategic Framework.
BBSRC invested £457 million in world-class bioscience
in 2018-19 with around 20% of this portfolio classified as
“bioscience for health” (defined by routine BBSRC classification
procedures). Topics include healthy ageing, diet for health,
regenerative biology, pharmaceuticals, one health, and
personal care.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
59
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
British Heart Foundation (BHF)
The British Heart Foundation (BHF)
is the single largest funder of
cardiovascular research in the UK. The
BHF funds research into the causes,
prevention, diagnosis and treatment
of cardiovascular diseases, including
research that aims to understand
and prevent cardiovascular complications of predisposing
conditions. In the 2018-19 financial year, the BHF’s research
committee expenditure was £128.2m, including supplements
made to new and existing grants.
The BHF supports investigator led research across the full
spectrum of cardiovascular science, from discovery science
and translational research through to clinical trials, population
health sciences and, more recently, innovation in practice.
The Foundation awards grants supporting projects and
high value research programmes. Its personal awards
span the entire career pathway, from PhD studentships to
BHF professorships. The portfolio includes six Research
Excellence Awards, which provide flexible funding to support
multidisciplinary research and capacity building at centres
across the UK; six Accelerator Awards, aimed at helping
universities exploit the full potential of their cardiovascular
research programmes (not included in the 2018 HRAF
submission); and three Centres of Regenerative Medicine.
The BHF works in partnership with other UK and international
biomedical research funders, and is part of large collaborative
funding partnerships, for example, in prevention research
(the UK Prevention Research Partnership) and data science
(Health Data Research UK). The Foundation additionally invests
in research facilities, equipment and other indirect support
underpinning cardiovascular research.
The BHF manually codes all its awards using the Health
Research Classification System. All research awards are
classified using only one Health Category: Cardiovascular. The
BHF also assigns only one Research Activity code to its awards.
The BHF submission to the UK Health Research Analysis 2018
includes 1,015 awards that had active funding during 2018,
with an overall annualised expenditure of £89m. Of this, £86m
is included in the analysis of 994 direct awards. A further £3m
was spent on 21 indirect awards supporting infrastructure,
personal support that could not be coded using HRCS, and
support for meetings or career development.
In contrast to 2014, the six BHF Research Excellence Awards
and the three BHF Centres of Regenerative Medicine were
included as direct awards as they comply with the criteria to be
included in the 2018 direct analysis (with a resultant decrease
in the amount of funding attributed to indirect support). Notably,
the UK Prevention Research Partnership was not included in the
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 as the initiative did not incur
direct spend in 2018.
60
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Cancer Research UK (CRUK)
Cancer Research UK (CRUK)
is the world’s largest cancer
charity dedicated to saving
lives through research. Our
vision is to bring forward the
day when all cancers are cured, from the most common types
to those that affect just a few people. CRUK funds a broad
portfolio of investigator-led research, from individual projects
and fellowships to large-scale team science programmes,
multidisciplinary collaborations and international consortia. In
addition, CRUK makes long-term investments in state-of-the-art
facilities and resources to provide an outstanding research
environment; facilitates networking and collaboration through
international conferences and community meetings. CRUK
partners with industry, charities, not-for-profits and government
agencies in the UK and around the world. Supported research
covers all types of cancer across all age groups, and ranges
from understanding the biology of cancer to prevention, early
diagnosis and treatment.
In the financial year 2018-19, CRUCK’s charitable research
expenditure (annual research activity) totalled £442m. In
this report, all active research is included except indirect or
infrastructural funding. This is the same approach as that taken
for compiling the 2004/05 and 2009/10 and 2014 portfolios.
Awards excluded comprise (1) awards which cannot be
submitted to HRAF (e.g. awards without publishable abstracts,
capital spend awards or research infrastructure not linked to
a specific research code) (2) Funding for Cancer Research
Technologies projects. The total amount not submitted from
the annual research portfolio is approximately £119m, which is
instead included in the indirect assessment. In addition, core
funding for the Francis Crick Institute (£54m in 2018-19) is not
included in CRUK figures but instead is reported separately
as the Francis Crick Institute alongside other co-funders’
contributions. It should be noted that the figures in
this report relate to projects active in the calendar year 2018
and therefore will not correspond exactly with financial year
values reported in CRUK’s reports and accounts which can be
found here.
Coding approach: CRUK’s projects were coded to the HRCS
automatically under AMRC’s contract with Digital Science.
Where automated coding was not available, projects were
coded by translation from the related Common Scientific
Outline (CSO) or if there was no direct translation possible,
projects were coded manually by research manager.
Appendix 1
Chief Scientist Office (CSO), Scotland
The aim of the CSO is to
support and to promote
excellent research in NHS
Scotland, that is likely to
make a real difference to
clinical practice and the health of the citizens of Scotland. The
CSO therefore gears most funding towards the applied end of
the spectrum.
The CSO have included all directly funded awards that could be
attributed to a set of defined research objectives. This includes
our research grants and academic fellowships which were all
coded in house.
Scotland contributes to the overall budget for NIHR research
programmes managed by NETSCC on behalf of the UK. NIHR
have coded all their projects and those projects led from
Scotland have been included in the CSO funding breakdown in
Appendix 4.
The significant balance of CSO funding is allocated as
infrastructure funding to support research in the NHS, including
that funded by other partners in the analysis.
61
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
The Engineering
and Physical
Science Research
Council (EPSRC)
is a constituent council of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)
with the mission to promote and support high quality basic,
strategic and applied research and related postgraduate
training in engineering and the physical sciences. Our vision
is to ensure the UK is the place where the most creative
researchers can deliver world-leading research with genuine
economic and societal impact, supporting the Industrial
Strategy ambition to make the UK the most innovative economy
by 2030.
EPSRC recognises the importance of engineering and physical
sciences research to health and life sciences, and a large
section of our researchers are active at this interface. In 2018
EPSRC committed over £90m to new awards in engineering,
physical sciences, mathematical sciences and ICT research
with relevance to Health.
As part of the objectives in our 2019 delivery plan to deliver
economic impact and social prosperity one of the four essential
priorities identified where research and skills in engineering
and physical sciences add value is for a healthy nation. We will
work with partners in UKRI, the National Institute for Health
Research (NIHR), charities and the NHS to invest in research
that transforms healthcare delivery and supports healthier
living in the UK and worldwide. This is relevant to the Ageing
Society Grand Challenge and AI & Data Grand Challenge’s early
diagnosis mission.
Approach to coding: EPSRC submitted all awards from its
portfolio which were active during the reporting period and
which were determined upon original submission by portfolio
staff to have relevance to health socioeconomic theme. These
awards were then auto-coded using Digital Science Dimensions
platform to the HRCS.
Due to the non-biomedical nature of EPSRC’s research remit
some awards will be underpinning or have impact in multiple
areas of health research (and other sectors beyond). Other
awards will have direct relevance to health research, but it
should be noted EPSRC does not normally take a disease
specific focus to its funding activities in healthcare, instead
encouraging researchers to solve specific health challenges
they have identified in partnership with the appropriate users of
that research.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
62
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
The Economic
and Social
Research Council
(ESRC) is part
of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and is the UK’s largest
organisation for funding research on economic and social
issues. We support independent, high quality research which
has an impact on business, the public sector and civil society.
ESRC’s total budget for 2017-18 was around £202 million.
At any one-time ESRC supports over 4,000 researchers
and postgraduate students in academic institutions and
independent research institutes.
As one of UKRI’s councils, ESRC supports both fundamental
discovery research—maintaining the health of the 19 social
science disciplines—and funds focused research and innovation
priority areas—running schemes, competitions and initiatives
which advance the frontiers of social science, often through
interdisciplinary UKRI collaborations and through working with
government, industry, the third sector and internationally. ESRC
also maintains investments in data infrastructure (survey data
and ‘big data’) and continues to invest in building research
talent, methods and leadership. To make robust funding
decisions, we secure independent peer reviews and convene
expert panels to assess proposals based on quality, timeliness,
potential impact, value for money and fit to the specification of
the particular competition.
A proportion of ESRC’s funding, through both fundamental
discovery research and focused research and innovation
initiatives, supports health-related research. Recent examples
of health research supported by ESRC core funding are the
ESRC Centre for Lifecourse Studies in Society and Health
and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. Our recent Mental
Health priority included commissioning eight Mental Health
Networks with partner councils across URKI, an investment
totalling £7.9m. Previous ESRC priorities included Anti-Microbial
Resistance. We also invest in global health research, for
example through the Global Challenges Research Fund and the
Newton Fund. The ESRC Delivery Plan 2019 outlines our current
priority areas, which include ‘Innovation in health and social
care’ and ‘Inclusive ageing’. The ‘Innovation in health and social
care’ priority has led to co-funding four large grants with NIHR,
worth £16m, to investigate dementia in the areas of prevention,
quality of life, support groups and end-of-life care. As part of
the ‘Inclusive ageing’ priority ESRC is a lead delivery partner
for the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund Healthy Ageing
Challenge.
To collate award information for this analysis, we created a
keyword search tool to capture health-related awards that
incurred spend in the 2018 calendar year. A list of the keywords
used is available upon request. Duplicates were removed from
the list of awards returned by the search tool. The remaining
grants were then manually sorted by office staff into two
categories: health relevant (definitely or probably) or not
health relevant. The grants that had been identified as health
relevant were manually coded by an experienced external HRCS
coder. A broad interpretation of health relevance was used
throughout the process which reflects the contribution that the
social sciences make to the health research landscape. The
analysis picked up all research awards, including large scale
data resources, some of which were not included in previous
analyses due to a narrower interpretation of health relevant
being used. Where a grant was deemed to be health relevant,
the whole total of that grant was included in calculations of
ESRC spend on health (in line with how grants from other
funders were dealt with). Studentships were not included.
Further information on these grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
Appendix 1
63
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Health and Care Research Wales (R&D Division,
Health and Social Services Group, Welsh Government)
Health and Care Research
Wales is Wales’ national
organisation for health and
social care research, funded
by the Welsh Government
and led and managed by the
Research and Development
Division (RDD)*. Health and
Care Research Wales provides
an infrastructure to support
and increase capacity in R&D,
runs a range of responsive
funding schemes, and
manages the NHS Wales
R&D funding allocation. More
information on Health and Care Research Wales can be
found here.
HRCS coded expenditure included in this report covers all
active research scheme grants awarded through open, peer
reviewed competition. RDD funded 70 direct awards in 2018
through Health and Care Research Wales run schemes,
at a total annualised* cost of approximately £3 .35m
(£13 .37m total lifetime commitment). RDD contributes
to the overall budget for agreed NIHR research programmes
managed by NETSCC, thus providing access to these schemes
for Wales-based researchers. RDD contributed £5 .75m in 2018
to provide Wales-based researchers with access to the Efficacy
and Mechanism Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment,
Health Service and Delivery Research and Public Health
Research funding calls. NIHR have coded all these projects, and
those NETSCC projects led from Wales have been included in
our final RDD spend profile, see Appendix 4 for details.
Infrastructure and other supportive funding of over £30 .1m
has been classified as indirect spend and includes: national
clinical trials units; national research centres and units; national
research support groups; Wales School for Social Care
Research, along with contributions to UK research initiatives.
Additional ‘indirect’ support for health research is provided
through NHS R&D funding streams. Total R&D spend was
approximately £39 .3m, which includes ‘other’ funding not
covered by direct awards or infrastructure funding. For more
information on Health and Care Research Wales infrastructure
and support, please see here.
Notes: Coding of direct awards was undertaken manually by
officials in RDD, while figures for indirect or other awards was
generated from RDD financial data. Due to the methodology for
calculating spend in this report, the total of £39.3m for 2018
differs from our own best figure for calendar year of £43.4m
(based on budgets across financial years; £43.4m for 2017/18
and £42.5m for 2018/19).
64
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Health and Social Care Division of the Public Health Authority,
Northern Ireland (HSCNI)
The Health and Social Care
Research and Development
(HSC R&D) Division is
part of the Public Health
Agency, Northern Ireland.
Established in 2009, it is responsible for the administration and
coordination of the HSC R&D budget on behalf of Department
of Health, Northern Ireland (DoH NI). Its work is based on
the principle that the best health and social care must be
underpinned by knowledge, based on well conducted research,
which can then be applied in the delivery of care.
The HSC R&D Division supports researchers based in Northern
Ireland as well as those in Health and Social Care Trusts or
other bodies who use the outputs from research findings. While
the effectiveness of research performance and application
depends ultimately on the skill and ability of individual
researchers and users of research, the HSC R&D Division
ensures that researchers can work within an environment that
supports, encourages and facilitates them.
For example, the HSC R&D Division:
• funds essential infrastructure for research such as
information databanks, tissue banks, clinical research
facilities clinical trials units and research networks
• builds research capacity in Northern Ireland through
research training opportunities
• enables research governance processes to be as
efficient as possible
• creates opportunities for researchers to compete for
research funding on a wider UK or international basis
• supports innovation as a means of transferring
HSC R&D findings into practice
• ensures personal and public involvement (PPI) in
HSC R&D
HSC R&D has made every effort to maximise reporting on
the use of all funds. It is important to note that the HSC
R&D Division budget is small relative to other UK Health
Departments. Developments in the UK R&D landscape over
the time period covered by this report have naturally driven
funding allocation decisions. This has resulted in a change in
the distribution and proportion of funding between direct and
indirect awards with indirect R&D support proportionately
increasing in order that R&D in Northern Ireland can strive
for parity with other regions of the UK which receive larger
per capita R&D budgets. Consequently, this has increased
the emphasis for Northern Ireland researchers to seek direct
R&D funding from national funding sources. The indirect
awards included under infrastructure encompass the clinical
research networks and centres providing specialist research
services and support; some examples of the latter include HSC
Innovations, The NI Clinical Trials Unit and The NI Biobank.
In 2018 there were a total of 157 active awards in our portfolio
across the various categories in the report. Direct awards were
coded using the HRCS by a freelance coder.
Appendix 1
65
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Medical Research Council (MRC)
The Medical Research
Council (MRC) is part of UK
Research and Innovation
(UKRI) and invest in health
and medical research on behalf of the UK tax payer. The heart
of our mission is to improve human health through world-class
medical research. To achieve this, we support research across
the biomedical spectrum, from fundamental lab-based science
to clinical trials, and in all major disease areas. We do this by
providing research grants and career awards to scientists.
Our funding opportunities are either:
• Researcher-led: Regular, continuous funding opportunities.
Proposals are reviewed at board and panel meetings.
Funding is available for any area of science relevant to the
MRC, to eligible groups and individuals, offering funding on a
range of scales, across career stages, from fundamental to
translational research.
• MRC strategic: Funding opportunities in a specific research
area defined by the MRC, usually for a one-off call or a time-
limited period. Proposals may have special application and
review mechanisms.
• Longer term investments: We also support research
through our institutes, units and centres. Some are highly
focused on specific science areas, others have a very
broad research remit. The intention is to address important
scientific opportunities and health needs when stand-alone
grant support alone is insufficient.
The MRC routinely codes all awards using the HRCS. This work
is carried out by staff in the research programmes group at
MRC Head office. Periodic peer review between the internal
coders is carried out to ensure a consistent approach from the
coding community.
All awards which had active MRC funding during 2018 were
selected for this analysis. This included standard grants,
studentships, fellowships and programme grants made to MRC
University Units and Institutes. For co-funded awards, the award
amount provided was the MRC contribution. For awards where
funding was provided by MRC for only part of the year a pro-
rata annual award amount was supplied.
MRC programmes have been presented as the figures
attributed to each programme during the 2017/18 financial
year. These types of awards include both direct research
funding and the provision for staff, administrative and
infrastructure/equipment, meaning they meet criteria for
both direct and indirect analyses. To ensure consistency with
previous reports, these awards are fully coded and included in
the main direct analysis.
Funding for MRC studentships is primarily via Doctoral Training
Partnerships (DTPs) awarded to research organisations (ROs),
from which the ROs select outstanding candidates for projects
which align to both their and MRC’s remit and strategic priority
areas. Details of the individual studentships supported are
inputted by the ROs in to the Je-S administration portal where
MRC can then extract the data and complete HRCS coding. In
2017/18 there were 1,475 students active with an estimated
spend of £27.7m - based on MRCs minimum stipend values
adjusted accordingly for inside/outside London weighting -
fees and duration within 2018. Although 99% of studentships
were coded any without sufficient detail are included as part
of MRC’s indirect submission. Studentships awarded before
January 2018 have different data protection policies in their
terms and conditions and we have therefore anonymised award
information in the public dataset.
MRC provided approximately £24m in infrastructure support
in 2018. This is significantly lower than the previous report as
much of the MRC’s indirect expenditure reported in 2014 was to
support the construction and establishment of the Francis Crick
Institute. The Crick is now fully established as an independent
organisation and is included separately in this analysis.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
66
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)
The Department of Health
and Social Care primarily
funds health and social care
research in England through
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The NIHR
works closely with the devolved administrations in Scotland,
England, Wales and Northern Ireland which co-fund several
NIHR programmes.
In addition to its national role, the NIHR supports applied
health research for the direct and primary benefit of people
in low- and middle-income countries, using UK aid from the
UK government.
HRCS coded spend includes:
• All NIHR research programmes
• All NIHR fellowships EXCEPT those where we do not
have project details and all specialty training posts
that are awarded through the Integrated Academic
Training Programme
• All other NIHR direct research spend (i.e. non-core support
costs) at the Biomedical Research Centres, Blood and
Transplant Research Units, Collaborations for Leadership
in Applied Health Research and Care, Health Protection
Research Units, Medtech and In vitro diagnostics Co-
operatives, School for Primary Care Research, School for
Public Health Research, School for Social Care Research
and Patient Safety Translational Research Centres
• DHSC direct research spend (i.e. non-core support costs)
at the Health Innovation Challenge Fund.
• DHSC direct research spend contributions to joint funding
grants where coding information was provided by other
partner organisations.
Indirect spend includes:
For NIHR infrastructure this includes Clinical Research Network
costs and other types of research infrastructure and core
support at the Biomedical Research Centres, Blood and
Transplant Research Units, Collaborations for Leadership in
Applied Health Research and Care, Clinical Research Facilities,
Clinical Trial Units, Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres,
Health Protection Research Units, HEE/NIHR Integrated Clinical
Academic Programme, Medtech and In vitro diagnostics Co-
operatives, MRC/NIHR Phenome Centre and NIHR Biosample
Centre, NIHR Integrated Academic Training, NIHR Research
Methods, Policy Research Programme Units, Patient Safety
Translational Research Centres, Research Design Service,
School for Primary Care Research, School for Public Health
Research, School for Social Care Research, Senior Investigator
Award, Surgical Reconstruction Microbiology Research Centre
and Systematic Reviews Programme (Infrastructure).
For DHSC funding this includes infrastructure spend that
supports AMR Capital funding, Clinical Record Interactive
Search, Health Innovation Challenge Fund and UK Biobank.
Data coding and verification
NIHR research and training programmes are coordinated
and managed by the NIHR Academy, the NIHR Central
Commissioning Facility (CCF) and the NIHR Evaluation, Trials
and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC).
At NIHR Academy, Fellowships are double-coded by two trained
coders. Coding was done on project abstracts or descriptions.
At CCF, all programmes were externally coded and then
checked by trained internal coders. At NETSCC, research
programmes were coded by trained programme managers and
then checked by different internal coders. The Global Health
Research programme underwent a further coding check with
the Department of Health and Social Care. Coding at CCF and
NETSCC was done on project abstracts.
CCF manages the key parts of the NIHR Infrastructure (separate
from the Clinical Research Networks) which was 73% coded
by Dimensions auto-coding with 27% coded by a trained
internal coder. The coding was based on detailed research
descriptions for each theme within an award. A proportion of
this Infrastructure spend is considered as direct spend and is
included in the main analysis. This covers Biomedical Research
Centres, Blood and Transplant Research Units, Collaborations
for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Health
Protection Research Units, Medtech and In vitro diagnostics
Co-operatives, School for Primary Care Research, School for
Public Health Research, School for Social Care Research and
Patient Safety Translational Research Centres.
For Devolved Government Funding (NIHR Contributions)
see Appendix 4 for more details .
Appendix 1
67
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Versus Arthritis
Versus Arthritis is a leading UK
charity dedicated to improving
the quality of life for people with
arthritis. Our vision is a world
where people no longer have to suffer the pain, isolation and
fatigue that arthritis causes to over 10 million people. Versus
Arthritis provides funding to support a broad range of arthritis
research including basic discovery led concepts, clinical trials,
health studies and challenging frontier areas such as pain. Our
portfolio of around 300 awards sustains and develops world
class musculoskeletal (MSK) researchers, teams and Centres of
Excellence creating a galvanized community working to deliver
new treatments and services faster to people with arthritis.
We work extensively in partnership across sectors to raise
awareness of the debilitating nature of MSK conditions and to
encourage others to join with us in our research endeavours.
The awards excluded in this report are endowed chair awards
(providing a lump sum fund to boost financial investments in
recipient host universities including academic and technical
salaries, infrastructure and research facilities supporting
MSK research). This investment in 2018 accounts for the
difference between the charity’s research expenditure for
financial year 2018/2019 (£23.1m, including indirect and
infrastructure expenditures) and the spend for calendar year
2018 as illustrated in this report (£22.8m, including indirect and
infrastructure expenditures).
Versus Arthritis has been manually coding research awards
since 2015 including the data submitted for this report. Each
award was coded by two coders who have received training
provided by MRC. They worked independently and then decided
the final codes by comparing and discussing their work. Where
necessary a third MRC trained coder was brought in to help
reach final consensus.
68
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Wellcome Trust
Our founder, Sir Henry Wellcome, was
a medical entrepreneur, collector and
philanthropist. How we work today
reflects the breadth of his interests
and his conviction that health can be
improved when research generates, tests and investigates
new ideas. Our governance is based on an updated version of
Henry’s will.
Today, we have a £25.9 billion investment portfolio which
funds all the work we do. In the next five years, we plan to
spend around £5 billion helping people across the world
explore great ideas.
We directly fund thousands of scientists and researchers
around the world at every step of the way from discovery to
impact. Our funding schemes offer grants across biomedical
science, population health, medical innovation, humanities
and social science, and public engagement. Our grants
fund 15,000 people in almost 500 different organisations in
over 100 countries worldwide. We want to understand the
processes underpinning life, and what happens when those
processes go wrong. Most of our funding in biomedical science
and population health goes to individuals and teams asking
questions which have the potential to address a major
health need. We also increase the impact of this funding
by supporting:
• research centres and institutes that bring together
different disciplines in one area of research or innovation
• research at scale that has the potential to transform key
areas of science
• research in Africa and Asia, since to improve health
we need to act in the locations where health challenges
are greatest.
Our areas of research include:
• Genetics, genomics and molecular biology: understanding
how genes, proteins and other molecules work together
to perform the functions of life and what happens when
these functions go wrong.
• Infectious disease and the immune system: from endemic
and epidemic infections, such as malaria and Zika, to the
role of the immune system in health and disease.
• Cell and developmental biology: how cells function and
interact with their environment, and how organisms form,
grow and develop.
• Physiology and non-communicable disease: how the
human body works, and the mechanisms of diseases such
as diabetes, obesity and stroke.
• Neuroscience and mental health: understanding the brain
and mind, and investigating conditions such as dementia,
depression and schizophrenia.
• Population health research: understanding the causes
and consequences of health and disease in populations.
We also want to determine how good health and poor
health are distributed through populations. Studying how
infectious diseases are distributed and transmitted in
populations. Supporting longitudinal population studies,
which follow individuals over long periods of time.
Improving healthcare systems and education. Helping
translate research into real-world changes that improve
people’s lives.
• Humanities and social science research: Science
research alone can’t always improve people’s health.
Social, historical, ethical and cultural factors also shape
how people experience health. We support research in
humanities and social science, spanning a wide range of
disciplines and using diverse methods to investigate a
large breadth of topics. We encourage collaboration and
the sharing of ideas. By working together, humanities and
social science researchers, healthcare professionals and
scientists can find new ways to think about health and
overcome challenges.
We identify areas in which Wellcome can lead significant
change within five or ten years, aiming to transform the global
response to some of today’s biggest health challenges. One
of our priority areas is Our Planet, Our Health. It supports
research into how we’re changing our environment and how
these changes affect our health.
Through partnerships across the world, we advocate to
ensure that good research is well supported, and that health
is improved by changes to policies and practices based
on evidence.
69
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
Four of the nine UKRI partners are members of the HRAF. The remaining UKRI partners all contributed data for this analysis.
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
The AHRC funds
world class
research across
the breadth of the
arts and humanities. One of the key research themes that
the AHRC supports is health and wellbeing, which has been
developed since 2007 via a wide range of calls that recognise
interdisciplinarity and joint initiatives with the other Research
Councils within UKRI. Funds are awarded to research projects
both through our standard responsive mode schemes that
operate with open deadlines and strategically targeted calls
that seek to fund projects addressing a specified theme that
operate with set deadlines.
Our health portfolio covers a wide range of approaches to,
and perspectives on, health and wellbeing. It includes research
that seeks to address issues in demographic change and
healthy ageing; mental health and resilience; health challenges
in international development contexts; historical and cultural
perspectives on health challenges, and arts interventions
that attempt to bring positive impacts to health and wellbeing.
All of these themes can be seen to be reflected in the project
data submitted.
The data presented in this analysis were based on keyword
searches on our database of funds awarded across the
AHRC’s portfolio (comprising research grants, fellowships
and studentships) that were active during the calendar year
2018. During this year, there were 33 active grants that fall
into the health remit, and a further 28 awards AHRC co-funded
with other councils within UKRI. This represents a total funding
amount of £3.1m in this analysis. The HRCS codes were t
hen applied to the dataset of projects manually to complete
the submission.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
The Natural
Environment
Research Council
(NERC) is part of
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and advances the frontier
of environmental science by commissioning new research,
infrastructure and training that delivers valuable scientific
breakthroughs. We do this because understanding our changing
planet is vital for our wellbeing and economic prosperity.
This is the second submission by the NERC and is based upon
active grants during 2018 associated with NERC’s Environment
& Health science topic classification. These grants are worth
£6.7m in terms of annualised spend, calculated assuming a flat
spending profile across the life of the grants.
