Recommendation 124

Other criticisms of UKRI funding brought to our attention included, from Dr Vicky Johnson, University of the Highlands, that its “money tends to go to the older universities, and not the post-1992s or the very new universities”.290 Also, from Professor James Conroy, University of Glasgow, that “everything is not sewn together quite as well as it 279 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UKRI Framework Document, May 2018, p 33 280 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UKRI Framework Document, May 2018, p 33 281 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UKRI Framework Document, May 2018, p 33 282 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UKRI Framework Document, May 2018, p 19 283 Q257 284 Q257 285 National Audit Office, UK Research and Innovation’s management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, 5 February 2021, p 30 286 London = 17%, South East England = 27.2% (National Audit Office, UK Research and Innovation’s management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, 5 February 2021, p 30) 287 National Audit Office, UK Research and Innovation’s management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, 5 February 2021, p 30 288 RSE Young Academy of Scotland (USC0006) p 6 289 Q257 290 Q9 48 Universities and Scotland might be” as “UKRI is supposed to be bringing everything together, but it still feels like separate research councils under an umbrella organisation.”291 Furthermore, the RSE Young Academy of Scotland told us that: Research funding allocated by UKRI also appears biased by gender, ethnicity and age; funding success rates are systematically lower for women; in engineering and physical sciences, the gap deepens as grants get larger, with the difference in success rates even greater (over 10%) between white and black and other minority ethnic groups investigators. This is a particular threat for Scottish universities, when funding diversity and inclusivity is essential to foster innovation, growth and