However, because much of the metadata was only available in
NERC’s grants system, the health research embedded within
NERC’s national capability funding was not covered – national
capability being a large component of the funding for NERC’s
six established centres: The British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the
British Geological Survey (BGS), the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology (CEH), the National Centre for Atmospheric Sciences
(NCAS), the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) and the
National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO).
One such example of national capability is the work carried
out by NCAS which uses advanced measurement techniques
and specialist facilities to investigate the exact molecular
composition of pollution particles, contributing to medical
research into what air pollutants do in our bodies and how
pollution causes disease. Measurements, modelling and
analysis undertaken by NCAS will support the next generation
of medical research to inform government controls and
regulations enabling focus on the chemicals and materials with
the greatest health effects. For more information see here.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
70
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals
in Research (NC3Rs)
The National Centre
for the Replacement,
Refinement and
Reduction of Animals
in Research (NC3Rs) is a scientific organisation dedicated to
replacing, refining and reducing the use of animals in research
and testing (the 3Rs). It uses the 3Rs to accelerate scientific
discovery, support innovation and technology development and
address societal concerns about animal research. It achieves
this by funding research and knowledge transfer, supporting
training and career development, stimulating changes in policy,
practice and regulations and working collaboratively with
academia and industry.
Awards can be in any area of medical, biological or veterinary
sciences related to the 3Rs and span multiple disciplines such
as the life sciences, engineering and mathematics. We have a
number of funding schemes to support our activities namely;
Project grants, Fellowships, Infrastructure awards, Skills and
Knowledge Transfer grants, PhD Studentships and Strategic
awards. Awards made under our CRACK IT scheme, which
aims to accelerate the availability and commercialisation of
3Rs technologies, have not been submitted as part of this
exercise. All our grants undergo peer-review (external, panel
or both) as part of the review process prior to an award being
made. Reviewers must evaluate awards on both their scientific
excellence as well as their potential to achieve a measurable
3Rs impact.
We have shown that research focused on the 3Rs leads to
impacts that can benefit human health. A significant proportion
of our portfolio aims to apply the 3Rs to models of disease and
the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
In 2018, we made 31 awards across our schemes, excluding
CRACK IT, totalling a commitment of £4.7 million (including
£270k of co-funding from the British Heart Foundation).
This is the second time that the NC3Rs has taken part in the
HRCS data analysis exercise. All data for the coding was
taken from the grants management system, Siebel, and grant
proposal forms submitted via the joint electronic submission
system, Je-S. Coding was completed by the MRC on behalf of
the NC3Rs.
71
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Innovate UK
Innovate UK is part of UK
Research and Innovation,
a non-departmental
public body funded by a
grant-in-aid from the UK government. We drive productivity
and economic growth by supporting businesses to develop
and realise the potential of new ideas, including those from
the UK’s world-class research base. With a strong business
focus, we drive growth by working with companies to de-risk,
enable and support innovation. We fund business and research
collaborations to accelerate innovation and drive business
investment into research and development.
Our support is available to businesses across all economic
sectors, value chains and UK regions. Since 2007, we have
invested around £2.5 billion in core grant funding to help
businesses across the country to innovate, with match funding
from industry. We have helped 8,500 organisations create
around 70,000 jobs and added an estimated £18 billion of value
to the UK economy. All our grants are awarded competitively,
with applications going through an independent technical
assessment, typically by five assessors. For more information,
visit our Government webpages.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
Data notes
Innovate UK provided a portfolio of projects relating to all
aspects of Health and Care, including areas of strategic
importance such as Stratified Medicine, Regenerative Medicine
and Independent Living. This portfolio is predominantly
focused on projects awarded through specific Health and Care
interventions but also includes:
• Applicant assigned ‘innovation areas’ - Advanced
therapies; Affordable healthcare through big data
solutions; Diagnostics, medical technology and devices;
Digital Health; Enhancing food quality; Precision Medicine;
Preclinical technologies and drug target discovery;
Therapeutic and medicine development – where available
• Innovate UK assigned ‘themes’ – Healthcare; Precision &
Discovery Medicine
It does not include:
• Basic bioscience
• Bioscience or Life Science projects where the work is
primarily on agriculture, such as livestock or crop health
All grants included in the analysis were active in 2018. Every
grant in the analysis was awarded following expert review. This
included Biomedical Catalyst, Digital Health Catalyst, Precision
Medicine and Medicines Manufacturing funding. The number of
health-related projects submitted to the analysis was 808 (408
direct awards, 400 awards in the indirect assessment), with a
total 2018 value of £186m and total commitment from Innovate
UK of £708m. The total number of active projects in 2018 from
all funding mechanisms was 4,217; total commitment from
Innovate UK for these projects was £4.5bn.
72
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Research England
Research England is a
new council within UK
Research and Innovation.
Established by the 2017
Higher Education Research Act, Research England is formed of
the research and knowledge exchange functions of the former
HEFCE. We oversee UK Research and Innovation’s England-
only functions in relation to university research and knowledge
exchange. This includes providing grant funding to English
universities for research and knowledge exchange activities;
developing and implementing the Research Excellence
Framework in partnership with the UK Higher Education funding
bodies; overseeing the sustainability of the Higher Education
research base in England; managing the £900 million UK
Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF) and the £100
million Connecting Capability Fund (CCF); and administering the
Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).
From the total nearly £2.2 billion budget, Research England
allocates individual amounts to each higher education
institution in England according to criteria that are largely based
on the quality of research and knowledge exchange activity
the university carries out. For a more detailed explanation of
recurrent and capital funding, what it supports and how it is
allocated, see the booklet Research England: how we fund
higher education institutions.
The grants submitted to this analysis were collected from the
eleven UKRPIF (£188.4m) and five CCF (£24.6m) projects that
relate to the health sector and that were in receipt of funding
during the calendar year 2018. As capital projects, these are
included in the indirect assessment section of this analysis.
Institutions are not required to report to Research England the
sectors supported by their annual recurrent grants, so this
information is not available for inclusion in the analysis.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
73
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
Formed in 2007,
STFC is a world-
leading multi-
disciplinary science
organisation with a clear mission: to deliver economic, societal,
scientific and international benefits to the UK and to the world.
Established in 2018, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is a
new body which works in partnership with universities, research
organisations, businesses, charities, and government to create
the best possible environment for research and innovation to
flourish. UKRI brings together the seven research councils,
including STFC, Innovate UK and Research England.
STFC’s strength comes from our distinct but
interrelated functions:
• Universities - we support university-based research,
innovation and skills development in astronomy, particle
physics, nuclear physics, and space science
• Scientific Facilities - we provide access to world-
leading, large-scale facilities across a range of physical
and life sciences, enabling research, innovation and skills
training in these areas
• National Campuses - we work with partners to build
National Science and Innovation Campuses based around
our National Laboratories to promote academic and
industrial collaboration and translation of our research to
market through direct interaction with industry
• Inspiring and Involving - we help ensure a future
pipeline of skilled and enthusiastic young people by using
the excitement of our sciences to encourage wider take-
up of STEM subjects in school and future life (science,
technology, engineering and mathematics).
Many of the areas mentioned above are involved in health-
related research, both directly and indirectly. As an example,
we have supported researchers in universities with projects
such as establishing challenge networks in the areas of
advanced radiotherapy and cancer diagnosis. These networks
aim to create a multidisciplinary community to address
challenges in these areas, focusing on developing technologies
and techniques that aim to improve patient quality of life,
increase the chance of patient survival, develop a research
pipeline and contribute to a coordinated national plan and
roadmap for these challenges. In 2018, we awarded over £6
million in research grants that were health related. Many of the
research projects that we fund have crossover benefits for the
health sector that may not have been the initial objective of
the research. An example of this is demonstrated in our From
Hadrons to Healthcare case study.
Our national facilities have delivered a large amount of
beamtime for researchers from across the world conducting
health related research. The health research conducted at our
facilities is varied, it includes (but is not limited to) developing
new methods of treatment, understanding molecular structures
and the behaviour of a large variety of molecules and
developing new drugs and methods for targeted drug delivery.
Facility usage data submitted for this report has been provided
by STFC’s ISIS and Diamond Light Source (DLS) facilities.
In 2018 our ISIS facility provided over £3.8 million worth of
beamtime to health-related research and our DLS facility
provided over £20 million worth.
Further information on all UKRI grants can be accessed in the
public domain at Gateway to Research.
74
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
UK Government Departments &
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
Chief Scientific Advisor’s Office, Welsh Government
The Welsh Government Office for
Science (WGOS) is led by Professor
Peter Halligan, Chief Scientific Adviser
for Wales (CSAW). WGOS supports
the CSAW to ensure that the Welsh
government has access to the best
scientific evidence and strategic
long-term thinking to inform policies
and decisions. In keeping with the
responsibilities of the CSAW, the main
functions of WGOS can be summarised
under five headings:
• Science Advice for Policy
• Promotion & Communications
• Programme Management
& Delivery
• Science Capability & Skills
• Evidence Synthesis & Analytics
Welsh Government has multiple mechanisms for conducting
and funding research. The proportion of the portfolio included
in this exercise however, is funded completely by the Sêr
Cymru (Welsh Stars) programme that is managed by WGOS.
The aim of Sêr Cymru is to create a globally-competitive
science and technology research base in Wales. WGOS is
directly involved in the design, delivery and monitoring of the
Sêr Cymru programmes. A second programme element, using
considerable EU structural and Horizon 2020 funding followed
in 2015.
To date, Sêr Cymru programme elements have successfully
supported 3 National Research Networks, 12 Research
Chairs, 11 Rising stars, 115 research fellowships (including
those supporting researchers returning to academia following
a career break) and more than 340 PhD students and
postdoctoral researchers. This award has brought the total
investment to date for this programme to approximately
£100m. With more than £30m of this from the European
Commission through Horizon 2020 and Structural Funds, Wales
is the only country to have used both European Funding sources
in a synergistic manner to support research.
Applications to the Sêr Cymru programme are submitted from
Welsh universities and are assessed by international peer
review and a specially established Independent Evaluation
Panel. Evaluation criteria include measures such as scientific
excellence, quality of the research environment and track
record of the applicant. Some parts of the scheme require
applications to be submitted to set deadlines, whereas
others are received and assessed on an ad hoc basis. We
differentiate between Sêr Cymru I and II as they are different
funding models; I is purely Welsh Government funded but II is
a partnership model involving Welsh Government, Welsh HEIs,
European Commission, Structural Funds.
The Sêr Cymru programme welcomes applications in its
‘Smart Specialisation’ areas of: Low Carbon, Energy and the
Environment; Life Sciences and Health; Advanced Materials and
Manufacturing; and ICT and the digital economy. Sêr Cymru I
has a total spend of £41million, £11million of which is relevant
to Life Sciences and Health. Ser Cymru has a total spend of
£55million, 24% of which is for projects with a sole focus on
Life Sciences and Health.
Appendix 1
75
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland
The Department for
the Economy (DfE) was
established in May 2016. Its
responsibilities include:
• wider economic policy, including specific areas like
Energy, Tourism and Telecoms;
• the operation of a range of employment and
skills programmes;
• oversight and funding of the further and higher
education sectors;
• various aspects of employment law; and
• the management and operation of various
EU funding programmes.
The Department for the Economy (DfE) currently funds two
international programmes, which promote early stage research
collaboration between universities. These are the US-Ireland
R&D Partnership, and the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)-DfE
Investigators Programme Partnership.
The US-Ireland R&D Partnership
The US-Ireland R&D Partnership promotes research
collaboration between universities in Northern Ireland, the
Republic of Ireland and the United States of America (USA). This
programme: helps link scientists and engineers in partnerships
across academia to address crucial research questions; fosters
new and existing industrial research activity that could make
an important contribution to the respective economies; and
expands educational and research career opportunities in
science and engineering.
Each funding agency only supports the research carried out in
its own jurisdiction, there is no cross-participant co-funding of
individual awards. To date the DfE has agreed to support 38
projects, representing a total investment locally of over £11.5
million. The annual budget for funding projects under the US-
Ireland R&D Partnership is capped at £2million. In 2018, a total
of five US Ireland R&D Programmes funded by the Department
were health related.
The Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)-DfE Investigators
Programme Partnership
The SFI-DfE Investigators Programme Partnership supports
collaborative projects involving universities from Northern
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland undertaking internationally
peer reviewed, leading edge discovery and fundamental
research. This programme provides an opportunity to
develop cross-border research collaborations which will help
Northern Ireland universities to take full advantage of funding
opportunities under e.g. Horizon 2020 and will consequently
lead to economic and societal gain for both Northern Ireland
and the Republic of Ireland.
Like the US-Ireland R&D Partnership, each of the projects
has significant research participation from each of the
jurisdictions, and each funding agency only supports the
research carried out in its own jurisdiction. DfE has agreed to
support 14 projects, representing a total investment locally of
£8.4 million over six years. Of the 14 projects funded under the
SFI-DfE Investigators Programme Partnership, five projects are
health related.
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)
BEIS is a ministerial
department, supported by 41
agencies and public bodies.
BEIS are building an economy
that works for everyone, so
that there are great places in every part of the UK for people to
work and for businesses to invest, innovate and grow.
BEIS funds research across a wide range of areas, with a
science and research budget of £4.8bn in 2017/18. This money
is used by partner organisations for many purposes, including
running costs of facilities and Institutes, grant research funding
and to pay for the cost of research. This is done primarily
through UKRI and the Research Councils, including health and
medicine through the Medical Research Council, who received
£594m from this funding in 2017/18.
76
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Department for Education
The Department
for Education
is responsible
for children’s services and education, including early years,
schools, higher and further education policy, apprenticeships
and wider skills in England. DfE is a ministerial department,
supported by 18 agencies and public bodies.
The Department for Education commissions research on
subjects across its entire portfolio of business. Research
may be commissioned to provide policy and delivery teams
with information about the nature of an issue or to support
identification of options available to affect change. The
department also commissions evaluation studies to assess the
impact of policy change and intervention delivery.
Research commissioned by the department can be funded
from either dedicated research budgets, or policy budgets,
depending on the nature of the work. The department also
engages with other researchers in a range of ways; such
as providing part funding or indicating support for bids. For
instance, we have contributed to both the Health Behaviour
in School-Aged Children survey and the Millennium Cohort
Study, and provided a letter of support to an MRC, ESRC and
AHRC joint bid to the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund for work on
“Adolescent mental Health and brain development”. Additionally,
the department is funding and evaluating local area initiatives,
through our “Opportunity Areas” programme. Some of these
initiatives do touch on health-related issues.
At present the most obvious area of education research that
overlaps with health interests are in relation to mental health
initiatives. We currently have a small number of projects
evaluating mental health interventions and have asked health
related questions in the department’s omnibus surveys of
teachers and pupils and their parents/carers.
Appendix 1
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
is the UK government department responsible for safeguarding
the natural environment, supporting world-leading food and
farming industry, and sustaining a thriving rural economy. Our
broad remit means we play a major role in people’s day-to-day
life, from the food we eat, and the air we breathe, to the water
we drink.
The environment is fundamental to all that we do, and we must
protect and enhance it. Our job is to make our country a great
place for living. We do this by supporting our superb food,
farming and fisheries industries, enhancing our beautiful rural
environment, and better protecting against flooding, disease
and other natural threats.
DEFRA conducts research and analysis to provide evidence
for decision-making, ensuring Defra’s polices are based on a
sound, comprehensive understanding of current evidence. It
helps us find new policy solutions and identify and tackle
future issues. We use the term ‘evidence’ to encompass
material from a variety of disciplines – science research,
statistics, economics, social research or operational research,
and geographical information. We use a variety of quality
assurance processes.
At any one time, Defra is responsible for around 1000 research
projects. This covers research in natural and social sciences
as well as projects on economic analysis, monitoring, testing
and surveillance activities. They have been commissioned to
provide evidence which underpins Defra’s policy formulation
and development.
Details of all these Defra-funded projects are available through
our science and research projects database. Our searchable
system provides a range of information on completed and
ongoing projects (such as title, cost, contractor, duration,
description, reports, etc.).
To obtain information on health-relevant projects for this
analysis, the project managers at MRC used awards from
our database as they appear on the independent Dimensions
platform as at 31 March 2019. These were then manually
checked for health-relevance and classified using a mix of
manual and automated HRCS coding. Of the 196 awards in
Dimensions active in 2018, 56 were selected for this analysis.
77
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Department for International Development (DFID)
The Department for International Development (DFID) leads the
UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We are tackling the global
challenges of our time including poverty and disease, mass
migration, insecurity and conflict. Our work is building a safer,
healthier, more prosperous world for people in developing
countries and in the UK too.
DFID spends about 3% of its total budget on research and
recognises that the next wave of scientific discoveries and
innovative technologies will underpin progress towards
eradicating extreme poverty and achieving the sustainable
development goals. Advances in science and technology will
play a central role in responding to the critical challenges of our
times: population growth, climate change, rapid urbanisation,
protracted humanitarian crises and migration. UK aid funded
research is critical for global development and it contributes to
the stability, security and prosperity of the UK.
DFID research covers many thematic areas including health,
agriculture, growth, climate, environment, governance, social
development, conflict, humanitarian and education. In health
the focus is on research that saves lives, improves health
and reduces poverty by generating solutions to persistent
and emerging health challenges that affect the poorest,
most vulnerable and hardest-to-reach populations, through
world-leading product development research, implementation
research and collaborative partnerships.
The total DFID spent on health research in 2018 was £19.2m,
over 37 different programmes, each managing large portfolios
of projects.
Department for Transport
The Department for Transport
(DfT) works with its partners
and agencies to support the
transport network and to keep
people, goods and services
moving around the UK. DfT
aims to deliver its Single Departmental Plan objectives to
support the creation of a stronger, cleaner, more productive
economy; help to connect people and places, balancing
investment across the country; make journeys easier,
modern and reliable; make sure transport is safe, secure and
sustainable; prepare the transport system for technological
progress, and a prosperous future outside the European Union
(EU); and promote a culture of efficiency and productivity in
everything we do.
The purpose of our research is to build our evidence base to
inform decision making. DfT’s research needs are met in a
variety of ways to ensure the most timely, focused and cost-
effective evidence generation. Some of our research needs are
directly commissioned using dedicated budgets held by policy
teams. However, the largest proportion of our evidence comes
from existing research produced outside the Department, for
example by academia and industry. We also work very closely
with the wider research community to inform them of our
interests. DfT’s Areas of Research Interest publication is the
key tool used to communicate our research needs and provide
an overview of our research priorities.
Transport plays a key role in the way people live their lives
and is important for supporting health and wellbeing. We are
interested in research that increases our understanding of how
transport promotes health and wellbeing, particularly on the
ageing population. Examples of this include our Cycling and
Walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review which encourages
physical activity and our interest clean, sustainable technology
for travel to reduce air pollution via our Reducing emissions
from road transport: Road to Zero Strategy.
Please note that DfT Annual Report and Accounts are available
online (latest one relates to 17/18) but this gives a total figure
for science, research and support functions. It is not possible to
distinguish health research spend from other research spend.
78
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Department for Work and Pensions
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is the UK’s
largest public service department, developing policy and
delivering essential services on work, welfare, pensions and
child maintenance. DWP has a strong record of producing,
sponsoring and using robust, rigorous and timely research
to underpin the development of its policies and operations.
DWP’s Areas of Research Interest publication summarises the
most important research questions facing DWP over the next
5 to 10 years. The purpose is to raise awareness and improve
understanding of these amongst the external
research community.
The Joint Work and Health Unit is a joint unit working to
ministers of both DWP and Department of Health and Social
Care (DHSC). The Unit’s vision is “a society where everyone is
ambitious for disabled people and people with long term health
conditions, and where people understand and act positively
upon the important relationship between health, work and
disability”, see Improving Lives: The future of work, health and
disability for more details. Research and analysis play a critical
role in building the evidence base to support strategy, policy
and delivery in meeting the aims of the Unit. In addition to
significant policy and economic analysis, the analytical arm of
the Unit carries out and commissions sophisticated quantitative
and qualitative analysis, as well as a long-term research and
trialling programme.
Appendix 1
Food Standards Agency
The Food Standards Agency
(FSA) is an independent,
non-Ministerial Government
department working
across England, Wales and
Northern Ireland to protect public health and consumers’ wider
interests in food. We make sure that food is safe and what
it says it is. The FSA’s principles include basing our policies
and advice on the best scientific evidence available, as well
as being open and transparent in all our work. We aim to use
science, evidence and information both to tackle the challenges
of today, and to identify and contribute to addressing emerging
risks for the future.
As part of this we fund research to help ensure we have the
best evidence base available for our work, and particularly to fill
gaps in the evidence base, update our knowledge and address
new issues. More information on our approach to science and
our science priorities is set out in our Delivery Plan. We conduct
some research in house (particularly in risk assessment and
analytics) but the majority of our research is commissioned
externally, through open procurement.
The FSA’s remit includes food safety and authenticity and
consumers’ other interests in relation to food. Our interests
and our research cover a number of areas that relate directly
to health, including understanding the occurrence and
underlying causes of conditions caused by or related to food
– such as allergy and food-borne illness – and aspects of
people’s behaviour that relates to or affect heath, such as the
composition of their diet and dietary habits. Some of this work
is done in collaboration with other funders, including PHE. There
are 123 research projects in the dataset used to generate our
data for the return. Our total annual spend on science (which
includes research as well as other elements of systematic
evidence gathering and analysis) is typically around
£11-12 million.
79
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Health and Safety Executive
As the UK’s Health and Safety
Executive our mission is to prevent
work-related death, injury and ill health.
In addition, our policy and regulatory
interventions are all based on the
best available evidence, so we also
undertake and commission applied research activities in our
areas of interest.
We have a dedicated research budget to fund applied research
both internally and extramurally. This research is targeted at
understanding present and future risks to health and safety
resulting from work activities, and is governed through a
Research Committee, with subcommittees including
external representation.
In 2017, HSE developed the Health and Work Strategy to
substantially reduce the burden of work-related ill health.
Research across HSE is brought together, coordinated by
the “Health at Work” Science Hub to provide the totality
of the available evidence to inform targeting interventions
and to support planning, monitoring and evaluation of the
interventions. New research studies are developed based on
the evidence gaps identified. By way of example, both asthma
and COPD are highly prevalent health conditions in the UK
population. By removing the relevant harmful exposures in
the workplace, incidences could be reduced by over 15%. The
HSE has prioritised research to identify preventative and early
identification strategies. Specific areas of concern include:
• how do workers attitudes and awareness of workplace
health hazards influence their behaviour and affect their
risk of occupational disease;
• workers often suffer with multiple complicated health
conditions that may well interact with each other, how do
we develop our understanding of what related ill health
actually looks in real workplaces;
• how do work and non-work factors (i.e. work on health
and health on work) interact and influence chronic health
conditions, and particularly how these can be optimised to
allow continued work where this is needed/wished for;
• what is the impact and consequence of work-related ill-
health on the individual and society as a whole (including,
human costs, costs of ill-health and impacts upon
productivity and employment); and
• how do Government departments with responsibility
for health work best together to prevent ill health caused
by work?
We also anticipate new and emerging health risks by conducting
foresight research to understand future world of work, and the
challenges and opportunities it may bring. This includes the
impact of demographic change and the need to understand
the opportunity afforded by wearable devices in the workplace
setting. We have a new research emphasis on investigating
“what works” in order to measure and improve the impact
of our Health and Work strategic interventions and those of
other stakeholders. We have approximately 50 live projects of
varying size in the health area, with a total equivalent value of
approximately £3-4Million.
Health Education England
Health Education England (HEE) exists for one reason only:
to support the delivery of excellent healthcare and health
improvement to the patients and public of England by ensuring
that the workforce of today and tomorrow has the right
numbers, skills, values and behaviours, at the right time and in
the right place.
HEE is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB)
and an arm’s-length body (ALB) of the Department of Health
and Social Care (DHSC). Our role is to provide system-wide
leadership and oversight for workforce planning, education
and training across England. HEE has a total operating budget
of £4.9 billion and employs nearly 2,000 people in a variety
of leadership, education and support roles, most of whom are
based in local teams across England.
80
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s
job is to create great places to live and work and to give more
power to local people to shape what happens in their area.
MHCLG is at the heart of the Prime Minister’s objective of
making the UK a country that works for everyone.
The Analysis and Data Directorate is responsible for statistics,
data collection, research and economic analysis, modelling
and through leadership across all MHCLG’s policy areas and
all the Department’s strategic objectives. Analysts carry out
internal data collection and research, and commission external
research on a project by project basis.
All research carried out or commissioned by the Department
flows from the Department’s strategic priorities. Our MHCLG’s
Areas of Research Interest document, published in May
2018. This provides more information about how analytical
work is organised, ongoing work and new priorities, and our
commissioning processes for new research. Overall, the
department’s research programme serves three purposes;
• to improve understanding of the issues and challenges in
key policy areas, including the drivers of change
• to synthesise evidence on what works
• t o evaluate the impact of new policies and programmes
and capture transferable lessons.
A number of our research projects have cross cutting focus
which includes a health dimension. These include long term
projects such as the major flagship survey English Housing
Survey (EHS) which collects information about the physical
condition of the housing stock and also the characteristics
of inhabitants.
The EHS is also a key source for BEIS’s work on domestic
energy efficiency and fuel poverty, and the survey is part-
funded by BEIS under a service level agreement arrangement.
We are responsible for the English Indices of Deprivation (which
includes a health related domain) and continued contribution
funding of the What Works Centre for Well Being. Some of our
long-term evaluation of programmes to support vulnerable
groups also include a focus on physical/mental health and
improving life chances. This includes the evaluation of the
Troubled Families programme, with its pioneering approach to
data sharing.
The Department has recently undertaken much research on
the causes and impacts of homelessness, which includes
some focus on health issue. Some of the key outputs can be
found here.
More generally, our analysts also continue to work
collaboratively with DHSC/NHS England on cross cutting
interests such as Adult Social Care, such as engaging with the
Better Care Fund evaluation.
Appendix 1
81
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
National Physics Laboratory (NPL)
NPL is owned by the Department for Business Energy and the
Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and is
in a strategic partnership with BEIS and the University of Surrey
and the University of Strathclyde.
A large proportion of NPL’s funding (c. £56m in 2018) comes
from BEIS and is used to deliver the National Measurement
System. NPL’s funding for research can be broken down into
three main streams:
• Funding from the National Measurement System
• Funding from grants for collaborative research and
development activities with industry and academia. These
grants come from a range of sources for example: the
industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Innovate UK, DHSC,
charities (e.g. Cancer Research UK), or from European
research programmes (e.g. EMPIR and Horizon 2020)
• Funding to deliver research solutions through consultancy
NPL does not fund other institutions to perform research.
Through the NMS, and in line with BEIS’s NMS Strategy and the
Industrial Strategy, NPL activity in the Life Sciences & Health
sector includes:
• The development of biological reference materials
and methods.
• Metrology for radiation physics for healthcare, to
provide measurement infrastructure to support the
implementation of optimised patient-specific therapeutic
and diagnostic services.
• Developing and supporting advanced ultrasound
imaging technologies.
• Development of quantitative molecular imaging techniques
for drug discovery and development, digital pathology
and radiology.
• The curation of digital healthcare data to provide a
standardised and secure way of improved data quality,
data analysis and fusion; consistent data quality and
provenance is essential to underpin diagnosis and
treatment using AI and other future techniques.
• Innovative medicines manufacturing -analysis of
pharmaceutical materials, implementation of synthetic
biology and development of digital models for the
manufacturing processes.
Further, NPL leads one of CRUK’s Grand Challenge Projects.
Team Rosetta are using new mass spectrometry imaging
techniques and instruments that they have developed to study
different types of cancer. They are imaging the tumour to
create - for the first time - faithful 3D representations.
In 2018 the life science & health sector groups completed
£16.7M of work for the NMS, and £6.5M of grant funded
projects. A total of 1,122 measurement service calibration
certificates were produced in orders completed for a total
of 293 different customers. In 2018, NPL published 121
life sciences & health related research articles in peer
reviewed journals.
82
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
Ofsted (the Office for Standards in
Education, Skills and Social Care) is
the inspector of provision in early
years, schools, further education
and skills and children’s social care,
and has a regulatory function in
parts of early years and social care.
We conduct research and evaluation as part of our strategy
to be ‘a force for improvement’. All our research relates to
our function as an inspectorate. This includes contributing to
making sure our measures and methods are valid and reliable,
aggregate insights that can inform the education and social
care sectors, understand the consequences of what we do,
and ensure we inspect the right things. Most of our research
is done in-house rather than contracted out, and research
projects are usually co-constructed between the research team
and the inspectorate. Inspectors are involved in projects from
scoping to write-up. We do not follow a particular research
methodology but use a mix of approaches, most often a mixed
methods approach.
Some of our research projects in 2018 relate to physical or
mental health issues:
• We completed a study on knife crime in London (Link)
• We published a study of how schools are tackling obesity
(Link)
• We completed a study on teacher wellbeing, which looked
amongst other things at teacher stress, mental health and
days lost due to illness. (Link)
We have quite a few current or upcoming projects that do not
fall in 2018, however. These projects represent 25% of our
research work in 2018.
Appendix 1
Public Health England
Public Health England is an
executive agency, sponsored
by the Department of Health
and Social Care, which aims to
protect and improve the nation’s
health and wellbeing, and reduce
health inequalities. We have a net operating budget of £291m
and employ 5,500 staff. A further £3bn is ring fenced for public
health grants to local authorities to discharge their public health
responsibilities. Our health research is funded through external
competitive awards, many of which feature in this analysis (see
here for latest awards, Annex A).
We commission academics and other researchers to contribute
to the evidence base for public health. As with other DHSC
sponsored organisations, the majority of research funding
is administered by the National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR), for example the NIHR Health Protection Research Units
(see here – ‘Our facilities’ section).
83
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
UK Space Agency
The UK Space Agency
(UKSA) is an executive
agency of the Department
for Business, Energy &
Industrial Strategy (BEIS) responsible for all strategic decisions
on the UK civil space programme and provide a clear, single
voice for UK space ambitions. These responsibilities include:
• leading the UK civil space policy and increasing the UK
contribution to European initiatives
• building a strong national space capability, including
scientific and industrial centres of excellence
• coordinating strategic investment across industry
and academia
• working to inspire and train a growing, skilled UK
workforce of space technologists and scientists
• working on national and international space projects in
co-operation with industry and academia
• regulating the UK civil space activities and ensuring we
meet international treaty obligations
There are several programmes through which the UKSA
supports research and innovation but the agency does not
generally publish information on individual awards. Below are a
range of programmes supported by the agency which have an
impact on human health.
The International Partnership Programme (IPP) is a five year,
£152 million programme which focuses on using the UK
space sector’s research and innovation strengths to deliver
a sustainable economic or societal benefit to emerging
and developing economies around the world as part of the
Government’s Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF). There
are two projects funded through the IPP related to health,
worth £6.6m.
The Space for Smarter Government Programme (SSGP) is
a strategic, national programme established in 2014 and
is delivered in collaboration with the Satellite Applications
Catapult. Via the SSGP, the UKSA has supported two projects
related to health, with a total value of £317,600 over the last
two years.
The Microgravity Science Programme will help scientists with
upcoming experiments in European Space Agency microgravity
facilities, including the International Space Station and parabolic
flights which provide short bursts of weightless conditions, just
like in orbit. The UKSA funded three projects worth £500,000
in 2017.
The UKSA is also a member of the European Space Agency
(ESA), which develops Europe’s space capability and ensure
that investment in space continues to deliver benefits to the
citizens of Europe and the world. This is supported through
space science programmes funded by a financial contribution
from all the Agency’s Member States, calculated in accordance
with each country’s gross national product. Through ESA, the
UKSA has funded 18 number of projects related to health,
with a total value of €12.971 million (~£10.5m) over the last
five years.
84
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Sport England
Sport England’s vision is
that everyone in England,
regardless of age,
background or ability,
feels able to take part in sport or activity. Some might be fit
and talented, but others won’t be so confident. Responsible for
grassroots sport in England, we work with national and local
partners to ensure everyone in England can benefit from sport
and physical activity.
Sport England’s research activities can be divided into three
broad categories:
• Evaluation of grant awards – Between 2016-21
Sport England will invest about £1 billion of Lottery and
exchequer money to increase levels of engagement in
sport and physical activity. Evaluating the effectiveness of
these investments is central to our work.
• Population measurement – Sport England is
responsible for the Active Lives Adult and Active Lives
Children and Young People surveys. Together, these
provide a detailed picture of engagement in sport and
physical activity in England by people aged 5 years old
and above.
• Other research spend – Sport England also invests
in a range of other research projects to develop the
evidence base for sport. In 2017/18 research activity
included; a review of published evidence on the individual
and community benefits of sport and physical activity,
research into the potential of active travel to increase
levels of physical activity, support for the What Works
Centre for Wellbeing, and drivers / clustering analysis of
participation data.
The physical and mental health benefits of sport and physical
activity are well understood. A central commitment of Sport
England’s strategy is to increase the number of people reaching
the Chief Medical Officer’s recommended level of physical
activity and reducing the number of people who are physically
inactive. We are increasingly working with other organisations
with an interest in promoting public health by addressing the
lifestyle factors. Sport England has a focus an applied and
practical focus on better behavioural understanding to inform
policy development and investment.
Sport England’s net spending on research and evaluation is
approximately £3million per year. This money is primarily spent
on the evaluation of awards and population measurement.
Appendix 1
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)
UKAEA manages the UK’s fusion
research programme at its Culham
Science Centre HQ – striving to
harness the power source of the
Sun for future electricity production
here on Earth. UKAEA operates the
world’s largest fusion experiment –
JET – on behalf of European partners and the UK’s own device
MAST Upgrade.
UKAEA also has active programmes in fusion relevant
technology areas such as remote handling, materials science,
tritium fuel cycle and high heat load materials – all essential
for future fusion power stations. UKAEA works closely with
UK industry to win contracts on future fusion devices and UK
universities – who participate in many UKAEA programmes.
85
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Academies, Royal Colleges
and Professional Bodies
Academy of Medical Sciences
The Academy of
Medical Sciences
is the independent
body in the UK representing the diversity of medical
science. The Academy has a portfolio of grant schemes
supporting those on the clinical training pathway and those
working in basic biomedical and health research in the UK and
overseas. All funded research reflects the Academy’s mission
to improve health through research.
All awards that were live in 2018 were included in this analysis,
with the exception of travel fellowships that don’t include a
research component, i.e. the Hamied Foundation UK-India
AMR Visiting Professorships and the GCRF Networking Grants.
UKRI extracted the grants included in this analysis from Europe
PubMed Central, using the Dimensions platform from Digital
Science which was also used to auto-code these awards.
In total, 248 awards were included totalling an award value
in 2018 of £4.8m. The total for the UK was 187 awards
and £3.5m.
British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
The British Society for
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
(BSAC) exists to facilitate the
acquisition and dissemination
of knowledge in the field of
antimicrobial chemotherapy.
Through a series of educational and other initiatives, the
Society offers advice to government, its membership, the
wider medical profession and the public on issues relating
to antimicrobial agents, the appropriate and prudent use of
antibiotics, and the management of community and hospital-
acquired infection(s).
The BSAC funds research from its charitable income. The
society operate an international grants programme which
contributes to scientific research in the field of antimicrobial
chemotherapy according to our strategy in the areas of:
• Mechanisms of antibacterial action
• Mechanisms of antibacterial resistance
• Antiviral resistance
• Antivirals
• Antifungals
• Antibiotic methods
• Antibiotic prescribing
• Antibiotic therapy
• Antiparasitics
• Evidence based medicine / systematic reviews
Awards are made in the following categories:
• Research and Education Grants maximum value is
£50,000 for projects of up to one-year in duration. 1- 2
awards are made in this category each year.
• Project Grants maximum value is £15,000 for projects
of up to one-year in duration. 1- 3 awards are made in this
category each year.
• Postgraduate Studentships maximum of £25,000 per
year (covering fees for up to 4 years in duration).
• Travel Grants ECCMID: Maximum of 3 awards each
year to a maximum value of £1,000 each. ASM Microbe:
Maximum of 2 awards each year to a maximum value of
£1,500 each.
• Vacation Scholarship Up to 3 awards made each year.
Payment of £270 per week for a maximum of 10 weeks,
plus a one-off consumable payment of £500.
• Overseas Scholarship 1-2 awards made each year.
Payment of £1,250 per calendar month for a maximum of
6 months, plus a one-off consumable payment of £600
per calendar month for the duration of the scholarship.
Total grants budget per annum is £140,000 .
86
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
The Royal Academy of Engineering
As the UK’s national
academy for engineering,
we bring together the most
successful and talented
engineers from across the
engineering sectors in a Fellowship, for a shared purpose: to
advance and promote excellence in engineering
for the benefit of society. We are a national academy with
a global outlook, and we use our international partnerships
to ensure that the UK benefits from international networks,
expertise and investment.
The Academy’s Fellowship comprises of the country’s most
successful engineers from across academia and industry,
including prominent entrepreneurs and business leaders. We
harness their experience and expertise to provide independent
advice to government, to deliver programmes that help
exceptional engineering researchers and innovators realise
their potential, to engage the public with engineering, and to
provide leadership for the profession.
The Academy has three strategic priorities:
• make the UK the leading nation for engineering
innovation and businesses
• address the engineering skills crisis
• position engineering at the heart of society.
The Academy supports these strategic priorities through
our Research Programmes, by making awards to the most
promising and talented researchers in the UK across the full
breadth of engineering. The awards provide distinctive rounded
support, providing not only funding, but also training, access to
our networks, and mentoring from our prestigious Fellowship.
The Academy’s research programmes are funded by BEIS and
other organizations such as the Leverhulme Trust.
Our research programmes support engineers of all disciplines
and at all career stages. The Academy defines engineering
in the broadest sense possible so that the contribution to the
engineering community can be maximised. This means that
applications from individuals whose research might focus on
artificial Intelligence and data, clean growth, future of mobility,
ageing society and healthcare engineering are all welcome.
Health-focused researchers can currently be found in
most of our awardee cohorts across each programme (or
can be identified in past cohorts which the Academy has
previously funded).
The data presented here highlights the work of our 24 current
awardees focused on healthcare, representing almost thirteen
million pounds of funding. This funding includes research on
miniaturised tools for better pregnancy monitoring, 3D-printed
biomedical imaging systems, prosthetic limbs, machine
learning for computer-assisted neurosurgery, and study of
radiotherapy-induced effects on paediatric patients.
In fact, healthcare engineering will be one of the themes of our
Research Forum event this year, taking place on November
12, 2019. At least eight awardees who fall under this research
theme have been invited to showcase their work. If you’re
interested in attending, please contact Jorge Ospina at Jorge.
Ospina@raeng.org.uk.
Appendix 1
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is the coordinating
body for the UK and Ireland’s 24 medical Royal Colleges and
Faculties. The aim of the Academy is to ensure patients are
safely and properly cared for by setting standards for the way
doctors are educated, trained and monitored throughout their
careers. Activities concentrate primarily on producing policy
and recommendations to inform healthcare. Much of this work
is delivered by the Academy’s long-standing committees or
through working groups and independent short-life projects.
The Academy is not a fund-giving body itself, therefore
members of the Academy were approached individually for
participation in this analysis.
87
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Council of Deans of Health
The Council of Deans of Health represents the UK’s university
faculties engaged in education and research for nurses,
midwives and allied health professionals. At any one time our
members will be educating in the region of 120,000 future
registered health professionals.
Operating as a multi-professional organisation at the heart of
policy and political debate, we aim to lead policy at national
and UK level, promoting the essential contribution of our
members to health and social care. We are committed to
working in partnership, strengthening membership engagement
and intelligence gathering to influence policy UK-wide for high
quality education and research. As an organisation that is
almost exclusively funded through membership subscriptions,
the Council does not fund or commission research externally.
The Council does conduct research in relation to our policy
work though. This year, for instance, the Council is conducting
an academic staffing census to obtain a detailed picture of
retention and recruitment as well as the staff profile for each
of our disciplines, which will help inform national, regional and
local succession planning in health higher education.
We have also recently published a report on advanced clinical
practice education in England, which provides an analysis
of the research we have conducted on this internally and in
collaboration with Health Education England.
A third example of the research the Council has been
undertaking recently is our report on UK health faculties’ global
engagement that was published in May 2018. It illustrates
the diverse and exciting range of international projects that
UK faculties providing nursing, midwifery and allied health
education are engaged with.
The Council’s research portfolio focuses strategically on:
• promoting the Council’s vision of research in our
disciplines and influence to increase capacity and
capability
• advocating for an increase in research funding and
research career opportunities for our disciplines
• promoting strong research environments in universities’
health faculties
• advocating for better career pathways for clinical
academics in our professions across the UK
For more information contact:
Dorothea Baltruks, Senior Policy and Research Officer
dorothea.baltruks@cod-health.ac.uk
Faculty of Public Health
The Faculty of Public Health (FPH) is the leading professional
body for public health specialists and practitioners in the UK.
The Faculty is a membership organisation for nearly 4,000
public health professionals across the UK and around the
world and is also a registered charity. The Faculty’s role is to
improve the health and wellbeing of local communities and
national populations, by supporting the work of our members.
This includes encouraging and promoting new research and
understanding of public health through our Journal of Public
Health, award-winning blog and annual events, lecture and
conference programme. Currently the Faculty is not a grant-
giving body and does not commission research but supports
the research environment through advocacy for the public
health research workforce, five yearly curriculum reviews
and in partnerships with nationwide public health initiatives/
collaborations.
88
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Royal College of General Practitioners
The RCGP is
the professional
membership body
for GPs in the UK.
Our purpose is to encourage, foster and maintain the highest
possible standards in general medical practice. We support
GPs through all stages of their career, from medical students
considering general practice, through to training, qualified
years and retirement.
Whilst the RCGP is not a research organisation, it recognises
the key role that research plays in advancing the highest quality
of care for patients.
The Research Programme in CIRC:
• Facilitates making research more relevant to the RCGP
membership base
• Upskills and enables GPs and GP practices to participate
in research (including through funding research grants
and fellowships)
• Highlights and celebrates the highest quality research
from the UK to support clinical practice and patient care
• Influences primary care research and funding
within the UK
In CIRC we support, celebrate and facilitate research, and
encourage the dissemination of research findings across the
primary care community. We collaborate with researchers
drawing upon our networks of GPs and patients, involving GPs
as Clinical Champions and Advisers and working closely with
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and NIHR
Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN).
Research and production of objective evidence is central
for GPs to be able to deliver the best care possible to their
patients. The College has several strategic partnerships
through which it supports and influences research within the
UK. The College influences research within the UK by identifying
the important research areas within general practice and
working with the NIHR to prioritise these.
Our fellowships and grants awarded by the RCGP Scientific
Foundation Board (SFB) support GP-led research activities, and
our awards celebrate the best of primary care research.
The RCGP SFB offers two types of research grant: Annual
Grants (up to £30,000) and Practitioner Allowance Grants (up
to £2,000). The RCGP SFB advertises and awards joint-funded
fellowships with partners whenever possible. In 2018 the RCGP
SFB awarded 3 Annual Grants, worth a total of £60,155.50
and a joint-funded fellowship with Marie Curie (focusing on out
of hours palliative care in general practice), worth £39,996. In
2018 the RCGP SFB awarded 7 Practitioner Allowance Grants,
worth a total of £14,000. Overall, in 2018 there were 33
Active grants funded by the RCGP SFB, worth a total of
over £330,000
The RCGP Policy Team also commission research on a case by
case basis. The most recent of these was a £60,000 tender to
investigate ‘the Future of GP’. This was awarded to the King’s
Fund in 2018.
Appendix 1
Medical Schools Council
The Medical Schools
Council is the
representative body
for all 40 UK medical
schools, which provide
a key interface between health research and higher education.
Medical schools are a base for clinical academics, who drive
innovation and educate future generations of researchers,
while the Council acts as a forum for directing national policy
in medical school research. Together with the GMC, the MSC
created the UK Medical Education Database, a large-scale
longitudinal data resource for researchers to access and
build an evidence base for medical education, selection and
workforce decision-making.
89
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
The RCOG works to improve women’s health care across the
world. Founded in 1929, we now have over 16,000 members
worldwide and work with a range of partners both in the UK and
globally to improve the standard of care delivered to women,
encourage the study of obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G), and
advance the science and practice of O&G.
Currently, the Lindsay Stewart Centre for Audit and Clinical
Informatics aims:
To carry out high-quality national clinical audit, research and
other quality improvement projects in women’s health care.
To support quality improvement within obstetrics, gynaecology
and maternity through developing and publishing national
performance indicators.
Examples of our current projects:
• Each Baby Counts: A national quality improvement project
to reduce the number of stillbirths, neonatal deaths and
brain injuries occurring as a result of incidents during
term labour.
• Each Baby Counts: Learn and Support: A new RCOG/RCM
programme to support multidisciplinary maternity teams
in England to implement and evaluate interventions that
focus on behaviour, team work, safety and positive work
culture in their units.
• National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA): A new
large-scale audit of the NHS maternity services across
England, Scotland and Wales
RCOG Research Committee promotes and coordinates the
RCOG’s research activities out with the Lindsay Stewart Centre.
The central objective of the Research Committee is to facilitate
the evaluation of interventions to improve reproductive health
outcomes for women, their children and their families. Members
of the group are chairs of the 12 Clinical Study Groups (CSGs),
which facilitate the process of developing and expanding the
portfolio of research in reproductive health care in the UK.
CSGs provide the primary route through which new ideas for
clinical trials and other well-designed studies are developed in
the reproductive health field.
Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine
The Faculty of
Intensive Care
Medicine is the
professional
body responsible for the training, assessment, practice and
continuing professional development of Intensive Care Medicine
doctors and practitioners in the UK. The Faculty was founded in
2010 and has well over 3,000 members, making it the largest
organisation of critical care medical professionals in the UK.
One of the Faculty’s main aims is to promote the specialty
and engaging with healthcare policy, including some research-
related initiatives. These include:
• supporting funding to the UK Critical Care Research Group
(CCRG) to help underwrite their annual conference
• supports research prizes with the NIHR
• supports research through the CCT in Intensive Care
Medicine curriculum
• Hosts and chairs the National Adult Critical Care Data
Group (NACCDG), which has brought together stakeholders
from across the NHS and critical care data management
to take forward audit collection. The group advises on
the development, content and use of current and future
national data within critical care to improve care, support
and aid future research and drive change in processes and
outcomes for critically ill patients.
90
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
The RCPH aims to transform
child health through
knowledge, innovation and
expertise, and is responsible
for education, standards and
advocacy including dissemination of best practice standards for
paediatricians in the UK.
The RCPCH’s Research and Quality Improvement Division
leads and develops the evidence base to improve child health
outcomes across the UK and acts as a trusted source of
child health knowledge, innovation, influence and expertise to
support members lead and deliver high quality healthcare which
meets the needs of children and young people. The Division
carries out primary and secondary research to generate,
synthesise and translate data and evidence to influence and
inform policy and clinical practice, standards and guidance to
support the clinical community.
The key areas of research activity include:
• Promoting and developing child health research –
The RCPCH has developed partnerships with NIHR,
Royal Colleges and established the UK Child Health
Research Collaboration to promote and influence child
health research and aims to embed research in all
paediatrician’s careers.
• Fellowship awards – In 2018, the RCPCH launched
the Children’s Research Fellowship Fund, a £10 Million
campaign for post-doctoral fellowship awards to
develop the next generation of future research leaders.
An agreement has been put in place with the Medical
Research Council to jointly fund future awards, and the
RCPCH has successfully co-badged PhD fellowships with
Children with Cancer UK in 2016/17, as well as developed
joint one-year industry placements with IQVIA.
• Research projects – The RCPCH carries out research
projects to answer research questions relating to the
RCPCH’s strategy and produces evidence-based reports
and peer review publications to add to the child health
evidence base and influence clinical practice, policy and
ensure future priorities are based on sound evidence.
• British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) - The
BPSU is a world leading centre for rare paediatric disease
surveillance and enables doctors and researchers to
investigate how many children in the UK and Republic of
Ireland are affected by specific rare diseases, conditions
or treatments each year.
• Clinical guidelines – The RCPCH produces clinical
guidelines, synthesising existing evidence, to provide
high-quality guidance as per National Institute for Health
and Care the Excellence’s methodology (NICE), to inform
and improve quality of patient care.
Appendix 1
Royal College of Pathologists
The Royal College of Pathologists is a charity with over 11,000
members worldwide. Most members are doctors and scientists
working in hospitals and universities in the UK. The College
oversees the training of pathologists and scientists working
in 17 different specialties, which include cellular pathology,
haematology, clinical biochemistry and medical microbiology.
While the College does not fund research activities directly it is
committed to promoting excellence in the study, research and
practice of pathology and to being responsible for maintaining
the highest standards through training, assessments,
examinations and professional development, for the benefit of
the public.
91
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
The Royal College of Radiologists
The Royal College of
Radiologists (RCR) leads,
educates and supports doctors
who are training and working
in the specialties of clinical
oncology and clinical radiology and improve the standard of
practice in them. The Academic Committee gives out annual
grants and fellowships to members to encourage and foster
research and contribute to improving the quality of imaging
research in the UK.
The following are bequests awarded annually:
• Constance Thornton Fellowship - For projects in cross
sectional imaging or paediatric radiology – one award
active in 2018.
• Karol Sicher Research Fellowship - Supports three-month
secondments in the UK or abroad to gain technical skills
in cancer diagnosis, assessment or management.
• Kodak Radiology Fund Research Bursary - Furthering a
radiological interest in the UK or abroad – two awards
active in 2018.
• Kodak Research Fund Scholarship - Research or
educational project in the UK or abroad and may be used
to assist the undertaking of an MD – six awards active in
2018.
There are dedicated budgets for the below also
awarded annually:
• Pump Priming Grants - Stimulate research for individuals,
collaborations, ideas or institutions, e.g. collecting pilot
data ahead of larger grant applications - 19 awards active
in 2018.
• Joint CRUK CRTF Fellowship - Established in 2010, these
Clinical Research Fellowships are administered by the
Cancer Research centres across the UK – annual
contribution scheme.
• Joint MRC CRTF Fellowship - Established in 2005, these
Joint Fellowships are administered by the Medical
UK Clinical Virology Network
The United Kingdom Clinical Virology Network (UK CVN)
consists of a linked and co-ordinated group of laboratories
distributed throughout the UK and Ireland. It provides advice
to membership and to Government, Chief Medical Officers,
National Health Services, Public Health bodies and professional
societies on all aspects of viral disease and infection. The aim
of the UK CVN is to promote the interests of clinical virology,
and its medical and laboratory practice in the United Kingdom
and Ireland. The
UK CVN promotes agreed protocols for the management of
viral diseases and best laboratory practice, supports a rapid
and considered response to virological emergencies; acts
as an education and training resource, and undertakes
related activities.
The over-riding consideration for UK CVN research grants is
that the research project should be demonstrably of value to
clinical virology laboratories, and applicants will be asked to
explain how their research will benefit the CVN. Applicants must
be members of the CVN or belong to laboratories/organisations
that are CVN members. Grants are offered as and when the
UK CVN financial position permits. This is usually every two
years. In 2017, the UK CVN Executive Committee announced
a competition for one major two-year research grant up to
the value of £40,000, and two pump priming small research
grants, up to the value of £5000. The committee received nine
applications for the major award, and three applications for the
pump-priming awards.
92
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Charities, Foundations and Trusts
Members of the Association of Medical Research Charities
Action Medical
Research
Action Medical Research is a leading
UK-wide charity funding vital research to help sick and disabled
babies, children and young people.
Action on
Hearing Loss
Action on Hearing Loss (formerly
RNID) is the largest UK charity helping people who are
confronting deafness, tinnitus and hearing loss. The charity
provides support and care, campaigns for equality, and
supports research into technology and treatments. It enables
people to take control of their lives and remove the barriers in
their way.
Alcohol Change UK
Alcohol Change UK, which formed from
the merger of Alcohol Concern and Alcohol
Research UK, works across the UK to reduce
alcohol-related harm by ensuring that policy and
practice can always be developed based on
high-quality research.
Alzheimer’s
Research UK
Alzheimer’s Research UK funds
research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention, treatment
and cure for dementia. Backed by passionate scientists and
supporters, they’re challenging the way people think about
dementia, uniting the big thinkers in the field and funding the
innovative science that will change lives. Their singular focus
on research means that they can channel their expertise and
energy with maximum benefit, to make the greatest difference
to people affected by dementia today and in the future.
Alzheimer’s Society
The Alzheimer’s Society funds research
to improve care for people living with
dementia and to find a cure. Their
mission is to transform the landscape
of dementia forever. Until the day they find a cure, they will
strive to create a society where those affected by dementia are
supported and accepted, able to live in their community without
fear or prejudice.
Anthony Nolan
Anthony Nolan funds research to
make bone marrow and blood stem
cell transplants more successful, giving people longer and
better lives. The charity matches individuals willing to donate
their stem cells to patients needing a stem cell transplant due
to blood disorders or cancer. Their mission is to save and
improve the lives of people who need a hematopoietic stem cell
transplant.
Asthma UK
Asthma UK funds research to understand
the biology of asthma, work towards better
treatments and a cure, and improve diagnosis
and care. They work to stop asthma attacks
and, ultimately, cure asthma by funding
world leading research and scientists, campaigning for change
and supporting people with asthma to reduce their risk of a
potentially life-threatening asthma attack.
Ataxia UK
Ataxia UK funds research into
finding treatments and cure for the ataxias. They believe that
people with ataxia deserve care, understanding and a cure.
They raise funds for medical research into finding treatments
and cures for the ataxias, raise awareness, and offer support,
advice and information for people living with the condition.
93
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Autistica
Autistica funds research to
transform understanding of autism and help autistic people
have a better quality of life. They exist to offer families and
autistic people the chance of a long, healthy, happy life.
Autistica support cutting edge research on autism and related
conditions. They work with autistic people to understand their
priorities for research so that they can make a difference
at every stage of their lives. They campaign for increased
investment in research and for better services for autistic
people. Their current areas of focus defined by their community
are mental health, language and communication, physical
health and epilepsy
in autism.
Bloodwise
Bloodwise funds research to
improve the lives of people living with and beyond blood cancer.
Around 38,000 people of all ages are diagnosed with blood
cancers and related disorders every year in the UK. Blood cancers
comprise over 100 individual diseases including leukaemia,
lymphoma and myeloma. Together, blood cancers are the fifth
most common form of cancer and the third largest cause of
cancer death in the UK. The charity’s research is targeted at
understanding more about blood cancer, improving diagnosis and
treatments, and funding ground-breaking clinical trials.
Bowel Cancer UK
Bowel Cancer UK funds research
to save lives and improve the quality of life for all those
affected by bowel cancer. Bowel Cancer UK and Beating Bowel
Cancer have joined together to stop bowel cancer. They are
determined to save lives, improve the quality of life and support
all those affected by bowel cancer in the UK. They will do this
by enabling and supporting research, providing support and
information for patients and their families each step of the way,
transforming awareness and understanding of the disease, and
campaigning for early diagnosis and best treatment and care
for all.
Bowel Disease
Research
Foundation
The BDRF funds research to advance the cure and treatment
of bowel disease. They are the subsidiary charity of the
Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland who
are the representative body of leading medical practitioners
working in the field of bowel disease. Bowel disease covers a
number of illnesses including bowel cancer, Crohn’s Disease,
Ulcerative Colitis and a host of conditions that affect the
function of the bowel.
BRACE
BRACE funds research to improve
understanding of the causes of
dementia, improve diagnosis, and help develop new forms of
treatment. They raise funds for dementia research and awards
grants for research at universities in South West England and
South Wales.
Brain Research UK
Brain Research UK funds research to
discover the causes of neurological
conditions, develop new treatments and improve the lives of
those affected. They are currently focusing their research
funding on three priority areas: acquired brain and spinal cord
injury, neuro-oncology, and headache and facial pain.
Breast Cancer Now
Breast Cancer Now is the charity
that’s steered by world-class research
and powered by life-changing care.
We’re here for anyone affected by breast cancer, the whole
way through their experience, providing support for today
and hope for the future. We are funding the brightest minds in
breast cancer research, we’re discovering how we can prevent,
save lives and live well with breast cancer. By 2050, we believe
that everyone diagnosed with breast cancer will live – and be
supported to live well.
94
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
British Association
for Counselling and
Psychotherapy
The BACP funds research that informs and develops counselling
and psychotherapy practice. They aim to promote and provide
education and training for counsellors and psychotherapists
working in either professional or voluntary settings, whether
full or part time, with a view to raising the standards of the
counselling professions for the benefit of the community and
in particular for those who are the recipients of counselling or
psychotherapy; and to inform and educate the public about
the contribution that the counselling professions can make
generally and particularly in meeting the needs of those whose
participation and development in society is impaired by physical
or psychological health needs or disability.
British Council for
Prevention of Blindness
The British Council for Prevention of
Blindness (BCPB) is a registered charity that funds research and
training to prevent blindness in low and lower middle-income
countries – where it is needed most.
British Journal of
Anaesthesia
The BJA funds research into
anaesthesia, perioperative medicine, critical care, and pain
management to improve patient care globally. The aim of the
charity is to advance and improve theoretical and practical
knowledge and skills in all branches of anaesthesia, critical care
and pain medicine and related topics. Thereby, reducing the
suffering and dangers of anaesthesia and surgery.
British Lung Foundation
The BLF funds research to improve care and to
prevent, treat and cure lung diseases. They’ve
been researching lung conditions for 30 years.
Today, it remains at the heart of what they do.
Having lung disease brings questions and anxiety about the
future. They don’t want anyone to face that alone. Their helpline,
support groups, web community and easy-to-understand
information offer vital hope and support. They aim to prevent
lung disease by campaigning for positive change in the UK’s
lung health. They’re raising awareness about lung disease, the
dangers that cause it, and how to look after your lungs.
British Scoliosis
Research
Foundation
The BSRF funds research to discover the cause of idiopathic
scoliosis and to improve the quality of life for people with all
types of scoliosis. Each year the BSRF funds a great deal of
research into scoliosis and periodically holds an international
symposium to spread the knowledge gained from research.
The BSRF works closely with the Scoliosis Association (UK),
the national patient’s support organisation and with the British
Scoliosis Society, the organisation for doctors specialising in
the treatment of scoliosis.
British Sjögren’s
Syndrome Association
The BSSA funds research into the cause
and treatment of Sjögren’s Syndrome. A self-help organisation
with nearly 2000 members, the BSSA is dedicated to providing
mutual support and information to individuals affected by
this disabling disease. They have regional support groups
throughout the UK whose members include sufferers and
supporters who work together in helping one another cope with
the day-to-day challenges of this debilitating and distressing
condition. The BSSA also has a helpline and they award an
annual research grant.
95
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
British Skin Foundation
The British Skin Foundation funds high
quality peer reviewed research into all
types of skin disease and skin cancer.
Grants are awarded twice a year with
the charity accepting applications from institutions across the
UK and ROI.
Chest Heart & Stroke
Scotland
Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland is an
independent Scottish charity who aims to
improve the quality of life for people in Scotland after a stroke,
or diagnosis of a chest or heart condition. We offer vital advice,
support and information to those affected, arrange community
groups and 1-to-1 support, and influence public policy to ensure
that people get the services they badly need.
Childhood Eye
Cancer Trust
The Childhood Eye Cancer Trust
(CHECT) is a UK charity dedicated to helping people affected by
retinoblastoma. It:
• Provides ongoing support and information to
families and individuals.
• Funds research into the prevention and treatment
of retinoblastoma.
• Raises awareness among health professionals
and the public.
• Influences policy to improve services for patients.
Children’s Liver
Disease Foundation
Children’s Liver Disease Foundation
funds research to enhance understanding childhood liver
disease and improve available treatments. CLDF is fighting
childhood liver disease by providing information, emotional
support, research funds and a voice for all affected.
Chronic Disease
Research Foundation
The CDRF, an independent medical
research charity, funds a range of gene research programs
that aim to discover the cause of common diseases such as
arthritis, back pain, migraine, asthma, dementia and heart
disease. The CDRF runs many projects at the department of
Twin Research, St Thomas’ Hospital. We hope that results
of this research will contribute to the development of future
diagnostic tests and treatments. We rely on non-governmental
donations and grants.
Coeliac UK
Coeliac UK is the charity for
people who need to live without
gluten. For nearly 50 years we’ve been helping people with
coeliac disease and other gluten related conditions live happier,
healthier lives. We do this by striving for better gluten free food
in more places, providing independent, trustworthy advice and
support and funding crucial research to manage the impacts of
gluten and find answers to coeliac disease. And we do it all so
that one day, no one’s life will be limited by gluten.
Crohn’s & Colitis UK
We are a UK Charity leading
the battle against Crohn’s Disease, Ulcerative Colitis and
other forms of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Our staff,
volunteers, and supporters are dedicated to improving
the lives of everyone affected by these conditions. Our
strategic objectives are to generate greater awareness and
understanding; provide high quality information and support;
to work with the UK health sector to improve the diagnosis,
treatment and management of IBD; and to support life-changing
research to better understand the causes and best treatments
for Crohn’s and Colitis. We want to improve lives now and lead
the mission to find a cure.
96
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Cystic Fibrosis Trust
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust is the
only UK-wide charity dedicated
to fighting for a life unlimited
by cystic fibrosis (CF) for everyone affected by the condition.
Since we started in 1964 we have dedicated ourselves to
promoting excellence in research and clinical care, as well as
providing practical support and advice to people with CF and
their families. Our mission is to create a world where being born
with CF no longer means a life-long struggle, when everyone
living with the condition will be able to look forward to a long,
healthy life.
DEBRA
For people whose skin doesn’t work - we
do. DEBRA is the national charity that
supports individuals and families affected
by Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - a painful genetic skin blistering
condition which, in the worst cases, can be fatal. DEBRA was
founded in 1978 by Phyllis Hilton whose daughter Debra had EB
– the charity was the world’s first EB patient support group. Our
vision: We have a vision of a world where no one suffers from the
painful genetic skin blistering condition, EB.
Diabetes Research &
Wellness Foundation
DRWF is a registered charity (No.
1070607) and company limited by
guarantee (3496304) set up in 1998 to raise awareness of
all types of diabetes and associated complications; provide
information and support to promote good self-management
and to enhance quality of life. Whilst funding vital diabetes
research to establish the causes, prevention and treatment of
type 1 and type 2 diabetes; develop improved management and
treatment options; and ultimately find a cure, we aim to ensure
that people have access to the right information and support
to develop a proactive self-care approach to successful self-
management, to ensure that they are “staying well until a cure
is found...”
Diabetes UK
We are Diabetes UK. Our vision
is a world where diabetes can do
no harm. Diabetes affects more people than any other serious
health condition in the UK. More than dementia and cancer
combined. That means we need to take action now. Because
we’re one of the leading UK charities for people affected by
diabetes it’s our responsibility to lead the fight against the
growing crisis. And this fight is one that involves all of us –
sharing knowledge and taking diabetes on together.
Duchenne UK
Duchenne UK funds research to
accelerate treatments and find a
cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. They are committed to
continuing to drive momentum to deliver treatments to help this
generation of those with DMD. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy is
a muscle wasting disease that mainly affects boys. It’s the most
common fatal genetic disease to affect children. It is 100%
fatal and boys die in their early 20s. There are no treatments
and no cure.
Dunhill Medical Trust
The Dunhill Medical Trust funds UK
academic and clinical research into
understanding the mechanisms of ageing, age-related diseases
and frailty; we also support community-based organisations
that are working to enhance the lives of those needing extra
support in later life.
Epilepsy Action
“We exist to improve the lives of
everyone affected by epilepsy”.
Epilepsy Action is a community of people committed to a better
life for everyone affected by epilepsy. We want high quality,
accessible epilepsy healthcare services, so that people with
epilepsy have the support they need to manage their condition.
We want wider awareness and understanding of epilepsy, so
that people living with the condition are treated with fairness
and respect. Our supporters, members, staff and volunteers are
united by these common goals.
97
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Epilepsy Research
UK
Epilepsy Research UK supports
and promotes basic and clinical scientific research into the
causes, treatments and prevention of epilepsy. We are a
leading national charity in the UK that is exclusively dedicated
to funding independent research into this condition. Epilepsy
Research UK supports the work of scientists and clinicians
throughout the UK, who are investigating all aspects of epilepsy
in both adults and children. They are especially looking at what
causes epilepsy, who is at risk of developing it, what goes on in
the brain during a seizure, and safer drugs and better surgical
techniques to treat it.
Fight for Sight
There are over two million people with
sight loss and one in five people will
have a serious sight condition in their
life time. We are the national charity
funding ground-breaking research into sight loss that’s already
changing lives today and transforming them tomorrow. We
support research into the biology of sight loss conditions,
prevention, early detection and treatments. We are committed
to revolutionary science, developing researchers, and fostering
collaboration. We know that by working with experts in
ophthalmology and with our supporters we can make a real
difference to the lives of everyone affected by sight loss.
Friends of EORTC
The Friends of EORTC mission is
to help accelerate innovation that
will improve every cancer patient’s
survival and quality of life by raising funds and awareness for
the critical translational, academic and non-pharmaceutical
clinical research of the European Organisation for Research and
Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).
Great Ormond
Street Hospital
Children’s Charity
Great Ormond Street Hospital depends on charitable support to
give seriously ill children the best chance to fulfil their potential.
Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity (GOSH Charity) funds
in 4 key areas, rebuilding and refurbishment, child and family
support services, advanced medical equipment and ground-
breaking research into child health. GOSH Charity is the UK’s
largest dedicated charitable funder of medical research into
children’s health. Through the charity’s research strategy, we
fund research across the UK but are also investing in 6 priority
areas across the hospital and its research partner, the UCL
Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH).
Guts UK
Guts UK’s vision is of a world where
digestive disorders are better
understood, better treated and everyone
who lives with one gets the support they
need. Guts UK is the only charity in the
UK committed to fighting all digestive disorders. Digestive
disorders are conditions and diseases that affect the gut, liver
and pancreas. Guts UK does this in 3 key ways:
• Funding vital research that develops new treatments
and saves lives
• Providing expert information for people affected,
their families and their carers
• Promote awareness and discussion about digestive health
Guy’s and St Thomas’
Charity
Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity is an
independent, place-based foundation which
works with Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS
Foundation Trust and others to improve the health of people in
the London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark.
98
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Heart Research UK
For over 50 years HRUK has
funded pioneering and ground-
breaking research projects in hospitals and universities across
the UK to help treat, prevent and cure heart disease. The
Charity also helps teach and support the medical experts of
today with expert Masterclasses and helps the experts of
tomorrow by funding scholarships. Heart Research UK was
founded to help make surgery safer and did just that by funding
six of the first eight successful UK heart transplants. The
charity continues to show that research works, helping people
live healthier, happier and longer lives.
JDRF
JDRF is the type 1 diabetes charity,
improving the lives of people with
type 1 diabetes by driving research to cure, treat and prevent
type 1 diabetes and its complications.
Kidney Research UK
Kidney Research UK is one of the
leading charities dedicated to
research into kidney disease in the UK. We rely almost wholly
on the generous donations of the UK public and we believe
that everybody deserves a life free of kidney disease. Our
mission is to fund and deliver life-saving research into kidney
diseases, improve treatments for people with kidney diseases
and enhance their quality of life, increase awareness of kidney
health, and support the early diagnosis and prevention of kidney
disease and damage.
Leuka
Leuka supports life-saving
research into the causes and
treatment of leukaemia, other
blood cancers and related diseases. Our ultimate aim is to
find cures for all types of leukaemia and blood cancers, by
translating research into new treatments as quickly as possible
so that patients can live better, longer lives.
Leukaemia &
Lymphoma NI
Leukaemia & Lymphoma raises funds for
blood cancer research. We operate with the
main objective of improving survival rates
for blood cancers by supporting the scientists and students
researching these diseases in Northern Ireland. We currently
fund researchers in the blood cancer research group based
at the Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology (CCRCB)
at Queen’s University Belfast, who are working on projects to
identify, target and eliminate the abnormalities that cause blood
cancer. The impact of their research is changing lives both
locally and globally.
Lister Institute of
Preventive Medicine
The Lister Institute’s competitive research prizes give young
scientists the opportunity to develop their potential through
flexible funding over a five-year period. The awards are aimed
at younger researchers in the early years of running their own
groups, for whom receipt of the prize would make a significant
difference to their research work.
Macmillan Cancer
Support
Macmillan Cancer Support is a
leading UK charity providing care, information and support to
people affected by cancer. We fund research that helps us to
understand the numbers, needs and experiences of people
living with cancer and to generate the evidence needed to
enable a better cancer experience.
Macular Society
Macular disease is the biggest
cause of sight loss in the UK,
with around 300 people diagnosed every day.
The Macular Society is the only charity determined to beat the
fear and isolation of macular disease with world class research,
and the best advice and support. To support people affected by
macular disease now, the Macular Society provides a range of
support, information and services. Our research programme is
focused on finding new treatments and a cure to Beat Macular
Disease forever.”
99
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Marie Curie
Marie Curie is a UK charity dedicated to
the care and support of people living with
a terminal illness and their families,
carers and friends. It is also the largest
charitable funder of palliative and end of life care research in
the UK, funding and supporting research in the following ways
in 2018 (* = included in this analysis):
• The open and competitive Marie Curie Research Grants
Scheme funds research to improve care and support for
people living with a terminal illness and their families,
carers and friends. *
• Marie Curie’s Research Centres are based at University
College London and Cardiff University, receiving Core/
Programme Grant funding from Marie Curie, as well as
funding from other sources. *
• The Marie Curie Research Lead programme has helped
increase research activity at Marie Curie’s hospices. Marie
Curie currently has Research Leads at Glasgow, Edinburgh
and Liverpool hospices. The Research Lead programme
is evolving into Marie Curie Research Fellowships to
develop collaborations with local universities and other
organisations. Marie Curie Research Fellows are based
at the West Midlands, Bradford and Belfast hospices.
Marie Curie’s Liverpool, Edinburgh and Newcastle
hospices also have clinicians with research sessions as
part of their job plan.
• The Marie Curie Internal Small Research Grants Scheme
supports Marie Curie staff to develop research skills,
providing funds to enable protected time to engage in
research activities. Grants were awarded to staff at Marie
Curie’s Edinburgh and Belfast hospices in 2018.
• The Design to Care Programme was initiated to develop
an innovative and sustainable approach to palliative and
end of life care.
• The Annual Marie Curie Palliative Care Research
Conference held in partnership with the Royal Society
of Medicine focused on implementing new models of
palliative care.
Marie Curie’s research spend in 2018 from all the activities
outlined above was approximately £3.4 million. Marie Curie also
submits grant data to the National Cancer Research Institute
(NCRI), a UK-wide partnership of cancer research funders who
each have an annual spend of over £1million. In this dataset,
end of life care cancer research amounts to 0.2-0.3% of non-
commercial cancer research funded in the UK, with 40-60% of
this funded by Marie Curie. As an example, in 2017/18,
the total spend on end of life care cancer research was just
under £1.4million with around 61%, that is just over £830,000,
from Marie Curie. It should be noted that the NCRI dataset has
its own caveats and so is not directly comparable to the
HRCS dataset.
Medical Research
Scotland
Medical Research Scotland
is an independent medical research charity which provides
funding for research which aims to improve the diagnosis,
treatment or prevention of any disease; to understand basic
disease processes; or to develop medical technology. We
do this through our undergraduate Vacation Scholarships,
PhD Studentships and Medical Research Scotland-sponsored
Daphne Jackson Fellowships which support and encourage
early stage scientists to develop and establish successful
research careers. We are not restricted to funding research into
any one disease or condition and the research we fund takes
place in Scotland.
Meningitis Now
Meningitis Now is the founder of the
meningitis movement and one of the
leading charities dedicated to fighting
meningitis in the UK. With over 30
years’ experience, the charity is a powerful and united voice
for people affected this disease. The charity funds high quality
research, which aims to assist the charity to deliver its two
over-riding goals: (1) Saving lives and preventing disability
through improving prevention, early diagnosis and treatment;
(2) Rebuilding futures and improving quality of life through
increased recognition of the impact of meningitis and provision
of timely, effective support.
100
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Meningitis Research
Foundation
Meningitis Research Foundation
(MRF) is a charity that brings
together people and expertise to achieve a vision of a
world free from meningitis and septicaemia. They aim to
bring this vision closer through funding research of the
highest scientific merit, in terms of the importance of the
investigation, excellence of the study, ability of the research
team, and probability of success. MRF also aims to promote
early recognition, diagnosis of these infections, help improve
treatment, raise awareness among the public and provide
ongoing personal help to individuals and families in times of
crisis, and as they live with the after effects of the diseases.
MND Association
The Motor Neurone Disease
Association is the leading national
charity in England, Wales and Northern Ireland focused on
improving access to care, research and campaigning for MND.
We are a membership organisation with over 9,000 members,
forming a powerful national and local network that provides
information and support alongside fighting for improved
services.
Moorfields Eye Charity
Moorfields Eye Charity is the main
fundraising and grant-making charity
for Moorfields Eye Hospital and the
UCL Institute of Ophthalmology.
The charity provides targeted funds, above and beyond the
responsibility of the NHS, to research cures and find treatments
for our patients and millions of people affected by eye disease
in the UK and around the world.
MQ: Transforming
Mental Health
MQ is the first major charity
exclusively funding scientific research into mental health. Our
vision is simple: to create a world where mental illnesses are
understood, effectively treated, and ultimately prevented. Since
2013, we have awarded over £9.7 million to mental health
projects across the different scientific disciplines and covering
multiple conditions. Find out more at www.mqmentalhealth.org
MS Society
We’re the MS Society – a community
of people living with MS, scientists,
campaigners, volunteers and
fundraisers. We understand what life’s like with MS, and we
support each other through the highs, lows and everything in
between. And we’re driving research into more – and better –
treatments. For everyone. Together, we are strong enough to
stop MS.
Multiple System
Atrophy Trust
We work to support all people
affected by MSA, by providing support services and information
on the web, via a telephone helpline and a nurse specialist
service. We also have a research programme to fund innovative
research into the cause and ultimately find a cure for MSA.
Muscular Dystrophy
UK
Muscular Dystrophy UK is the
leading UK charity dedicated to fighting muscle-wasting
conditions. Our work covers more than 60 rare and very rare
progressive muscle-weakening and wasting conditions, which
affect around 70,000 individuals in the UK. We fund research
into identifying treatments and cures for these conditions that
will improve the lives of everyone affected by them. We are
leading the drive to get faster access to emerging treatments
for families in the UK and are working to ensure everyone has
access to the specialist NHS care and support they need, in
order that they can live as independently as possible.
North West Cancer
Research
North West Cancer Research
is the leading cancer research charity in the North West of
England that is helping to find life-saving solutions to stop
cancer sooner. We achieve this by funding world class cancer
research in North West England and North Wales. We are
committed to achieving a cancer free future and like Rutherford
Cancer Centres, greater outcomes for patients. Since funding
our very first project almost 70 years ago, we have been at
the forefront of life-saving research - supporting some of the
best cancer research at the University of Liverpool, Bangor
University and Lancaster University.
101
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Northern Ireland Chest,
Heart and Stroke
Northern Ireland Chest Heart & Stroke is a
local charity which helps people living with these conditions and
their families. Each year we need to raise over £3m to fund our
range of programmes, community services and research in the
hospitals and universities of Northern Ireland.
Our vision for Northern Ireland is one where everyone can live
life to the full, free from chest, heart and stroke illnesses. To
achieve this, our work is focused in these areas: Care Services,
Prevention, Health Promotion, Research, Lobbying and Policy
Work. All our work is within Northern Ireland. When people
donate to NICHS, they know their entire gift will be used for
local benefit.
Orthopaedic
Research UK
We are a medical charity that strives
to improve the quality of lives for
millions of people. Through research
and education we are aiming to eliminate bone and joint
disease.
Ovarian
Cancer Action
Ovarian Cancer Action is the
UK’s ovarian cancer research charity. Scientific research is
how we make the biggest impact on the UK’s most deadly
gynaecological disease. We’re committed to funding research
to accelerate progress in three main areas: prevention,
diagnosis and treatment. And while our scientists are busy
in the lab, we’re on the ground campaigning for change and
raising awareness of the disease, so that every woman and
healthcare professional knows the signs to look
out for.
Pancreatic Cancer UK
Pancreatic cancer is a tough one but
we’re taking it on. It is tough to diagnose,
tough to treat, and tough to research.
For too long this disease has been side-lined. We want to make
sure that everyone affected by it gets all the help they need. We
provide expert, personalised support and information. We fund
innovative research to find the breakthroughs that will change
how we understand, diagnose and treat pancreatic cancer. We
campaign for change; for better care, treatment and research
and for pancreatic cancer to have the recognition it needs.
Together we’re taking on pancreatic cancer.
Parkinson’s UK
Every hour, someone in the UK
is told they have Parkinson’s.
Because we’re here, no one must face Parkinson’s alone.
We bring people with Parkinson’s, their carers and families
together via our network of local groups, our website and free
confidential helpline. Specialist nurses, our supporters and staff
provide information and training on every aspect of Parkinson’s.
As the UK’s Parkinson’s support and research charity we’re
leading the work to find a cure, and we’re closer than ever. We
also campaign to change attitudes and demand better services.
Our work is totally dependent on donations. Help us to find a
cure and improve life for everyone affected by Parkinson’s.
Pharmacy Research
UK
Supporting the production of
timely evidence that informs policy and practice relating to
pharmacy’s contribution to the health of the public, medicines
and their use.
Prostate Cancer UK
Prostate Cancer UK is one of the
main charities leading the fight
against prostate cancer. Funding ground-breaking research,
driving improvements in treatment, and fighting injustice in
care, Prostate Cancer UK has a simple ambition – to stop men
dying from prostate cancer.
102
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Royal Hospital for
Neuro-disability
Founded in 1854, we are a well-
respected national charitable hospital and research centre,
providing services for adults with brain injuries. Our Putney
based community provides specialist care, therapies and
innovative technology to meet the complex needs of people
with profound disabilities.
Royal Osteoporosis
Society
The Royal Osteoporosis Society is
the only UK-wide charity dedicated to improving the prevention,
diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. With more than
30 years of expertise and experience behind them, they are
committed to helping keep the nation’s bones stronger for
longer. The charity provides vital information, fight for faster
diagnoses, and speak up for those affected. Driving research
for the development of new medications and treatments – they
are determined to find a cure. ROS dream of a future without
osteoporosis and they won’t stop until it’s a reality.
Sands
Sands funds research into stillbirth
and neonatal death.
Sarcoma UK
Sarcoma UK is a national charity
that funds vital research, supports
everyone affected by sarcoma cancer and campaigns for better
treatments.
Solving Kids’
Cancer
Solving Kids’ Cancer provides specialist support to children and
families affected by neuroblastoma. They help equip parents with
the information and resources they need to fight the disease and
feel empowered to make informed choices about their child’s
treatment. They help families raise funds to access treatment
and trials abroad while working hard to improve options in the
UK, so families don’t have to travel overseas. Solving Kids’
Cancer is shaping and funding ground-breaking research to
improve survival rates for children with neuroblastoma.
Sparks
Sparks raises money to fund
pioneering child health research
across the UK, helping to find new treatments and cures for
children and families who desperately need them. Sparks
supports clinicians and scientists who have the skills,
innovation and passion to improve children’s lives forever. Since
1991, we have funded more than 300 ground-breaking child
health research projects in over 90 hospitals, universities and
research institutions across the UK and overseas. In February
2017, Sparks partnered with Great Ormond Street Hospital
(GOSH) Charity merging our national research funds, making
up to £2 million available. This is the largest fund in the UK
dedicated to child health research, and will benefit children at
GOSH, nationally and around the world.
Stroke Association
We are the Stroke Association. We
believe in life after stroke. That’s
why we support stroke survivors to make the best recovery
they can. It’s why we campaign for better stroke care. And it’s
why we fund research to develop new treatments and ways of
preventing stroke. We rely on your support to change the lives
of people affected by stroke and reduce the number of people
who are struck by this devastating condition. Please help us to
make a difference today.
Target Ovarian Cancer
Target Ovarian Cancer is the UK’s leading
ovarian cancer charity. We work to improve
early diagnosis, fund life-saving research
and provide much-needed support to women
with ovarian cancer. We’re the only charity
fighting ovarian cancer on all three of these fronts, across all
four nations of the UK.
Tenovus Cancer Care
Tenovus Cancer Care brings
practical advice, emotional support
and treatment to where it matters most; the heart of the
community. We help cancer patients and their loved ones cope,
and through our vital research, we offer hope.
103
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
The Brain
Tumour Charity
The Brain Tumour Charity is at the
forefront of the fight to defeat brain tumours, making a
difference every day to the lives of people with a brain tumour
and their families. We fund pioneering research to increase
survival, raise awareness of the symptoms and effects of
brain tumours and provide support for everyone affected to
improve quality of life. We are committed to having the greatest
possible impact for every person affected by a brain tumour, so
that getting the diagnosis of a brain tumour no longer means a
death sentence.
The Cure
Parkinson’s Trust
The Cure Parkinson’s Trust has
one simple aim: to find ways to slow, stop and reverse the
condition. It funds preclinical studies and clinical trials and
involves people living with Parkinson’s in every decision and
every process.
The Lullaby Trust
The Lullaby Trust raises awareness of
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS),
provides expert advice on safer sleep for
babies and offers emotional support for bereaved families.
The Royal College
of Anaesthetists
The Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) is the professional
body responsible for the specialty of anaesthesia throughout
the United Kingdom. Its principal responsibility is to ensure the
quality of patient care through the maintenance of standards
in anaesthesia, pain medicine and intensive care. The RCoA
supports the development of high-quality research within the
healthcare profession and works collaboratively, through the
National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA), to enhance
high quality research activity by funding research that aims
to improve patient care and by supporting and promoting
academic research in anaesthesia at all levels.
The NIAA was established in 2008 by the Royal College of
Anaesthetists, the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain
and Ireland and the journals Anaesthesia and the British Journal
of Anaesthesia. It is a uniquely collaborative
umbrella organisation that incorporates these four bodies,
plus several anaesthetic specialist society funding partners, to
improve patient care by supporting and promoting research in
anaesthesia via biannual grant distribution rounds, to which all
NIAA partners make contributions at different times.
The Health Services Research Centre (HSRC) was launched in
2011 as an offshoot of the NIAA, with the aim of being a hub
for world-class anaesthesia research (including perioperative,
pain related and sub-specialty research). The HSRC is now the
operational delivery arm for all the health services research
conducted by the RCoA, including such projects as the National
Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA), the Perioperative
Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP), the Sprint National
Anaesthesia Projects (SNAPs) and the RCoA National Audit
Projects (NAPs). The HSRC’s projects are direct health services
research, focusing on patients undergoing anaesthesia and
surgery and their broader perioperative pathway. This broadens
our reach beyond just the surgical episode itself, to include
health outcomes from many months or even years later.
This data is captured through a variety of methods including
directly reported patient outcomes and statistical analysis and
comparison via linkage to national datasets such as ONS
and HES.
The Urology
Foundation
We are dedicated to beating
all urology diseases through cutting-edge research and leading
education and training to ensure that fewer lives
will be devastated.
Tourettes Action
Tourettes Action works in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland and is one of the leading support
and research charities for people with Tourette Syndrome and
their families. We want people with TS to receive the practical
support and social acceptance they need to help them live their
lives to the full.which lays the foundations of the major medical
breakthroughs. Much of the research we have funded has led
to the care and cures which are now part of everyday clinical
practice.
104
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Other charities, foundations and trusts
The Francis Crick Institute
The Francis Crick Institute (‘the Crick’)
is dedicated to understanding the
fundamental biology underlying health
and disease. Formed in 2015, the
Institute is located in a brand new
state-of-the-art building in central
London, which brings together 1500 scientists and support staff
working collaboratively across disciplines. This makes the Crick
the biggest biomedical research facility under a single roof in
Europe. Our work is helping to understand why disease develops
and to translate discoveries into new ways to prevent, diagnose
and treat illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, stroke,
infections and neurodegenerative diseases. We bring together
outstanding scientists from all disciplines, carrying out research
that will help improve the health and quality of people’s lives, and
keep the UK at the forefront of medical innovation.
The Crick is an independent organisation supported by our
founding partners; the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer
Research UK, Wellcome Trust, UCL, Imperial College London
and King’s College London. The core contribution for the
financial year 2017/18 from our Founders was £116.8m split
as follows; MRC £47.3m, Cancer Research UK £53.8m and
Wellcome Trust £15.7m.
This core contribution allows the Crick to support a wide range
of research programmes led by Group Leaders appointed
based on scientific excellence. The award data in this analysis
contains all programmes supported by the Crick in 2018, as
published on UKRI’s Gateway to Research. The cost of the
individual programmes for the financial year 2017/18 is an
approximation of expenditure using direct spend and an
allocation of other costs based on headcount per Group, rather
than actual expenditure.
Wellbeing of Women
Wellbeing of Women is the only charity in the
UK funding peer-reviewed pioneering medical
research across the whole spectrum of women’s
reproductive and gynaecological health. Our
mission is to improve diagnoses and treatments and find cures
and preventions to transform the lives of women and their babies
everywhere. Since the charity was established in 1964, we have
invested around £54 million in the vital early science which lays
the foundations of the major medical breakthroughs. Much of the
research we have funded has led to the care and cures which are
now part of everyday clinical practice.
Wessex Medical
Research
Wessex Medical Research funds
research to fight disease; to tackle underlying causes of ill health;
to find better treatments and, potentially cures for conditions
that affect every age group.
World Cancer
Research Fund
World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) is one
of the world’s leading cancer prevention
charities funding research into the associations between
nutrition, physical activity, body fatness and cancer prevention
and survival. We also interpret the latest evidence-based
research on cancer prevention, cutting through the jargon and
turning the evidence into practical, straightforward advice
and information to help anyone who wants to reduce their risk
of developing cancer. WCRF is part of a network of cancer
charities with a global reach. Over the past 30 years, the WCRF
Network has funded over £100 million of research worldwide.
Worldwide
Cancer Research
Worldwide Cancer Research is one of the leading UK charities
funding research into any type of cancer, anywhere in the world.
We have awarded almost £200 million to ground breaking
early-stage and translational research, in 34 different countries.
We fund cancer research projects in the world’s best research
institutions. Some of the world’s most diverse and unexpected
projects. We fund world-renowned specialists and up and coming
talent. Our mission is to enable these pioneers to deliver the new
discoveries that will save millions of lives and realise our vision of
no life cut short by cancer.
Yorkshire
Cancer Research
Yorkshire Cancer Research -
Taking action to help prevent cancer and improve the
likelihood of survival across Yorkshire.
105
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Garfield
Weston Foundation
The Garfield Weston Foundation is a
family-founded, charitable grant-
making foundation, which supports
a wide range of charitable causes across the UK, donating over
£70 million annually and more than £1 billion in total since its
establishment in 1958. The Foundation aims to be responsive
to where need is greatest and therefore supports a wide range
of charitable activity including the arts, environment, youth,
community, health and welfare. As a result of this responsive
approach, the Foundation does not work in the health sector
directly, although may fund charities who do so. While the
Foundation does accept applications from organisations that
work in healthcare, such as hospitals, hospices and other direct
delivery healthcare charities, the Foundation does not generally
award grants for medical research.
The Health
Foundation
The Health Foundation is an
independent charity committed to bringing about better health,
and health and social care for people in the UK.
Our aim is a healthier population, supported by high quality
health care that can be equitably accessed. We learn what
works to make people’s lives healthier and improve the health
care system. From giving grants to those working at the front
line to carrying out research and policy analysis, we shine a
light on how to make successful change happen.
We make links between the knowledge we gain from working
with those delivering health and health care and our research
and analysis. Our aspiration is to create a virtuous circle,
using what we know works on the ground to inform effective
policymaking and vice versa.
We believe good health and health care are key to a flourishing
society. Through sharing what we learn, collaborating with
others and building people’s skills and knowledge, we aim to
make a difference and contribute to a healthier population.
As the second largest endowed foundation in the UK focusing
on health, we spend around £37 million a year on improving
health and health care.
Our activities expand across four key work streams:
• to promote healthy lives for all
• to understand the quality of health and care
• to support health care improvement
• to make health and care services more sustainable.
LifeArc
LifeArc is a self-funded medical
research charity. Our mission is to
advance translation of early science into health care treatments
or diagnostics that can be taken through to full development
and made available to patients.
We’ve been doing this for more than 25 years and our work
has resulted in four licensed medicines and a diagnostic for
antibiotic resistance. Our success allows us to explore new
approaches to stimulate and fund translation. We have our
own drug discovery and diagnostics facilities, supported by
experts in technology transfer and intellectual property who
also provide services to external clients. Our model is built on
collaboration, and we partner with a broad range of groups
including medical research charities, research organisations,
industry and scientists. We are motivated by patient need and
scientific opportunity.
Two funds help us to progress science for the benefit of
patients - our Philanthropic Fund providing grants to support
medical research projects focused on the translation of
rare diseases research and our Seed Fund aimed at start-
up companies focused on developing new therapeutics and
biological modalities. Find out more about our work here.
106
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
MHA Care Group
MHA is an award-winning charity
providing care, accommodation and
support services for older people
throughout England, Scotland and Wales. We are one of the most
well-respected care providers in the sector and one of Britain’s
Top 20, providing services to older people for 75 years.
We do not fund research, but we do participate in it, if we feel
it will be for the benefit of our residents. We mainly work with
academic partners and our current main areas of interest are
dementia, particularly improving the quality of life for people
living with dementia. As a provider of music therapy, we are
particularly looking at how this can reduce agitation for people
living with dementia and are building the evidence base on the
effectiveness of music therapy to influence policymakers, so
that it becomes a recognised treatment for reducing agitation
in dementia and available freely to more people.
Medical Research
Foundation
“Changing medicine today.
Changing lives tomorrow” -
The Medical Research Foundation’s vision is to advance medical
research, improve human health and change people’s lives.
Many of the diseases and conditions that affect human health
have been cured or overcome as a result of medical research.
But there will always be more to do. Although significant
resources are being spent around the world on developing
exciting new treatments and therapies, there are areas of
medical need that receive little or no support – and people’s
lives that see no improvement. That is where we step in.
We are devoted to ensuring donations from our supporters
are directly invested in cutting-edge medical research – not on
campaigning, advocacy, or support services.
Our longstanding connection with the Medical Research
Council (MRC) means that we have access to some of the best
medical knowledge in the world. That, along with our careful
governance, ensures we make the greatest impact where it
is most needed and that we use our supporters’ donations
responsibly.
Unlike many charities, we do not have to provide support for
a particular disease or condition, or a particular research
institution. We are free to choose our own research priorities
and we are responsive and flexible in the way we allocate our
funding. We are always looking for opportunities to support
exciting new research.
Newlife
Foundation for
Disabled Children
Newlife the charity for Disabled Children started back in 1991,
funding research towards work to improve children’s health,
focusing on the aetiology, prevention and treatment of birth
defects. We have since broadened our aims and we now have a
team of Nurses who operate a helpline, our Equipment Services
and a department who campaign for a fairer deal for disabled
children. Newlife runs the only emergency equipment service in
the UK helping those children in the most urgent need.
Our volunteers and supporters know that 100% of every penny
they donate or fundraise can be restricted where they want the
funds to be spent.
We have invested in Research more than £16million, in over
300 individual projects at more than 80 research institutions
across the UK. Over 50 disease causing genes have now
been identified as a result of Newlife funding in part or in full
and Newlife is funding projects into new treatments. Newlife’s
ten-year medical training programme has helped over 60 PhD
students get an insight into the world of research.
While Medical Research has continued to help children with
birth defects, our charity widened its remit in 2008 to help
all disabled children including helping children through our
equipment services who have a disability as a result of cancers,
infections, prematurity and accidents
Newlife exists because if it was your child, you would want the
best for them and that’s what we are working for every day.
107
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 1
Nuffield Council on
Bioethics
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics
is an independent body that examines and advises on ethical
issues on bioscience and health. We are jointly funded by the
Nuffield Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Medical Research
Council.
When we identify and define ethical questions raised by
recent developments in biological and medical research
that concern, or are likely to concern, the public interest,
we make arrangements for the independent examination
of such questions with appropriate involvement of relevant
stakeholders, and we make policy recommendations to
Government or other relevant bodies and to disseminate our
work through published reports, briefing notes, and other
appropriate outputs.
Our main work involves conducting two-year inquiries into
a particular topic, led by a multi-disciplinary working group.
Throughout the course of an inquiry, we gather evidence
through a number of ways including consultations (open and
expert), workshops, meetings with relevant stakeholders,
and evidence reviews (in-house or commissioned). Our
evidence-gathering activities for each project are made
available on our website.
Nuffield Foundation
The Nuffield Foundation funds
research, analysis, and student
programmes that advance the educational opportunity and
social wellbeing across the UK. The Foundation funds research
with the aim to improve the design and operation of social
policy, within Education, Welfare and Justice. This research
includes health-relevant projects, for example:
• Pupil special education needs and disabilities:
identification, access and patterns of mental health.
This focuses on mental health
• Impact of the Universal Infant Free School Meal Policy.
This tackles issues such as BMI and obesity
• A portfolio of work focused on Speech and
Language Impairment
In addition to this research, the foundation funds other
organisations such as the Food Foundation whose projects
include supporting evidence driven policy influencing food and
health. The Nuffield Foundation contributes towards The Oliver
Bird Fund, with up to £12.5 million dedicated to research into
musculoskeletal conditions in the next ten years. Up to £6.25
million of this will be awarded within the next 5 years.
RS Macdonald
Charitable
Trust
The RS Macdonald
Charitable Trust was established in 1978. We are an endowed
Trust, and invest in charities across Scotland, to the value
of around £3m each year. Our funding is distributed around
several themes set by our Trustor. Two of our themes are
neurological conditions and visual impairment and within
each we fund support services and medical research. Our
current focus within medical research is twofold: we provide
direct funding to universities in Scotland, by way (principally)
of seedcorn grants. We also directly fund research charities,
to fund projects which are looking into these themes in
Scotland. There is no dedicated budget for each our funding
themes and we allocate according to the level of ask and the
recommendations formed during our assessment process. We
do not undertake any in-house research. We are particularly
interested in early career researchers and in funding post-
doctoral research which may open opportunities to support
larger grant funding. We have also provided funding for medical
equipment within academic centres.
The two funding themes are wide ranging. One of our principal
relationships is with a Scottish University, whose seedcorn
funding is addressing the following health conditions: epilepsy,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, schizophrenia, autism and others.
We also have a grant dedicated to neurophotonics and its
application to neurodegenerative conditions. An example of one
of these studies is “Visualising the effects of Glial Activity on
Synapses in the Spinal Cord”. Some more focused funding of
PhD doctorates working on applied healthcare for those who
have neurological conditions including spinal cord injury and
Huntingdon’s Disease.
In the calendar year we provided nine grants within medical
research, average value £42,468. The total value of the awards
made is £382,211.
108
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 2
Combined UK spend breakdown by funding organisation
Part One – Direct Awards
Funding Organisation
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
Indirect
Total
A – C
Academy of Medical Sciences
-
-
-
£3.6m
-
£3.6m
Action Medical Research#
-
-
£2.9m
£3.2m
£0.3m
£3.5m
Action on Hearing Loss
-
-
Indirect
Total
-
£1.1m
Alcohol Change UK
-
-
£0.6m
£0.4m
<£0.1m
£0.4m
Alzheimer's Research UK#
£1.8m
-
£4.4m
£15.3m
£1.0m
£16.4m
Alzheimer's Society#
£1.2m
-
£2.8m
£8.5m
£0.3m
£8.8m
Anthony Nolan
-
-
-
£0.7m
-
£0.7m
Arts and Humanities
Research Council
-
-
£3.2m
£3.1m
-
£3.1m
Asthma UK#
£3.0m
-
£0.9m
£1.4m
-
£1.4m
Ataxia UK
-
-
£0.1m
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Autistica
-
-
-
£0.7m
<£0.1m
£0.7m
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council*
£19.5m
£32.1m
£64.5m
£46.2m
£0.3m
£46.5m
Bloodwise
-
-
-
£17.0m
£0.3m
£17.3m
Bowel Cancer UK
-
-
-
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Bowel Disease
Research Foundation
-
-
-
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
BRACE
-
-
-
£0.4m
£0.1m
£0.6m
Brain Research UK
-
-
-
£0.7m
£1.1m
£1.8m
Breast Cancer Now#
£6.6m
-
£6.4m
£8.4m
£2.6m
£10.9m
British Association for Counselling
and Psychotherapy
-
-
-
£0.1m
<£0.1m
£0.1m
British Council for Prevention
of Blindness
-
-
-
£0.2m
<£0.1m
£0.2m
British Heart Foundation*
£59.6m
£68.3m
£75.4m
£86.1m
£3.0m
£89.1m
British Journal of Anaesthesia
-
-
-
£0.7m
<£0.1m
£0.7m
British Lung Foundation
-
-
£0.7m
£1.3m
£0.4m
£1.7m
British Scoliosis
Research Foundation
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
British Sjögren's
Syndrome Association
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
British Skin Foundation
-
-
-
£0.6m
£0.1m
£0.7m
Cancer Research UK*
£225.8m
£263.5m
£268.8m
£234.3m
£119.0m
£353.3m
Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland
-
-
£0.6m
£0.3m
-
£0.3m
Chief Scientist Office, Scotland*
£17.5m
£25.5m
£29.5m
£24.8m
£42.4m
£67.2m
Childhood Eye Cancer Trust
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Children's Liver Disease Foundation
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Chronic Disease Research Foundation
-
-
-
£0.3m
-
£0.3m
Coeliac UK
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Crohn's & Colitis UK
-
-
-
£0.7m
<£0.1m
£0.8m
Cystic Fibrosis Trust
-
-
-
£4.1m
<£0.1m
£4.1m
109
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 2
Funding Organisation
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
Indirect
Total
D – F
Debra
-
-
-
£0.4m
-
£0.4m
Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs
-
-
-
£8.0m
<£0.1m
£8.0m
Department for International
Development
-
-
-
£19.2m
£5.0m
£24.2m
Department for the Economy,
Northern Ireland
-
-
-
£1.0m
-
£1.0m
Department for Transport
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Department for Work and Pensions
-
-
-
£2.4m
-
£2.4m
Department of Health and Social Care
(including NIHR)
£124.8m
£229.6m
£304.5m
£364.6m
£610.1m
£974.8m
Diabetes Research & Wellness
Foundation
-
-
-
£0.2m
£0.1m
£0.3m
Diabetes UK#
£5.8m
-
£6.5m
£7.2m
£0.1m
£7.3m
Duchenne UK
-
-
-
£0.2m
£0.2m
£0.5m
Dunhill Medical Trust
-
-
£2.3m
£2.1m
£0.9m
£3.0m
Economic and Social Research Council*
£12.5m
£29.9m
£38.6m
£49.3m
£13.9m
£63.2m
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council*
£33.9m
£101.6m
£119.7m
£114.1m
£63.0m
£177.1m
Epilepsy Action
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Epilepsy Research UK#
£0.2m
-
£0.8m
£0.7m
<£0.1m
£0.7m
Fight for Sight
-
-
£3.3m
£2.6m
£0.4m
£3.1m
Food Standards Agency
-
-
-
£2.4m
-
£2.4m
Friends of EORTC
-
-
-
£0.3m
<£0.1m
£0.4m
G– I
Great Ormond Street Hospital
Children's Charity
-
-
£4.6m
£0.7m
£0.6m
£1.3m
Guts UK
-
-
£0.3m
£0.1m
-
£0.1m
Guy's and St Thomas' Charity#
£2.1m
-
£1.7m
£5.3m
£2.0m
£7.4m
Health and Care Research Wales (R&D
Division, Health and Social Services
Group, Welsh Government)
£2.4m
£18.4m
£9.6m
£9.2m
£30.1m
£39.2m
Health and Social Care Research and
Development Division (HSC R&D) of
Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland
£10.9m
£10.9m
£4.7m
£7.9m
£8.6m
£16.6m
Health Education England
-
-
-
£7.9m
£5.4m
£13.4m
Heart Research UK
-
-
-
£0.8m
<£0.1m
£0.9m
Innovate UK
-
-
£44.7m
£81.9m
£103.8m
£185.7m
J– L
JDRF
-
-
£2.7m
£4.1m
-
£4.1m
Kidney Research UK#
£1.9m
-
£2.8m
£5.6m
£0.7m
£6.3m
Leuka
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
Leukaemia & Lymphoma NI
-
-
-
£0.1m
£0.3m
£0.4m
Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
-
-
-
£0.7m
-
£0.7m
110
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Funding Organisation
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
Indirect
Total
M– O
Macmillan Cancer Support
-
-
-
£1.1m
-
£1.1m
Macular Society
-
-
£0.2m
£0.6m
-
£0.6m
Marie Curie#
£2.3m
-
£1.5m
£2.6m
-
£2.6m
Medical Research Council*
£431.8m
£668.7m
£682.7m
£678.1m
£51.8m
£729.9m
Medical Research Foundation
-
-
-
£2.0m
£1.2m
£3.2m
Medical Research Scotland#
£0.9m
-
£0.8m
£1.6m
£0.1m
£1.7m
Meningitis Now
-
-
£0.4m
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Meningitis Research Foundation
-
-
£0.2m
£0.4m
-
£0.4m
MND Association#
£0.9m
-
£1.5m
£4.1m
<£0.1m
£4.1m
Moorfields Eye Charity
-
-
-
£4.3m
£0.5m
£4.8m
MQ: Transforming Mental Health
-
-
<£0.1m
£1.9m
-
£1.9m
MS Society#
£3.4m
-
£2.4m
£4.3m
£0.2m
£4.5m
Multiple System Atrophy Trust
-
-
-
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Muscular Dystrophy UK
-
-
-
£2.1m
<£0.1m
£2.2m
National Centre for the Replacement,
Refinement and Reduction of Animals
in Research
-
-
£6.3m
£4.9m
-
£4.9m
Natural Environment Research Council
-
-
£4.6m
£6.6m
<£0.1m
£6.7m
Newlife The Charity for
Disabled Children
-
-
-
£0.6m
-
£0.6m
North West Cancer Research
-
-
-
£1.6m
£0.4m
£2.0m
Northern Ireland Chest,
Heart and Stroke
-
-
£0.2m
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Nuffield Foundation
-
-
-
£0.5m
-
£0.5m
Orthopaedic Research UK
-
-
£0.6m
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Ovarian Cancer Action
-
-
-
£0.3m
<£0.1m
£0.3m
P– R
Pancreatic Cancer UK
-
-
£0.6m
£0.9m
<£0.1m
£0.9m
Parkinson's UK#
£1.7m
-
£5.4m
£3.8m
<£0.1m
£3.9m
Pharmacy Research UK
-
-
£0.2m
£0.2m
<£0.1m
£0.2m
Prostate Cancer UK
-
-
£4.3m
£6.6m
<£0.1m
£6.7m
Royal Academy of Engineering
-
-
-
£1.6m
-
£1.6m
Royal College of Radiologists
-
-
-
£0.1m
-
£0.1m
Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability
-
-
£0.1m
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Royal Osteoporosis Society
-
-
-
<£0.1m
<£0.1m
<£0.1m
S– U
Sands
-
-
-
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Sarcoma UK
-
-
£0.1m
£0.3m
<£0.1m
£0.3m
Science and Technology
Facilities Council
-
-
-
£1.5m
£23.9m
£25.5m
Solving Kids' Cancer
-
-
-
£0.1m
-
£0.1m
Sparks#
£0.7m
-
£1.3m
£0.2m
<£0.1m
£0.3m
Stroke Association#
£2.3m
-
£2.0m
£3.0m
-
£3.0m
Target Ovarian Cancer
-
-
-
£0.2m
-
£0.2m
Tenovus Cancer Care#
£2.6m
-
£0.4m
£0.5m
£0.1m
£0.6m
Appendix 2
111
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 2
Funding Organisation
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
(real terms)
Spend
Indirect
Total
The Brain Tumour Charity
-
-
£1.0m
£2.9m
<£0.1m
£2.9m
The Cure Parkinson's Trust
-
-
-
£0.4m
<£0.1m
£0.4m
The Francis Crick Institute
-
-
-
£92.5m
£24.3m
£116.8m
The Health Foundation
-
-
-
£1.0m
-
£1.0m
The Lullaby Trust
-
-
<£0.1m
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
The Royal College of Anaesthetists
-
-
-
£0.1m
<£0.1m
£0.2m
The Urology Foundation
-
-
-
<£0.1m
<£0.1m
<£0.1m
Tourettes Action
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
UK Clinical Virology Network
-
-
-
<£0.1m
-
<£0.1m
UK Space Agency
-
-
-
£2.7m
-
£2.7m
V – Y
Versus Arthritis
£22.2m
£30.0m
£22.5m
£22.8m
£0.2m
£23.0m
Wellbeing of Women
-
-
-
£0.8m
<£0.1m
£0.9m
Wellcome Trust
£282.m
£390.2m
£400.2m
£521.8m
£217.5m
£739.2m
Welsh Government Office for Science
-
-
-
£4.4m
£0.9m
£5.3m
Wessex Medical Research
-
-
-
£0.2m
<£0.1m
£0.3m
World Cancer Research Fund
-
-
£0.6m
£0.6m
-
£0.6m
Worldwide Cancer Research#
£7.2m
-
£3.6m
£1.3m
-
£1.3m
Yorkshire Cancer Research#
£2.8m
-
£2.3m
£6.2m
<£0.1m
£6.3m
Grand totals
£1 .29bn
£1 .87bn
£2 .15bn
£2 .56bn
£1 .40bn
£3 .96bn
Key:
* Funding Organisation is a member of the Health Research Analysis Forum and participated in the 2004/05, 2009/10 and 2014
analyses. In this 2018 report, data from these 12 funders may be presented separately as ‘HRAF Funders’ but also appear in ‘All
Funders’ groups.
# Funding organisation is AMRC member that participated in the UKCRC Donation to Innovation report (2007), and data from this
report is displayed under 2004/05 columns. In this 2018 report, these 19 organisation’s data are included in the ‘All Funders’
group but are occasionally referenced separately.
Note: All tables in this report may contain small rounding errors. Values from previous reports have been adjusted for inflation, see
Appendix 11 for details.
112
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Part Two – Indirect Awards
Funder
Indirect Spend by Category (£m)
Infrastructure
Training and
studentships
Personal
Other
Total
AMRC*
£6.5m
£0.5m
£1.5m
£5.7m
£14.2m
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council
-
£0.2m
-
<£0.1m
£0.3m
British Heart Foundation
£2.4m
£0.2m
£0.4m
-
£3.0m
Cancer Research UK
£119.0m
-
-
-
£119.0m
Chief Scientist Office, Scotland
£41.1m
-
£1.3m
-
£42.4m
Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs
<£0.1m
-
-
-
<£0.1m
Department for International
Development
£4.8m
£0.1m
-
-
£5.0m
Department of Health and Social Care
(including NIHR)
£606.0m
-
£4.1m
-
£610.1m
Economic and Social Research Council
£13.8m
£0.1m
-
-
£13.9m
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council
£13.5m
£17.6m
-
£31.8m
£63.0m
Health and Care Research Wales
(Welsh Government)
£14.6m
<£0.1m
-
£15.4m
£30.1m
Health and Social Care Research and
Development Division (HSC R&D) of
Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland
£8.6m
-
<£0.1m
-
£8.6m
Health Education England
£5.1m
-
£0.3m
-
£5.4m
Innovate UK
-
-
-
£103.8m
£103.8m
Medical Research Council
£24.0m
£27.7m
-
-
£51.8m
Medical Research Foundation
-
£1.2m
<£0.1m
-
£1.2m
Natural Environment Research Council
-
<£0.1m
-
-
<£0.1m
Research England
£56.4m
-
-
-
£56.4m
Science and Technology Facilities
Council
£23.9m
-
-
<£0.1m
£23.9m
The Francis Crick Institute
£24.3m
-
-
-
£24.3m
Versus Arthritis
<£0.1m
<£0.1m
-
£0.2m
£0.2m
Wellcome Trust
£165.4m
£37.6m
£0.4m
£14.1m
£217.5m
Welsh Government Office for Science
£0.9m
-
-
-
£0.9m
Grand total
£1130 .5m
£85 .4m
£8 .0m
£171 .1m
£1395 .1m
Appendix 2
* the AMRC entry represents the combined indirect awards from all members excluding BHF, CRUK, Versus Arthritis and Wellcome
Trust (members of the HRAF). The definitions of Infrastructure, Personal, and Training and Studentships can be found on page 17.
Any addition indirect funding is classified as ‘Other’ and is either described on page 17 or in the funding organisation’s qualitative
submission in Appendix 1.
113
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 3
Contributions of additional participating organisations to the 2018 analysis
The first two analyses in the UK Health Research Analysis report
series focused on the twelve largest public and charity funders
of health research, who collectively constitute the Health
Research Analysis Forum (HRAF). In 2018, these 12 funders
still contribute the majority (85%) of the total expenditure in
this analysis.
However, both the 2014 and 2018 analyses included awards
from a range of additional funders (n=52 and 111) contributing
a further £129m and £393m (6% and 15% of total analysis
expenditure), respectively.
As the proportions by Research Activity, Health Category
and geography for HRAF organisations alone did not differ
significantly from the total (all organisations including HRAF)
the main analysis focuses on the total all-organisation values,
unless explicated stated otherwise (e.g. assessment of
compound annual growth rates on page 16).
In this appendix we present both an analysis of the core HRAF
organisations which is consistent across reports and an
analysis of HRAF and non-HRAF organisations combined.
Distributions by funder
One of the primary aims of the UK Health Research Analysis
series is to widen participation to provide not just a
comprehensive view of funding but also the depth and nuance
of how and why so many organisations dedicate time and
funding to support health research. For this report every
award record submitted to us is valuable information and
will contribute to how we view funding for a particular health
category, research activity or other classifications used by
those who access our publicly available datasets.
The 111 non-HRAF organisations submitting data to the analysis
provided records of 5,447 awards with a value in 2018 of
£709m. Of this, £86m was awarded internationally and £229m
was classified as indirect, leaving £393m from 4,244 awards
for inclusion in the main analysis.
However, in comparing aggregated data much of the focus will
be on which organisations contribute the most, particularly
when comparing against other aggregated data (such as the
HRAF funders). For example, of the £393m of spend submitted
to the main analysis in 2018 from non-HRAF sources, almost
half is from two organisations (The Francis Crick Institute at
24% and Innovate UK at 21%) and over two-thirds from just
nine non-HRAF organisations with largest spend. Similarly,
90% (£208m of £230m) of indirect award funding comes from
just four organisations (Innovate UK, Research England, The
Francis Crick Institute and the Science and Technology
Facilities Council).
114
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Impact on HRCS Research Activity
The £393m of research funding from the 111 additional funders
in 2018 produces relatively small shifts (all <1.3%) in the all-
funder distribution across research activities compared with
the HRAF only portfolio. These shifts include an increase in
Treatment Development (+1.2%) and decreases in Underpinning
research (-1.0%), and Treatment Evaluation (-0.7%). Data from
this comparison is shown in Table 7, below. This mirrors
findings from the 2014 analysis, where there were similarly
small variations between HRAF and all funder spending
distributions.
In comparison between HRAF and non-HRAF organisations,
there are more pronounced differences. HRAF organisations
had a higher proportion of spend in both Underpinning and
Treatment Evaluation (6.3% and 4.6%, respectively). We propose
that the larger, dedicated biomedical research funders have
a greater capacity to support investigations into fundamental
biological and socioeconomic systems coded as Underpinning
than organisations with either limited capacity or a broader
focus beyond health. Similarly support for clinical trials is
costly, thus limiting the support for awards coded as Treatment
Evaluation to those organisations with a research budget
capable of such a burden.
In contrast, the 111 non-HRAF organisations have a higher
proportion of spend in Prevention (2.4%) and Treatment
Development (7.9%). The former is due to the inclusion of just
two funders, Innovate UK and Department for International
Development, which account for 70% of non-HRAF spend
in Prevention (£21.7m of £31.2m). Similarly Innovate UK’s
contribution to Treatment Development is substantial, with 52%
of non-HRAF funding (£38.3m of £73.3m) and is fourth largest
funder in the all-funder analysis42 of Treatment Development
research (13% of £297m) after CRUK, MRC and Wellcome Trust.
Data from this comparison is shown in Figure 14 below.
Appendix 3
Proportion of total spend1
Underpinning
2
Aetiology
3
Prevention
4
Detection &
Diagnosis
5
Treatment
Development
6
Treatment
Evaluation
7
Disease
Management
8
Health Services
HRCS Research Activity
■ 2018 (non-HRAF)
■ 2018 (HRAF)
■ 2018 (All)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 14 – Differences in the proportion of combined health research spend in 2018 by HRCS Research Activity for
all organisations (123 total), HRAF funders (n=12) or non-HRAF organisations (n=111)
115
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 3
Impact on HRCS Health Category
As with Research Activities, the introduction of additional
funders to this analysis does not significantly disrupt the overall
funding distribution by Health Category. In a comparison of
total funding (all 123 funders) versus the 12 HRAF funders
which featured in the 2004/05 and 2009/10 reports, only 6 of
21 Health Categories vary by >±0.2%. The largest variation is
in Generic Health Relevance, where the proportion of funding
from HRAF is 1.5% higher than total; as HRAF consists of the
some of the largest organisations in health and biomedical
research it is perhaps not too surprising that they support a
larger contribution to broader research topics. Cardiovascular
research also received a slightly higher proportion of funding
from HRAF organisations (0.8%), largely due to the British Heart
Foundation (BHF)’s contribution.
In contrast the Health Categories that received a slightly higher
proportion from total funding are Cancer and neoplasms (1.3%),
Infection (0.7%) and Neurological (0.7%). The contribution
of non-HRAF organisations to Cancer research is due to the
inclusion of the Francis Crick Institute as a separate research
organisation, which accounts for a third of non-HRAF funding.
While the Crick receives core support from several HRAF
organisations (MRC, CRUK and Wellcome Trust) its research
programmes are chosen and implemented independently. The
non-HRAF contributions to Infection research are predominantly
from Innovate UK (35%), the Crick (23%) and the Department for
International Development (22%), while non-HRAF Neurological
research comes from Alzheimer’s Research UK (26%), the Crick
(18%) and Alzheimer’s Society (13%).
Research Activity Group
2018 (non-HRAF)
2018 (HRAF)
2018 (All)
Difference
(All vs
HRAF)
Spend
%
Spend
&
Spend
&
1 Underpinning
£64m
16.3%
£491m
22.7%
£555m
21.7%
-1.0%
2 Aetiology
£123m
31.4%
£661m
30.5%
£784m
30.6%
0.1%
3 Prevention
£31m
7.9%
£120m
5.5%
£151m
5.9%
0.4%
4 Detection and Diagnosis
£44m
11.1%
£226m
10.4%
£270m
10.5%
0.1%
5 Treatment Development
£73m
18.7%
£232m
10.7%
£306m
11.9%
1.2%
6 Treatment Evaluation
£23m
5.8%
£226m
10.4%
£249m
9.7%
-0.7%
7 Disease Management
£15m
3.9%
£88m
4.0%
£103m
4.0%
0.0%
8 Health Services
£19m
4.9%
£124m
5.7%
£143m
5.6%
-0.1%
Grand total
£393m
100%
£2 .16bn
100%
£2 .56bn
100%
n/a
Table 7 – Funding distribution by HCRS Research Activity for the 2018 datasets
116
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 3
Proportion of total spend
HRCS Health Category■ 2018 (non-HRAF)
■ 2018 (HRAF)
■ 2018 (All)
Figure 15 – Differences in proportion of combined health research spend in 2018 by HRCS Health Category for
non-HRAF (111), HRAF (12) or all organisations (123)
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Stroke
Skin
Respiratory
Reproductive health and childbirth
Renal and urogenital
Oral and gastrointestinal
Neurological
Musculoskeletal
Metabolic and endocrine
Mental health
Injuries and accidents
Inflammatory and immune system
Infection
Generic health relevance
Eye
Ear
Disputed aetiology and other
Congenital disorders
Cardiovascular
Cancer and neoplasm
Blood
117
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Health Category
2018 (non-HRAF)
2018 (HRAF)
2018 (All)
Difference
(All vs
HRAF)
Spend
%
Spend
%
Spend
%
Blood
£2m
0.6%
£9m
0.4%
£12m
0.5%
0.0%
Cancer and neoplasms
£102m
26.0%
£381m
17.6%
£483m
18.9%
1.3%
Cardiovascular
£8m
2.0%
£149m
6.9%
£156m
6.1%
-0.8%
Congenital disorders
£5m
1.2%
£8m
0.4%
£13m
0.5%
0.1%
Disputed aetiology and other
£3m
0.8%
£7m
0.3%
£10m
0.4%
0.1%
Ear
£1m
0.3%
£9m
0.4%
£10m
0.4%
0.0%
Eye
£10m
2.6%
£22m
1.0%
£33m
1.3%
0.2%
Generic health relevance
£63m
15.9%
£563m
26.0%
£625m
24.4%
-1.5%
Inflammatory and immune system
£16m
4.2%
£82m
3.8%
£99m
3.9%
0.1%
Injuries and accidents
£1m
0.1%
£16m
0.7%
£17m
0.7%
-0.1%
Mental health
£10m
2.7%
£145m
6.7%
£155m
6.1%
-0.6%
Metabolic and endocrine
£13m
3.3%
£65m
3.0%
£78m
3.0%
0.0%
Musculoskeletal
£8m
1.9%
£50m
2.3%
£57m
2.2%
-0.1%
Neurological
£54m
13.7%
£195m
9.0%
£248m
9.7%
0.7%
Oral and gastrointestinal
£4m
1.0%
£44m
2.0%
£48m
1.9%
-0.2%
Renal and urogenital
£7m
1.7%
£18m
0.8%
£25m
1.0%
0.1%
Reproductive health and childbirth
£4m
1.1%
£51m
2.3%
£55m
2.1%
-0.2%
Respiratory
£8m
2.0%
£39m
1.8%
£47m
1.8%
0.0%
Skin
£1m
0.3%
£12m
0.6%
£13m
0.5%
0.0%
Stroke
£5m
1.2%
£25m
1.2%
£30m
1.2%
0.0%
Grand total
£393m
100%
£2 .1bn
100%
£2 .5bn
100%
n/a
Table 8 – Funding distribution by HRCS Health Category for the 2018 datasets
Appendix 3
42 Innovate UK also provided award data to the 2014 analysis, where they were eighth largest contributor with 209 awards and £41.9m in spend. Due to a change in
how health-relevant awards were selected for this analysis, Innovate UK’s contribution in 2018 has grown considerably, to 409 awards and £81.9m. NOTE – the
Innovate UK submission was even higher but awards with a 2018 value of £104m failed to auto-code and are therefore part of the indirect assessment.
118
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 4
Additional funding sources for UK health R&D expenditure
The data submitted by participating organisations for this analysis - whether the direct awards supporting projects and programmes
or the indirect funding supporting infrastructure - does not constitute the sum total of health-relevant funding in the UK. This
appendix aims to identify and quantify some of the many other additional funding sources outside of the scope of this analysis that
can nevertheless be identified as supporting UK health research.
Universities, the ‘dual support’ system and core support for health research
As this analysis and other sources show, the majority of public
and charity funded research takes place in universities and other
elements of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) sector43. Within
the UK, the public funding for research in the university sector in
the UK is provided through two main routes;
1) block allocations made by UK funding councils via a
quality-related (QR) system of periodic assessment.
2) funding won in peer reviewed competition from UKRI
and other grant-making bodies such as medical
research charities.
Most data in the UK Health Research Analysis series focuses
on the latter, however a considerable proportion of the former
is required to support health-related research. The QR funding
supports research infrastructure necessary for universities to
conduct research, including permanent academic staff salaries,
premises, libraries, central computing costs and a contribution
to postgraduate training. This is administered by the devolved
funding councils to the different regions of the UK:
• England - In 2017/18, Research England (formerly HEFCE,
now part of UKRI) had a total budget of £3.6bn, of which
£1.4bn was allocated to research44. Of this, a total of
£432.1m (30.6%) was coded to units of assessment
relevant to health and biomedicine45.
• Scotland - The Scottish Funding Council allocated a total
of £278.6m to their Research and Knowledge Exchange
Grants in 2017/18, but without unit of assessment
classification46. Based on the proportion from Research
England data (30.6%), we estimate £85.2m of this funding
would be relevant to health and biomedicine.
• Wales – The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
(HEFCW) allocated £71.1m of QR funding in 2017/18 to
research, of which £30.6m (43%) was classified to units of
assessment relevant to health and biomedicine47.
• Northern Ireland – The Department for the Economy
(DfE,NI) allocated £43.2m in 2017/18 to research, with
£12.6m (29%) classified as health relevant48.
Based on these sources, the total research budget relevant to
health and biomedicine from QR funding is £560 .5m .
119
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 4
Support for full economic costing including charity-funded research
Funding from the other side of the dual support system is
reliant on this core QR funding to support the full economic
cost (FEC) of conducting and delivering research. For example,
the research councils which now constitute UKRI have
required, since 2006, to typically fund 80% of this FEC value.
The recipient research organisation(s) must therefore agree
to find the balance of FEC from other resources. While the
absolute proportion can vary (e.g. work in MRC institutions or
researchers/staff based overseas are 100% FEC funded) it
is still broadly representative that 20% of the cost of research
primarily funded via UKRI is met via funding from core
QR funding.
Similarly, UK charities can only cover the direct cost of
research. However, given the size of the charity sector in
the UK, the funding councils provide separate QR streams to
support the indirect costs of charity supported research:
• England - The Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) is
administered by Research England and since 2010 has
stood at £198m per year49.
• Scotland - The Scottish Funding Council allocates a
charity support stream of funding within its Research
Excellence Grants. This funding was £25m in 2017/1850.
• Wales - The Welsh National Assembly allocated a total of
£3.1m of charity support funding via HEFCW in 2017/1851.
• Northern Ireland - The Department for the Economy
(DfE, NI) QR research funding stream for charity support
funding allocated £3.4m in 2017/1852.
Therefore, the combined total available charity support
funding in the UK is £229.5m. In Appendix 5, we estimate
that 89% of not-for-profit expenditure is health relevant, and
we can therefore extrapolate that £204.2m of the charity
support funding in the UK would be used to support health and
biomedicine-related research.
NHS funding of health R&D
The funding of health-related R&D within the NHS is primarily
derived from within the Department of Health and Social
Care (England) and the National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR). This includes, among other streams, funding for Clinical
Research Networks (CRNs), Biomedical Research Centres
(BRCs) and Biomedical Research Units (BRUs). In 2018 this core
support is including in the ‘indirect’ assessment of this analysis,
valued at £610m.
In combination with the £362m in our main analysis, the DHSC/
NIHR data represents the largest contribution by value to
this report. However, there are some additional elements of
the funding landscape not captured, or captured somewhat
indirectly, which must be addressed here.
120
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 4
Devolved administration funding (NIHR contributions)
The devolved funding administrations for Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland also provide support for NHS research, such
as allocations to NHS trusts, and these are included under
the assessment of indirect funding. In addition, the devolved
administrations make contributions to the DHSC in order to gain
access to specific NIHR research programmes including i4i,
HTA, PHR, HSDR and EME.
These contributions allow their researchers to apply to these
funding streams. However, as these awards are not made
on any geographical criteria, the amount in contributions
and value of awards funded may not correlate. All grants in
these communal research programmes awarded to Scotland,
Wales or Northern Ireland are included in the analysis and are
attributed to the devolved funders. The amounts paid in the
2017/18 financial year are in the Table 9 below:
NHS support for clinical academics
In 2018 there were 3,155 clinical academics employed across
34 UK Institutions54. Funding from NHS constitutes 1,278
(41%) of clinical academic posts, the remainder supported by
universities (45%) and other sources (14%). These 1,278 NHS-
supported posts consisted of 459 Professors, 387 Readers/
Senior Lecturers and 433 Lecturers. Based on current average
clinical academic salaries55, this constitutes a further ~£85m in
salary alone and will be considerably more when accounting for
full economic costings for staffing.
Contributors
Funding
CSO, Scotland
£11.20m53
HCR, Wales
£6.07m
HSC, Northern Ireland
£3.53m
Table 9 – Devolved administration funding for NIHR programmes
121
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 4
Total for additional funding sources
The combined spending for health-related research outside of the scope of this analysis is £849.5m (see Table 10 below):
Funding Source
Detail
Value
QR funding from higher education funding
councils (HEFCs)
Total based on the combined estimate of health-relevant
expenditure from HEFC total QR budgets
£560.5m
Charity Support Funding
Estimation of FEC support for health-relevant research from
the HEFC charity support funding streams
£204.2m
Devolved administration funding for NIHR
programmes
All funding from CSO, HCRW and HSCNI are included in the
main / indirect assessment. NIHR contributions are recorded
above, but awards are already included in the main analysis.
n/a
NHS Support for Clinical Academics
Based on 3,094 clinical academics supported in 2017.
£85.0m
Additional Sources of Funding Total
£849 .7m
Main Analysis (Direct and Indirect Awards)
£3 .96bn
Combined Total 2018 (Main analysis + Additional Funding)
£4 .81bn
Table 10 – Final combined analysis totals
43 For example, the AMRC estimated that in 2018 approximately 87% of charity-funded medical research takes place in universities, based on awards in their grants
database https://www.amrc.org.uk/charity-research-support-fund-faqs
44 Source: HEFCE 2017/18 allocation for research https://bit.ly/2YrnNuX. This includes mainstream QR funding including London weighting (£1.098bn), research
degree programme (RDP) supervision fund (£240m), business research element (£64m) and research libraries (£7m). We analyse the charity support contribution
of £198m separately (see next section)
45 Unit of Assessment (UoA) classifies research by area, with 01-05 relevant to biomedicine. In total, £327.7m of QR funding (29.8% of £1.07bn) and £81.7m of RDP
funding (34% of £240m total) was allocated to these five UoAs. There are no UoA breakdowns for business research elements or research libraries data, therefore
we have taken an average of the proportion for QR and RDP funding (32%) to allocate a further £22.7m from these budgets to health and biomedical research.
46 Source: Scottish Funding Council (SFC) Research Excellence Grant Announcement for 2017/18: https://bit.ly/2yVeZDT
47 Source: HEFCW Funding allocations for Higher Education in 2017/18, Annex A: https://bit.ly/2GU362y
48 Source: Department for the Economy university recurrent research grant summary tables (excluding charity support, see below): https://bit.ly/2HAaTpT
49 Source: HEFCE QR business and charity support funding 2017/18 https://bit.ly/2YrnNuX ; Note that the allocation for 2018/19 has increased to £204m per annum
https://re.ukri.org/research/how-we-fund-research/
50 Scottish Funding Council Research Excellence Grant and Global Challenges Research Fund for AY 2017-18 www.sfc.ac.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.
aspx?lID=17449&sID=10310
51 Source: HEFCW policy for QR funding allocations 2017/18: https://bit.ly/2P0lhv9
52 From Department for the Economy University Recurrent Research Grant Summary for FY 2017/18: https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/publications/university-
recurrent-research-grant-summary-tables
53 Source: CSO Outturn Summary 2017/18, section 3.2: https://bit.ly/2Yrn3Gl
54 Medical Schools Council Report Survey of Medical Clinical Academic Staffing Levels in UK Medical Schools – data taken from new interactive format, published
July 2018. https://www.medschools.ac.uk/clinical-academic-survey
55 The latest pay scales are no longer publicly available via either the BMA or UCEA directly, although several universities do publish local pay scales that appear to
replicate the BMA/UCEA formats (example, QMUL). This estimation is therefore based on the median threshold salaries for Post-2009 Clinical Lecturers in England
(threshold 6, £43,247 as at 01/10/18) Senior Lecturers (3rd level, £60,589 as at 01/04/18) and Consultants (threshold 6, £93,459 as at 01/10/18).
122
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 5
Total UK health R&D expenditure
Estimating the health-relevant proportion of research and development
In the previous HRCS Analysis (2014) we reported total health
R&D expenditure in the UK of £8.5bn (£9.1bn at 2018 prices).
Approximately 36.5% (£3.01bn) was captured as part of the
2014 analysis. The majority of total UK health R&D funding (48%)
came from the business sector and was outside of the scope of
the analysis.
In this report, a similar process has been used to provide an
estimate for total UK health R&D expenditure for 2018. Due
to changes in reporting over time, some methods for data
gathering have been altered. While we have still presented the
estimations for total UK health R&D expenditure from previous
reports (adjusted for inflation) it is difficult to draw direct
comparisons with these findings and any conclusions drawn
may not be valid.
Total UK R&D expenditure
To provide an estimate for total health relevant R&D first
requires a figure for total R&D expenditure across all
disciplines. The UK Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research
and Development (GERD) is issued annually by the Office for
National Statistics (ONS) and the latest data for 2017 was
released on the 21st of March 201956. The total GERD for 2017
was £34.8bn.
In current prices, the GERD was £25.054bn in 2004 and
£26.796bn in 2009. This indicates on-going growth in total
R&D expenditure, increasing by 7.3% in the last five years and
an increase of 13.3% in the last 10 years. By compound annual
growth rate (CAGR), this represents a year-on-year growth of
1.44% over ten years (1.35% between 2004 and 2009, 1.91%
between 2009 and 2014).
To assess the proportion of the GERD that is of health
relevance requires separate assessment of the Business,
Private Non-Profit, University and Public Research Institute
expenditures to obtain appropriate estimations. A breakdown of
the funding flows between these different sectors can be seen
in Figure 16 below. These combined sources form the total UK
health relevant R&D expenditure.
Research and development in the private sector
Business
The Business Enterprise Research and Development (BERD),
also reported annually by the ONS, gives a total expenditure
within the business sector in 201757 of £23.7bn, of which
£4.3bn (18%) is categorised as pharmaceuticals. While
a significant health relevant area, using data purely on
pharmaceuticals will provide an underestimation of true private
sector funding with health research relevance.
Interestingly, the expenditure in pharmaceutical has remained
relatively consistent since the last analysis; £4.1bn reported
(£4.3bn in real terms). In the BERD, it was noted that
pharmaceuticals continued to be the largest product group,
increasing from the 2016 BERD.
As there are no further public records of business expenditure,
it is impossible to estimate where within the flow of funding
health-relevant expenditure is occurring. Therefore, the total
of £4 .3bn is separated from the breakdown in subsequent
sector assessment.
Overseas funding for health research
This analysis focuses primarily on UK derived health
expenditure, thus overseas expenditure in UK health research
is excluded from this assessment.
However, the contribution of overseas investment in UK R&D
is substantial. Data of R&D expenditure from the GERD 2013
estimates a total of £5.4bn enters the UK from overseas.
The majority (~£4.0bn) goes to industry, but £1,417m is
invested in charity, university and public research institutes
(PRIs). The previous report estimated 20% of this funding would
support health research, giving a total of £283 .4m based on
current data.
123
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 5
Figure 16 – Flows of R&D funding in the UK, 2017 . From the Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and
Development (GERD) 2017 issued by the Office for National Statistics (Figure 4, published 14 March 2019)
https://bit.ly/2XLLxhV
Business
£18,700
million
Overseas
£5,024 million
Private
Non-profit
£1,796
million
Higher
Education
Institutions
£241 million
Public Research
Institutes
(Performing R&D)

Government funding R&D
HEFCs3
£2,236
million
Research
Councils2
£3,106 million
Government
Departments2
£3,705 million
£1,200m
£187m
£35m
£56m
£18m
£681m
£4m
£1,793m
£93m
£3,299m
£1,455m
£23m
£84m
£18,285m
£358m
£210m
£2,246m
£2,236m
£590m
£174m
£13m
£1,288m
£359m
£102m
Private Non-Profit (Charities)
Total Private Non-Profit (PNP) expenditure in the UK GERD
for 2017 was £1.796bn. The majority of PNP expenditure
(£1.288bn) is within the University sector (which is assessed
separately, below), whilst a further £56m goes to public
research institutions and £93m to Business.
UK-based expenditure within the PNP sector is £671m, with the
largest contribution of £359m from re-investment within PNP
sector, which would include non-profit, charity funded research
institutes (e.g. CRUK’s London Research Institute).
The AMRC reported a total research expenditure by their
members of £1.6bn in 201758. In direct comparison with the
GERD data, we estimate 89% of PNP R&D expenditure is
relevant to health59. Therefore, the health relevant re-invested
expenditure within the PNP sector is £319m (89% of £359m
re-investment).
Of the remaining intra-PNP expenditure, Overseas (£84m) is
excluded and Business (£23m) is accounted for elsewhere in
this assessment, leaving £289m from Government, Research
Councils and Higher Education Institutions. Using the same
proportion as above (89%) would provide an estimate of £257m
health-relevant expenditure from these funding sources. Thus,
the estimated total expenditure within the PNP sector
relevant to health is £577m . This would imply a substantial
increase from previous estimations (£400m in 2009 and
£415m in real terms) using a broadly similar methodology.
124
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 5
Research performed in the university sector
The UK University Higher Education Institution (HEI) sector
is primarily supported by government funding via the Higher
Education Funding Councils (HEFCs) and the Research Councils
via UKRI. In the GERD 2017, the HEFCs expenditure in the HEI
sector was £2.236bn, while Research Council expenditure was
£2.246bn. A further £1.288bn comes from PNPs, £1.455bn
from Overseas, £590m from Government Departments and
£358m from businesses giving a total of £8.473bn expenditure
in the University Sector.
Data on HEIs in the GERD comes from the Higher Education
Research and Development (HERD) data provided to the ONS by
the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs). This data in turn
is monitored by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).
To estimate HEI health-relevant spend, we have collated HESA
data on research income. This is not ideal, as expenditure and
income do not necessarily correlate, but use of income data
allows us to breakdown cost centres to separate biomedically
relevant funding from other disciplines (see Table 11, below).
The total health-relevant income for latest available year
(2016/17) is £3 .149bn, constituting more than half (54%) of
total HEI research income (£5.802bn). This relative proportion
has remained remarkably consistent, although the level of
income reported by HEIs has grown considerably; by £220m
between 2009/10 and 2013/14, and by £259m between
2013/14 and 2016/17. At least some of this increase can be
attributed to the transfer of MRC Units to University Units,
which took place between 2012 and 2018 with ~£122m per
annum of MRC expenditure transferred to the HEI sector.
Cost Centre
Income 2009/10
Income 2013/14
Income 2016/17
Differences
(£m)
Real
Terms
(£m)
% of
Total
(£m)
Real
Terms
(£m)
% of
Total
(£m)
% of
Total
% since
09/10
% since
13/14
101 Clinical Medicine
1,450
1,655
62.0%
1,729
1,841
63.7%
2,000
63.5%
1.5%
-0.2%
102 Clinic Dentistry
17.7
20.2
0.8%
21.4
22.8
0.8%
20.4
0.6%
-0.1%
-0.1%
103 Nursing & Allied Health
Professionals
45.7
52.1
2.0%
51.2
54.5
1.9%
64.1
2.0%
0.1%
0.1%
104 Psychology & Behavioural
Science
79.3
90.5
3.4%
81.1
86.3
3.0%
201.1
6.4%
3.0%
3.4%
105 Health and Community
Studies
53.8
61.4
2.3%
62.5
66.5
2.3%
78.4
2.5%
0.2%
0.2%
106 Anatomy & Physiology
52.9
60.4
2.3%
58.6
62.4
2.2%
61.7
2.0%
-0.3%
-0.2%
107 Pharmacy & Pharmacology
59.
67.4
2.5%
64.9
69.1
2.4%
67.7
2.1%
-0.4%
-0.2%
112 Biosciences
579.8
662.1
24.8%
645.3
687.2
23.8%
655.3
20.8%
-4.0%
-3.0%
Total Selected
Cost Centres (101-107,112)
2,338
2,670
100%
2,714
2,890
100%
3,149
100%
0 .0%
0 .0%
Total (all cost centres)
4,322
4,935
5,061
5,390
5,802
Table 11 – Breakdown of income by cost centre (academic departments), for all UK Institutions available (n=204) .
Adapted from HESA finance returns (Table 5b: Research grants and contracts)
125
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 5
Public Sector Research Institutes
The GERD 2017 gives a total funding to public research institutes of £2.19bn, the majority coming from Government Departments
(£1.22bn, 56%) and Research Councils (£681m, 31%)60. There are no figures available for health relevant research in this sector,
thus the calculation of this value requires some additional data for various sources:
Governmental department contribution
To determine a proportion for health-relevant contributions
from Government departments, we used data on Government
expenditure on science, engineering and technology (SET), as
this provides a breakdown by civil departments61. In the SET
2017 data, the total spending is broadly similar (£3.6bn) and
the primary civil department for health-relevant contributions
is the National Health Service, with an estimated contribution
for 2017 of £1.1bn, 31% of total62. Using this proportion, we
estimate the health-relevant contribution to Public Research
Institutes from Government departments to be £372m (31% of
the £1.22bn GERD 2017 total).
This is likely to be an underestimate of health-relevant
Government R&D expenditure. The largest civil department of
SET expenditure is the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Several BEIS partner organisations (i.e.
those organisations which receive allocations of BEIS funding)
are included in this analysis (e.g. the Academy of Medical
Sciences, National Physics Laboratory and UK Atomic Energy
Authority). However, our analysis shows £5 .5m of non-DHSC
Government sources attribute to health-relevant research in PRIs.
UKRI contributions
The primary UKRI partner for health relevant contribution is
MRC, of which £150m (22% of the £681m GERD 2017 total)
can be directly attributed to MRC-administered research
institutes63. Again, this will be an underestimate of expenditure
as other partners within UKRI will contribute to health-relevant
research in PRIs. Our analysis shows £29 .8m of non-MRC
funding attributed to health-relevant research in PRIs, the
majority from STFC’s estimate of beamtime use of the Diamond
Light Source for medical research projects (£20m for 2018).
Charity contributions
A few charities support research in dedicated research
institutes, such as the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in
Cambridge and Cancer Research UK’s Beatson Institute in
Glasgow, although they do also support work within institutes
under public ownership. Using the estimation of the health-
relevant proportion of private-not-profit expenditure calculated
previously (page 133, 89%), we estimate that £49.8m of the
£56m spent by charities in PRIs will be health-related.
Estimated total health-relevant expenditure
for Public Sector Research Institutes
Combining these three estimates, provides an estimated total
of £607m for health-related public sector research institute
spend, suggesting approximately 28% of total expenditure in
PRIs has biomedical relevance64. Note that this estimation of
expenditure is a significantly lower than previous UK Health
Research Analyses due to changes in available data. Using this
revised methodology, we estimate the PRI spend in 2014 to be
£726m, £773m in real terms65.
Total UK health-relevant R&D expenditure
The combined total estimation of health-relevant R&D expenditure of all four research sectors was £8 .67bn .
Please refer to the main report on page 21-22 for further assessment of this figure and its implications.
56 Office for National Statistics (2019). Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD), 2017 https://bit.ly/2XLLxhV
57 Office for National Statistics (2019) Business Enterprise Research and Development 2017, released 21st of November 2018. https://bit.ly/2OW4C7G
58 Source:AMRC Expenditure Report 2019: https://www.amrc.org.uk/research-expenditure
59 NOTE: The data used to calculate the PNP estimation comes from a biennial survey of PNP organisations of which a relatively few conduct research and
development, whereas AMRC expenditure comes directly from financial return data, making this comparison problematic. However, the GERD report itself does
acknowledge the majority of PNP organisations performing R&D specialise in mainly health and medical research.
60 As noted, we are excluding overseas expenditure and are accounting for all health-related business R&D spend separately.
61 The SET differs from the GERD as it comprises not just in-house R&D, but also purchased R&D and other funding provided to external organisations for R&D.
However, both collate data sourced from the GovERD, an annual census of R&D expenditure of government departments from over 140 departmental responders.
62 Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS) report Government expenditure on science, engineering and technology relating to research and development, UK:
2017; https://bit.ly/2MsdWCI
63 From MRC Annual Report and Accounts (2017/18), page 98 – total operating expenditure and intramural total expenditure https://bit.ly/2VprBwO
64 Note this estimation uses a different methodology to previous analyses, due to the changes in publicly available data.
65 SET for civil departments (DHSC) is 0.95/2.7bn=35.2%, of 1.127bn is £396.5m.
126
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 6
Total funding distribution by HCRS Research Activity sub-groups
Research
Activity
Group
Research Activity Code
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
2018 vs
04/05
2018 vs
2014
Underpinning1.1 Normal biological development and
functioning
28.28%
22.14%
17.03%
16.23%
-12.05%
-0.80%
1.2 Psychological and socioeconomic
processes
1.27%
0.94%
1.17%
0.96%
-0.31%
-0.21%
1.3 Chemical and
physical sciences
1.50%
1.77%
1.46%
1.03%
-0.47%
-0.43%
1.4 Methodologies and measurements
0.12%
0.76%
0.57%
0.45%
0.33%
-0.12%
1.5 Resources and
infrastructure (underpinning)
2.45%
1.96%
2.47%
3.03%
0.58%
0.56%
Underpinning Total
33 .63%
27 .57%
22 .69%
21 .70%
-11 .93%
-0.99%
Aetiology2.1 Biological and endogenous factors
22.50%
20.24%
18.58%
19.58%
-2.92%
1.00%
2.2 Factors relating to physical
environment
5.42%
3.30%
3.68%
3.65%
-1.77%
-0.03%
2.3 Psychological, social and economic
factors
1.60%
1.31%
1.10%
0.84%
-0.76%
-0.26%
2.4 Surveillance and distribution
1.84%
2.42%
1.76%
1.85%
0.01%
0.09%
2.5 Research design and methodologies
(aetiology)
0.22%
1.16%
0.75%
0.90%
0.68%
0.15%
2.6 Resources and infrastructure
(aetiology)
3.11%
3.34%
3.46%
3.79%
0.68%
0.33%
Aetiology Total
34 .69%
31 .77%
29 .32%
30 .61%
-4 .08%
1.29%
Prevention3.1 Primary prevention interventions
to modify behaviours or
promote well-being
0.52%
1.33%
1.94%
1.97%
1.45%
0.03%
3.2 Interventions to alter physical and
biological environmental risks
0.20%
0.40%
0.91%
1.02%
0.82%
0.11%
3.3 Nutrition and chemoprevention
0.82%
0.63%
0.91%
0.52%
-0.30%
-0.39%
3.4 Vaccines
0.91%
1.03%
0.91%
1.77%
0.86%
0.86%
3.5 Resources and infrastructure
(prevention)
0.03%
0.36%
0.55%
0.61%
0.58%
0.06%
Prevention Total
2 .48%
3 .75%
5 .22%
5 .89%
3 .41%
0.67%
Detection and Diagnosis4.1 Discovery and preclinical testing of
markers and technologies
1.88%
2.57%
4.35%
5.09%
3.21%
0.74%
4.2 Evaluation of markers and
technologies
2.17%
1.84%
3.00%
3.18%
1.01%
0.18%
4.3 Influences and impact
0.14%
0.12%
0.17%
0.12%
-0.02%
-0.05%
4.4 Population screening
0.52%
0.76%
0.73%
0.38%
-0.14%
-0.35%
4.5 Resources and infrastructure
(detection)
0.57%
2.04%
1.95%
1.75%
1.18%
-0.20%
Detection and Diagnosis Total
5 .27%
7 .33%
10 .20%
10 .52%
5 .25%
0.32%
127
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 6
Research
Activity
Group
Research Activity Code
2004/05
2009/10
2014
2018
2018 vs
04/05
2018 vs
2014
Treatment Development5.1 Pharmaceuticals
3.85%
4.95%
6.01%
5.54%
1.69%
-0.47%
5.2 Cellular and gene therapies
2.24%
1.46%
2.23%
2.33%
0.09%
0.10%
5.3 Medical devices
0.73%
0.50%
0.91%
0.72%
-0.01%
-0.19%
5.4 Surgery
0.57%
0.35%
0.44%
0.26%
-0.31%
-0.18%
5.5 Radiotherapy
0.28%
0.39%
0.40%
0.30%
0.02%
-0.10%
5.6 Psychological and behavioural
0.14%
0.25%
0.19%
0.23%
0.09%
0.04%
5.7 Physical
0.03%
0.14%
0.14%
0.10%
0.07%
-0.04%
5.8 Complementary
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
5.9 Resources and infrastructure
(treatment development)
0.77%
2.64%
2.71%
2.44%
1.67%
-0.27%
5 Treatment Development Total
8 .61%
10 .68%
13 .04%
11 .95%
3 .34%
-1.09%
TreatmentEvaluation6.1 Pharmaceuticals
3.11%
3.82%
4.22%
3.92%
0.81%
-0.30%
6.2 Cellular and gene therapies
0.25%
0.16%
0.56%
0.46%
0.21%
-0.10%
6.3 Medical devices
0.41%
0.35%
0.71%
0.71%
0.30%
0.00%
6.4 Surgery
0.70%
0.97%
1.07%
1.06%
0.36%
-0.01%
6.5 Radiotherapy
0.42%
0.43%
0.28%
0.40%
-0.02%
0.12%
6.6 Psychological and behavioural
0.41%
0.63%
0.83%
1.21%
0.80%
0.38%
6.7 Physical
0.40%
0.56%
0.58%
0.49%
0.09%
-0.09%
6.8 Complementary
0.12%
0.05%
0.06%
0.01%
-0.11%
-0.05%
6.9 Resources and infrastructure
(treatment evaluation)
2.46%
1.57%
1.37%
1.45%
-1.01%
0.08%
6 Treatment Evaluation Total
8 .29%
8 .55%
9 .69%
9 .71%
1 .42%
0.02%
Disease Management7.1 Individual care needs
1.11%
1.41%
2.15%
2.03%
0.92%
-0.12%
7.2 End of life care
0.08%
0.10%
0.16%
0.21%
0.13%
0.05%
7.3 Management and decision making
0.97%
1.24%
1.42%
1.29%
0.32%
-0.13%
7.4 Resources and infrastructure
(disease management)
0.16%
0.49%
0.26%
0.49%
0.33%
0.23%
7 Disease Management Total
2 .32%
3 .23%
4 .00%
4 .02%
1 .70%
0.02%
HealthServices8.1 Organisation and delivery of
services
2.52%
3.43%
2.77%
2.81%
0.29%
0.04%
8.2 Health and welfare economics
0.62%
0.56%
0.54%
0.37%
-0.25%
-0.17%
8.3 Policy, ethics and research
governance
0.60%
0.68%
0.82%
0.93%
0.33%
0.11%
8.4 Research design and methodologies
0.59%
1.15%
1.00%
0.47%
-0.12%
-0.53%
8.5 Resources and infrastructure
(health services)
0.38%
1.30%
0.71%
1.02%
0.64%
0.31%
8 Health Services Total
4 .70%
7 .12%
5 .84%
5 .84%
1 .14%
0.00%
128
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 7
Details of mapping between WHO DALY rates and HRCS Health Categories
GHE
#
GHE Cause ID
Mapping to
HRCS Health
Categories
2002
2004
2012
2016
% Difference from 2016
%
%
%
DALY
%
vs '02
vs '04
vs ‘12
2
I-A. Infectious and
parasitic diseases
Infection
1.39
1.40
1.38
177.3
0.99
-0.40
-0.42
-0.39
38
I-B. Respiratory
infections
Infection
3.11
1.68
2.60
555.6
3.10
-0.01
1.42
0.50
42
I-C. Maternal conditions
Reproductive
health
0.32
0.43
0.03
8.1
0.05
-0.28
-0.39
0.01
49
I-D. Neonatal conditions
Reproductive
health
1.31
1.35
1.20
247.2
1.38
0.07
0.03
0.18
54
I-E. Nutritional
deficiencies
Metabolic and
endocrine
0.55
0.38
0.46
72
0.50
-0.15
0.02
-0.05
61
II-A. Malignant neoplasms
Cancer and
neoplasms
15.46
15.59
19.14
3452.8
19.26
3.80
3.67
0.12
79
II-B. Other neoplasms
Cancer and
neoplasms
0.24
0.27
0.34
74.3
0.41
0.17
0.15
0.07
80
II-C. Diabetes mellitus
Metabolic and
endocrine
1.32
1.80
1.29
312.4
1.74
0.42
-0.06
0.45
81
II-D. Endocrine, Blood,
Immune Disorders
Metabolic and
endocrine
1.25
1.28
1.02
153.6
0.86
-0.4
-0.42
-0.17
82
II-E. Mental and
Behavioural Disorders
Mental health
26.08*
26.66*
13.66
1816.1
10.13
-
-
-3.53
94
II-F. Neurological
conditions
Neurological
6.97
1828.1
10.20
-
-
3.23
102
II-G. Sense organ
diseases
Ear / Eye
4.42
7.04
1.54
872.8
4.87
0.45
-2.17
3.33
110
II-H. Cardiovascular
diseases
Blood /
Cardiovascular /
Stroke
17.17
16.18
16.10
2827.1
15.77
-1.40
-0.41
-0.33
117
II-I. Respiratory diseases
Respiratory
9.14
8.27
7.70
1106.8
6.17
-2.97
-2.09
-1.53
121
II-J. Digestive diseases
Oral and
gastrointestinal
5.08
5.09
4.00
716.8
4.00
-1.08
-1.09
0.00
126
II-K. Genitourinary
diseases
Renal and
urogenital
1.22
0.93
2.81
328.1
1.83
0.61
0.9
-0.98
133
II-L. Skin diseases
Skin
0.19
0.21
0.92
211.6
1.18
0.99
0.97
0.27
134
II-M. Musculoskeletal
diseases
Musculoskeletal
4.06
4.11
9.31
1395.8
7.79
3.73
3.73
-1.52
140
II-N. Congenital
anomalies
Congenital
disorders
1.16
1.22
0.95
223.5
1.25
0.09
0.09
0.30
147
II-O. Oral conditions
Oral and
gastrointestinal
0.71
0.63
0.80
312.0
1.74
1.03
1.03
0.94
152
III-A. Unintentional
injuries
Injuries and
accidents
4.07
3.75
6.45
901.7
5.03
0.96
0.96
-1.42
160
III-B. Intentional injuries
Injuries and
accidents
1.75
1.75
1.32
320.6
1.79
0.04
0.04
0.47
0
ALL CAUSES
-
100
100
100
17925 .0
100
129
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 7
Note: Over the course of the UK Health Research Analysis series there has been some minor modification to the GHE disease
classifications, the most notable being the segregation of Neuropsychiatric Conditions (see *) to Neurological Conditions and
Mental and Behavioural Disorders. These changes allow for better comparison with the HRCS Neurological and Mental Health
categories, which were previously assessed together. In general, the UK’s burden of disease remains static for most disease
classifications (<±1.5% differences) but with some notable exceptions; decreases in DALY rates are seen for Neuropsychiatric
(HRCS Neurological & Mental Health) and Sense Organs (Ear & Eye), but increases in Malignant Neoplasms (Cancer), Genitourinary
(Renal), Musculoskeletal and Injuries. Please note there are no GHE equivalent codes for three HRCS health categories; Inflammatory
and Immune System, Generic Health Relevance and Disputed Aetiology and Other.
130
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
UK Region
2004/05
2009/10
2014 (All)
2018 (All)
Difference
vs 04/05
Difference
vs 09/10
Difference
vs 2014
Spend
(£m)
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(£m)
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(£m)
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(£m)
%
Change
in
%
Change
in
spend
Change
in
%
Change
in
spend
Change
in
%
Change
in
spend
East of England
154 .3
12 .4
243 .7
13 .0
276 .7
12 .8 367 .0 14 .34% 1 .91% 212 .7
1 .34% 123 .3
1 .51%
90 .3
Cambridge
151.3
12.2
235.7
12.6
260.7
12.1
340.0 13.3% 1.09%
188.6
0.68%
104.3
1.19%
79.3
Norwich
3.0
0.2
8.0
0.4
14.6
0.7
10.8
0.4%
0.22%
7.8
0.02%
2.8
-0.26%
-3.9
East Midlands
54 .9
4 .4
76 .5
4 .1
65 .6
3 .7
71 .2
2 .8% -1 .62%
16 .3
-1 .32%
-5 .3
-0 .92%
5 .6
Nottingham
28.3
2.3
35.3
1.9
34.7
2.3
36.2
1.4%
-0.89%
7.8
-0.49%
0.9
-0.86%
1.5
Leicester
25.6
2.1
33.9
1.8
25.9
1.2
29.3
1.1%
-0.96%
3.7
-0.66%
-4.6
-0.06%
3.3
North East
21 .1
1 .7
44 .3
2 .4
57 .4
2 .9
62 .8
2 .5% 0 .75%
41 .6
0 .05%
18 .5
-0 .40%
5 .4
Newcastle-
upon-Tyne
18.8
1.5
40.8
2.2
52.8
2.4
56.1
2.2%
0.69%
37.3
-0.01%
15.3
-0.26%
3.3
Durham
1.4
0.1
2.7
0.1
2.7
0.1
5.0
0.2%
0.09%
3.6
0.09%
2.2
0.07%
2.3
North West
79 .7
6 .4
123 .2
6 .6
149 .1
6 .1
167 .1 6 .5% 0 .13%
87 .4
-0 .07% 43 .9
0 .47%
18 .0
Manchester
66.5
5.3
94.1
5.0
83.6
3.9
90.7
3.5%
-1.76%
24.2
-1.46%
-3.4
-0.34%
7.0
Liverpool
9.3
0.7
26.7
1.4
40.0
1.9
65.9
2.6%
1.87%
56.6
1.17%
39.2
0.72%
25.9
Northern
Ireland
14 .8
1 .2
19 .9
1 .1
18 .3
0 .8
26 .1
1 .0% -0 .18%
11 .3
-0 .08%
6 .2
0 .17%
7 .8
Belfast
12.9
1.0
18.4
1.0
15.4
0.7
23.3
0.9%
-0.09%
10.4
-0.09%
4.9
0.19%
7.9
Coleraine
0.9
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.2
0.0%
-0.05%
0.3
0.01%
0.4
0.02%
0.7
Scotland
161 .5
13 .0
215 .4
11 .5
253 .7
11 .8 290 .3 11 .3% -1 .66% 128 .8
-0 .16%
74 .9
-0 .42% 36 .6
Edinburgh
68.7
5.5
96.2
5.1
97.6
4.5
132.0
5.2%
-0.34%
63.4
0.06%
35.9
0.63%
34.4
Glasgow
50.6
4.1
56.5
3.0
76.0
3.5
88.2
3.4%
-0.65%
37.6
0.45%
31.7
-0.08%
12.2
Dundee
27.2
2.2
39.3
2.1
49.1
2.3
44.7
1.7%
-0.45%
17.5
-0.35%
5.4
-0.53%
-4.4
Aberdeen
10.8
0.9
15.9
0.9
15.3
0.7
14.3
0.6%
-0.34%
3.4
-0.34%
-1.6
-0.15%
-1.1
South East
178 .0
14 .3
244 .3
13 .1
340 .6
15 .8 380 .4 14 .9% 0 .56% 202 .4
1 .76% 136 .1
-0 .93% 39 .7
Oxford
109.4
8.8
181.6
9.7
231.3
10.7
273.7
10.7%
1.89%
164.3
0.99%
92.1
-0.04%
42.3
Southampton
18.9
1.5
22.4
1.2
35.9
0.7
35.4
1.4%
-0.12%
16.5
0.18%
13.0
0.68%
-0.5
Brighton
9.4
0.8
11.6
0.6
15.2
1.7
17.3
0.7%
-0.12%
7.9
0.08%
5.7
-0.99%
2.1
Appendix 8
Part One – Total funding distribution by UK geographical region
(NUTS 1) including selected cities
131
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
UK Region
2004/05
2009/10
2014 (All)
2018 (All)
Difference
vs 04/05
Difference
vs 09/10
Difference
vs 2014
Spend
(£m)
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(£m)
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(£m)
(real
terms)
%
Spend
(£m)
%
Change
in
%
Change
in
spend
Change
in
%
Change
in
spend
Change
in
%
Change
in
spend
South West
35 .3
2 .8
58 .5
3 .1
79 .9
3 .7
98 .2
3 .8% 1 .03%
62 .9
0 .73%
39 .7
0 .12%
18 .2
Bristol
25.0
2.0
38.6
2.1
57.4
2.7
62.7
2.5%
0.45%
37.8
0.35%
24.1
-0.21%
5.4
Exeter
1.9
0.2
5.7
0.3
9.5
0.4
20.9
0.8%
0.61%
18.9
0.51%
15.1
0.38%
11.4
Wales
20 .7
1 .7
50 .8
2 .7
53 .1
2 .5
60 .9
2 .4% 0 .68%
40 .2
-0 .32% 10 .1
-0 .08%
7 .8
Cardiff
18.4
1.5
39.6
2.1
36.8
1.7
42.9
1.7%
0.18%
24.5
-0.42%
3.3
-0.03%
6.2
Swansea
1.0
0.1
6.6
0.4
10.7
0.5
7.3
0.3%
0.18%
6.2
-0.12%
0.6
-0.21%
-3.4
Bangor
1.0
0.1
3.1
0.2
4.6
0.2
5.4
0.2%
0.11%
4.4
0.01%
2.3
0.00%
0.8
West Midlands
34 .4
2 .8
67 .0
3 .6
72 .5
3 .4
104 .5 4 .1% 1 .28%
70 .1
0 .48%
37 .4
0 .72%
32 .0
Birmingham
28.7
2.3
45.9
2.5
49.6
2.3
66.7
2.6%
0.31%
38.0
0.11%
20.8
0.30%
17.1
Coventry
3.1
0.2
15.1
0.8
15.3
0.7
24.7
1.0%
0.76%
21.6
0.16%
9.6
0.26%
9.4
Yorkshire &
The Humber
70 .8
5 .7
80 .6
4 .3
98 .0
4 .5
116 .8 4 .6% -1 .14%
46 .0
0 .26%
36 .2
0 .02%
18 .8
Leeds
36.5
2.9
33.3
1.8
41.8
1.9
47.5
1.9%
-1.04%
11.1
0.06%
14.2
-0.08%
5.7
Sheffield
21.6
1.7
29.8
1.6
34.7
1.6
34.6
1.4%
-0.35%
13.0
-0.25%
4.8
-0.26%
-0.1
York
7.7
0.6
12.2
0.7
14.5
0.7
24.0
0.9%
0.34%
16.3
0.24%
11.8
0.27%
9.5
London
415 .8
33 .5
623 .4
33 .4
691 .6
32 .1 815 .1 31 .8% -1 .66% 399 .3
-1 .56% 191 .7
-0 .23% 123 .5
No Location
Info
1.4
0.1
20.8
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
All Regions
1,241
99 .9
1,847
98 .9
2,156 100 .0 2,560 100
-
-
-
-
-
-
132
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 8
Part Two – International expenditure by country
Recipient Country
# of awards
Spend in 2018
% of total spend
United States of America
115
£84.2m
37.7%
Switzerland
38
£45.3m
20.3%
Kenya
66
£14.3m
6.4%
India
31
£11.6m
5.2%
South Africa
63
£10.4m
4.7%
Australia
44
£9.6m
4.3%
Ireland
126
£5.0m
2.3%
Belgium
12
£3.7m
1.7%
Italy
29
£3.4m
1.5%
Canada
14
£3.3m
1.5%
Bangladesh
4
£2.9m
1.3%
Singapore
6
£2.8m
1.3%
Netherlands
29
£2.8m
1.3%
Japan
2
£2.2m
1.0%
International
3
£2.1m
1.0%
Germany
12
£1.9m
0.9%
Spain
27
£1.9m
0.9%
France
23
£1.9m
0.8%
Brazil
22
£1.8m
0.8%
Denmark
7
£1.5m
0.7%
Norway
3
£1.1m
0.5%
Uganda
11
£1.1m
0.5%
Papua New Guinea
3
£1.0m
0.4%
China
15
£0.7m
0.3%
Tanzania
10
£0.6m
0.3%
Sweden
4
£0.6m
0.3%
Finland
5
£0.4m
0.2%
Austria
2
£0.4m
0.2%
Czechia
8
£0.4m
0.2%
Portugal
6
£0.3m
0.1%
Thailand
3
£0.3m
0.1%
Georgia
2
£0.2m
0.1%
New Zealand
8
£0.2m
0.1%
Peru
4
£0.2m
0.1%
Remaining overseas funding (32 countries)*
84
£2.9m
1.3%
Grand total
841
£223.1m
100%
*Of the 66 countries receiving funding from UK-based organisations participating in this analysis, 32 received less than £200,000.
NOTE: This data focuses on awards made directly to a researcher where the host institution is located outside the UK. In addition,
only 37 of the 123 organisations provided data with overseas award information. The data presented here will therefore be an
underestimate of overall UK health research funding expenditure made overseas.
133
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 9
Total funding distribution by organisation
type; Government, UKRI or charitable
Part One – Government, UKRI and charitable funding by
HRCS Research Activity
Research Activity Group
Other Government &
public bodies
UK Research and
Innovation (UKRI)
Charities & not-for-profit
Total Spend
Spend
%
Spend
%
Spend
%
Spend
1 Underpinning
£6m
1%
£247m
44%
£302m
54%
£555m
2 Aetiology
£39m
5%
£338m
43%
£407m
52%
£784m
3 Prevention
£51m
34%
£67m
45%
£33m
22%
£151m
4 Detection and Diagnosis
£59m
22%
£103m
38%
£108m
40%
£270m
5 Treatment Development
£31m
10%
£120m
39%
£155m
51%
£306m
6 Treatment Evaluation
£129m
52%
£49m
20%
£71m
29%
£249m
7 Disease Management
£66m
64%
£20m
19%
£17m
17%
£103m
8 Health Services
£79m
55%
£43m
30%
£21m
15%
£143m
Grand total
£460m
18%
£986m
39%
£1115m
44%
£2 .56bn
134
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Part 2 –
Government, UKRI and charitable funding by HRCS Health Category
Health Category
Other Government &
public bodies
UK Research and
Innovation (UKRI)
Charities & not-for-profit
Total Spend
Spend
%
Spend
%
Spend
%
Spend
Generic health relevance
£82.9m
13%
£325.1m
52%
£217.4m
35%
£625.5m
Cancer and neoplasms
£45.2m
9%
£85.1m
18%
£353.1m
73%
£483.4m
Infection
£58.9m
17%
£161.6m
47%
£125.6m
36%
£346.2m
Neurological
£30.0m
12%
£108.8m
44%
£109.7m
44%
£248.5m
Cardiovascular
£25.3m
16%
£27.5m
18%
£103.6m
66%
£156.5m
Mental health
£50.3m
32%
£60.9m
39%
£43.7m
28%
£155.m
Inflammatory
and immune system
£10.0m
10%
£34.8m
35%
£53.8m
55%
£98.6m
Metabolic and endocrine
£16.8m
22%
£40.4m
52%
£20.7m
27%
£78.m
Musculoskeletal
£14.9m
26%
£23.1m
40%
£19.2m
34%
£57.2m
Reproductive health
and childbirth
£24.5m
45%
£20.7m
38%
£9.7m
18%
£54.9m
Oral and gastrointestinal
£19.3m
40%
£20.0m
42%
£8.6m
18%
£47.8m
Respiratory
£16.8m
36%
£20.6m
44%
£9.3m
20%
£46.6m
Eye
£8.8m
27%
£12.6m
39%
£11.2m
34%
£32.6m
Stroke
£14.2m
47%
£9.3m
31%
£6.7m
22%
£30.2m
Renal and urogenital
£12.0m
49%
£4.9m
20%
£7.7m
31%
£24.6m
Injuries and accidents
£13.9m
83%
£1.6m
10%
£1.2m
7%
£16.7m
Skin
£5.6m
42%
£4.9m
37%
£2.9m
21%
£13.4m
Congenital disorders
£2.4m
19%
£5.6m
45%
£4.6m
36%
£12.6m
Blood
£2.1m
18%
£6.8m
59%
£2.7m
23%
£11.6m
Disputed Aetiology
and Other
£4.5m
43%
£5.1m
49%
£.9m
8%
£10.5m
Ear
£1.5m
15%
£6.1m
61%
£2.4m
24%
£10.m
Grand total
£460m
18%
£986m
39%
£1115m
44%
£2 .56bn
Appendix 9
135
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 10
Changes in coding methodology and uptake of auto-coding
Background to auto-coding methodology
The HRCS classification model developed by Digital Science
uses machine learning algorithms created using the data
available in the UK Health Research Analysis 2014 (UKHRA2014)
dataset to refine the scoring process before its release onto
Dimensions66 in 2017.
Comparison of UKHRA2014 data
Digital Science kindly provided a bespoke request for auto-
coding for more than 11,000 awards from the UKHRA2014
public dataset67, from which direct comparison between manual
and auto-coded data could be assessed. Overall, the matching
between manual coding and auto-coding was very high, with
less than one per cent variance across all health categories and
research activities. However, given that the algorithm was built
based on the coding for the UKHRA2014 dataset, it is perhaps
not too surprising that there is near perfect comparative
matching between the two.
We did note some variations in how auto-coding is applied in
comparison to manual. Firstly, the number of codes applied
to an award is generally higher with auto-coding. For example,
56% of manually coded awards in the UKHRA2014 dataset
had a single health category and research activity while
93% of awards had one or two codes. This compares to 43%
and 88% respectively by auto-coding. Secondly, the upper
limit for research activities on Dimensions is five whereas
manual coding is limited to four, although the additional fifth
research activity auto-code was rarely used (<0.5% of
UKHRA2014 awards).
Comparison of biomedical research funding (2012-2016)
To compare the relative accuracy of auto-coded data against
a partially naïve dataset, we extracted awards active across
five years of reporting (2012-2016)68 from both the Dimensions
platform and publicly available MRC awards published via
Gateway to Research. This provided excellent coverage of total
expenditure over these periods, with an average of 94% of
expenditure from MRC core databases on Dimensions. Award
data from both systems were analysed as per the UKHRA2014
methodology and overall, for both Research Activity and Health
Category, auto-coding was reasonably comparable, with
variability of ±1-2% (max ±3-4%) between the two methods.
136
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 10
Comparison with non-biomedical funding data
Given the differences in terminology across disciplines, and that
the majority of UKHRA2014 data used to train the algorithm
would be from the three largest biomedical funders (MRC, NIHR
and Wellcome Trust), we sought to compare the accuracy of
auto-coding to data the algorithm was less familiar with. We
examined data from 2014 for the three other HRAF member
research councils; BBSRC, EPSRC and ESRC, each of which
provide different methods for selecting health-relevant awards
from their total portfolio. For BBSRC and EPSRC the algorithm
successfully auto-coded 93-94% of awards, with proportions
of spend against research activity and health category
reasonably well matched to manual coding69. This matching was
significantly lower for ESRC with just 68% of awards fully auto-
coded and significant variations in the resulting manual coding
compared to auto-coding (with variance of ±18% in some
research activities and health categories).
Looking across the complete portfolio of awards for these
three councils, we observed a large number of awards eligible
but not selected by the awarding council for the 2014 analysis
that were HRCS auto-coded; for BBSRC almost half of their
portfolio was HRCS auto-coded, but only ~11% of awards
were submitted to the analysis. This suggests either the
methodology used by councils to select awards for submission
to the analysis is an underestimate of their total health-relevant
expenditure, or the algorithm may be allocating HRCS codes
to non-health related awards (“false positive coding”). Although
we do not have a rigorous analysis to test this, an anecdotal
assessment suggests the latter. Much of the terminology
used for veterinary and agricultural research is shared with
medical research. Similarly, our work to filter a health-relevant
submission on behalf of DEFRA showed several awards HRCS
auto-coded that would not be considered health relevant.
Conclusions
Much of the comparative work summarised here requires both
manually and auto-coded data and given that a significant
proportion of the available manually coded information was
used to develop the auto-coding algorithm makes truly naïve
comparisons troublesome. Therefore, without additional
manually coded data to compare against, it is difficult to
draw definitive conclusions on the use of automated coding.
However, this initial analysis shows some clear benefits
and limitations of auto-coding which we feel are useful to
record here:
• Manual and auto-coded data is broadly similar for
large-scale analysis .
– Despite some variation in how coding is applied,
the results of large-scale analyses of biomedical
research data do show close correlation between
manual and auto-coding.
– However, given auto-coding tends to apply more
codes per award than manual, smaller scale
analyses with a more bespoke dataset may see
more significant variations.
• Auto-coding has the potential for identifying
health-relevancy from broader portfolios but
struggles with differing terminology or text
structure across disciplines .
– Our initial comparisons suggest that using auto-
coding as an indicator of an awards’ health-
relevancy may provide a method for ‘skimming’
award portfolios from non-biomedical funders
but will require manual curation to ensure true
health-relevancy.
– In particular, social sciences research with a
relevance to health suffers from a higher mismatch
between manual and auto-coding, requiring more
manual analysis to avoid discrepancies.
• Auto-coding is reliant on the quality of publicly
available information
– The high exclusion rate in our comparisons of
2014 data (25%) shows that unless appropriate
title/abstract information is available, there will still
be a need for a manual component to analyses using
HRCS coding.
66 Digital Science. (2018-) Dimensions [Software] available from https://app.dimensions.ai . Last accessed on 27-09-2019, under licence agreement.
67 It is important to note that this assessment was limited to data in the public dataset, some of which was redacted to be allowed to be released publicly. As a result,
only 11,315 (75%) of the 14,934 awards in the dataset were eligible for this comparison.
68 Given the parallel in reporting periods, a third of awards in this analysis were also present in the UKHRA2014 dataset. This again means the algorithm is at least
partially coding against awards it has been ‘trained’ on, which may imply a higher level of compatibility than a completely naive dataset.
69 The most substantive variances between original manual coding and auto-coding observed for BBSRC were in Underpinning (-3.0%) and Aetiology (+5.2%) and
Generic Health Relevance (+7.8%). The rest were <1%. EPSRC had <3% variance across all HRCS codes examined, with the majority <0.5%
137
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 11
Additional methods
Data analysis
Annualised values
The UK Health Research Analysis series has primarily used annualised values for each award, dependent on the award’s total value
(“commitment”), duration and period of activity in the reporting period (i.e. 01/01/2018 – 31/12/2018)70. Roughly 85% of award
values are calculated using this method.
Using actual ‘live’ spend could provide a more accurate snapshot of activity in 2018 however actual spend data for the period would
only be available some months after the end of 2018 whereas expected commitment and duration information is often available
from the outset for awards.
Note that any values quoted from previous analyses (2004/05, 2009/10 or 2014) have been adjusted for inflation (‘real terms’, see
below) and will therefore differ from those seen in previous reports.
Conversion of data
Following final coding and de-duplication/data cleaning processes, the complete analysis data set was converted from single award
lines to multiple lines dependent on the number of both Health Category and Research Activity codes. For example, an award of
£10,000 coded with two health categories and two research activities is converted from single line:
To multiple lines:
This conversion places all Health Categories and all Research Activities, regardless of number applied to the award in a single
column. The number of new lines shows the proportions allocated to each category (4th column) and the original award value
is also proportionally distributed. This allows the generation of pivot table summary data from which any required analysis can
be performed.
The conversion to multiple lines was achieved through ‘unpivoting’ the dataset using Microsoft Power BI. A more detailed discussion
document, including some ‘how to’ steps, is available via the HRCS website.
Award001
£10,000
HC1
HC2
RA1
RA2
Award001
HC1
RA1
0 .25
£2,500
Award001
HC1
RA2
0 .25
£2,500
Award001
HC2
RA1
0 .25
£2,500
Award001
HC2
RA2
0 .25
£2,500
138
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 11
Comparison analysis and calculation
of proportion changes
To compare nominal funding values between 2004/05,
2009/10 and 2014 analyses and the current 2018 data
required an inflation adjustment to generate real terms values
(i.e. at 2018 market prices). To achieve this, we used the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflators calculated by the
ONS and issued by HM Treasury71, with 2017/18 financial year
as the baseline (100). The GDP deflator values for 2004/05,
2009/10 and 2013/14 were 77.643, 87.585 and 93.899,
respectively. Therefore, to calculate the 2018 values of funding
from previous analyses requires the original values to be
converted by a factor of 1.288 for 2004/05 (=100/77.643),
1.142 for 2009/10 (=100/92.327) and 1.065 for 2014
(=100/93.899). These values are referred to as “real terms” in
the text and tables.
Differences between current data and previous data, adjusted
to current 2018 values, are presented in three main formats:
• Difference: = V2-V1
Used for showing differences from the original value (V1) to the
comparison value (V2) in funding totals (i.e. raw difference in
Pounds Sterling) or differences in the percentage of funding
allocated to an area.
• Proportional Changes: = (V2-V1)/V1 x 100
This shows percentage changes over time, calculated by
comparing the difference in value proportional to the original
value. This is used extensively when comparing between 04/05,
09/10, 2014 and 2018 data, and the original value is usually
referenced as ‘proportional to’, ‘compared to’ or ‘versus’ in the
text and tables.
• Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR): = (V2/V1)
(1/#years)-1
The CAGR is applied to give a value to the year-on-year
changes, as it provides an average rate at which funding
increases (or decreases) over time. This report uses the CAGR
to show the annual rate of change over the various reporting
intervals, up to the 14-year span from first report (2004/05) to
latest (2018).
Co-funding and geographic location
Unlike other analyses of health research, we have gone
to significant lengths to obtain details of co-funding from
participating organisation and search the combined dataset
for shared titles/abstracts to identify awards where funding
is shared between multiple organisations. The data presented
in the final analysis is therefore only the funders individual
contributions, or as close as we are able. This avoids
duplication of award values.
However due to the nature of award funding and financial
reporting, we are unable to distinguish how much of an
awards value is being distributed to co-applicants and other
collaborations. Most funding organisations provide awards to a
single, principal award recipient, from which the funds can be
distributed as needed. This report only demonstrates where the
initial award is made, not necessarily where all research funded
by that award is being conducted. This skew of geographical
distribution is also varied between different organisations.
Smaller funders tend to make awards to single researchers at
a fixed location, whereas larger funders can support complex
programmes involving dozens of researchers. In particular,
Innovate UK awards can have a high number (20+) of co-
applicants or project partners associated with a single award.
As data availability increases this caveat could be addressed in
future analyses.
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
To compare similarity in funding priorities, Spearman’s Rank
Correlation Coefficient is used. This statistical measure is
used to compare two sets of nonparametric variables by rank
to assess how similar or dissimilar they are. In this context,
a perfect positive correlation (r=1) would denote matches in
funding priorities, whereas a perfect negative correlation (r=-1)
would denote polar opposite funding prioritisation. In general,
a coefficient value of >±0.8 would suggest good correlation
between two datasets.
Oversight of the process
The compilation of data was managed via the Health Research
Analysis Forum (HRAF). The HRAF includes representatives from
the 12 original HRCS participating organisations plus AMRC.
139
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
Appendix 11
Ownership of the data
Data collected in the course of this work is owned by the
organisations funding the research and held in confidence by
the MRC. Details of individual awards will not be circulated
or published unless agreement is obtained in advance by
participating organisations.
The dataset used in this analysis is available via the HRCS
website and we encourage other organisations to make use of
this data to perform further analysis beyond the scope of this
report. This dataset contains all awards used in the analysis
although certain modifications have been made to meet each
participating organisations requirements for data publication
and sharing. Any subsequent use of this data in publications
and/or use of the HRCS coding process itself must cite the
UKCRC as per the conditions of use also on the HRCS website.
Understanding the Health
Research Classification System
The Health Research Classification System (HRCS) is a two-
dimensional framework for classifying research awards. One
dimension of the framework, the Research Activity Codes,
classifies awards according to type of research activity. The
other dimension, the Health Categories, classifies research
according to the area of health and disease being studied.
Full details of the HRCS are available to download from
www.hrcsonline.net.
The HRCS Research Activity codes are modelled on the
Common Scientific Outline which is a cancer research specific
classification system developed by the International Cancer
Research Partners. The Common Scientific Outline has been
successfully used by the National Cancer Research Institute
(NCRI) Partners for the strategic analysis of cancer research in
the UK. The Research Activity Codes describe broad areas of
research activity organised into eight overarching categories:
• Underpinning Research (Underpinning) - research
that underpins investigations into the cause, development,
detection, treatment and management of diseases,
conditions and ill health
• Aetiology – identification of determinants that are
involved in the cause, risk or development of disease,
conditions and ill health
• Prevention of Disease and Conditions, and Promotion
of Well-Being (Prevention) – research aimed at the
primary prevention of disease, conditions or ill health, or
promotion of well-being
• Detection, Screening and Diagnosis (Detection
and Diagnosis) – discovery, development and evaluation
of diagnostic, prognostic and predictive markers
and technologies
• Development of Treatments and Therapeutic
Interventions (Treatment Development) – discovery and
development of therapeutic interventions and testing in
model systems and preclinical settings
• Evaluation of Treatments and Therapeutic
Interventions (Treatment Evaluation) – testing and
evaluation of therapeutic interventions in clinical,
community or applied settings
• Management of Diseases and Conditions (Disease
Management) – research into individual care needs and
management of diseases, conditions or ill health
• Health and Social Care Services Research (Health
Services) – research into the provision of health and social
care services, health policy and research methodology
Each of these main categories is further subdivided, to give
a total of 48 Research Activity sub-codes. The main eight
Research Activity codes can be used for a ‘top level’ analysis, a
more detailed examination can be carried out by analysing the
sub-codes of each main category, and cross-cutting analyses
can be performed by combining sub-codes from across
different categories.
The HRCS Health Categories are based on the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes72 and contain 21
separate groupings which encompass all diseases, conditions
and areas of health. Where possible these Health Categories
have been designed to match the ICD codes. However, as the
ICD codes only describe diseases and ill health, they are not
always adaptable to capture the breadth of research funded by
the participating organisations. The key differences between
ICD codes and HRCS Health Categories are as follows:
140
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
• There is no appropriate ICD code to accurately classify
studies of normal development and function of the
immune system. Therefore, the separate category of
Inflammatory and Immune System was created.
• Some categories have been created in areas of
specific interest to the UKCRC Partners. For instance,
the Stroke Research Network, part of the UK Clinical
Research Network, required a separate Stroke HRCS
Health Category.
• A further difference from the ICD codes is the Infection
category, which includes all diseases caused by
infectious agents regardless of the type of infection or
system affected.
• Additionally, a Generic Health Relevance category has
been added to the system to classify research that is
applicable to all diseases and conditions or general health
and well-being.
Understanding the results of the analysis
The analysis is designed to show trends in the research
activities of the largest public, government and charity research
organisations in the UK since 2004. There are several factors
that should be considered when reviewing the results of this
analysis. Firstly, analysis of the database can provide valuable
information on the relative amounts of directly funded research
activity in different areas, but it has not been designed to
analyse all spending on biomedical and health research in
the UK. Secondly, a research award may have a number of
objectives; the Health Research Classification System is
designed to capture the central aim of the research taking
place rather than every facet or possible outcome of the work.
The analysis described here provides an indicator of the ‘centre
of gravity’ of the research awards held on the database.
All participating organisations fund research in differing ways.
Most use a peer review system to ensure the quality of the
research they fund. Some funders commission evaluations or
other types of research to answer specific questions. Others
focus on the support of dedicated institutes or centres for
research priority areas. More typically however, research
grants are awarded via ‘response mode’ – where researchers
apply for funding in open competitive calls - to fund the
highest quality proposals submitted to them by the research
community.
Considering this, there are several factors that might influence
the amount of activity in any given area of health-related
research. These include:
• The scientific opportunity in an area
• The size and quality of the research workforce
in each area
• The ‘researchability’ or tractability of an area
• The burden of disease in an area
• The level of charity fundraising conducted in an area
This analysis is primarily focused on the combined research
portfolios of the participating organisations and the distribution
of HRCS Health Categories and Research Activities to assess
the national health research landscape. It is possible to carry
out a more detailed breakdown of the research using our
own Research Activity sub-codes (or bespoke text mining
approaches across the dataset), but given the extensive
potential for this approach, these analyses are outside the
scope of this report. However, we actively support and
encourage others to make use of this dataset, and those from
previous analyses, for exactly this purpose.
Finally, as the fourth in a continuing series this analysis seeks
to identify and assess potential trends in funding over the 14
years reporting period. However, it is important to note that
any shift in the coding approach between funders or reports
could influence the potential trends observed. In particular,
the shift towards automated coding in this 2018 analysis is a
considerable methodological change. This report shows that
on a national, aggregated level the automated coding appears
broadly comparable (see Appendix 10). However, a more
detailed assessment of specific coding comparisons may
require a more considered methodology to adjust for variations
between a manual and an automated HRCS coding approach.
Appendix 11
141
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
70 For example, an award with a total commitment value of £12,000 active for 12 months, beginning on the 1st of October 2014 would report an annualised spend of
£3,000 in this analysis.
71 HM Treasury National Statistics Autumn Statement (December 2018) https://bit.ly/311eZ09
72 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
142
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
143
UK Health Research Analysis 2018 UK Clinical Research Collaboration 2020
UK Clinical Research Collaboration
C/O Medical Research Council,
UK Research and Innovation,
Polaris House,
North Star Avenue,
Swindon,
SN2 1FL
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)207 3952271
info@ukcrc .org
www .ukcrc .org