The Bureaucracy of Research Contracts

The UK government have just published the final report of the Tickell Review of Research Bureaucracy.

The review had a difficult job - being tasked by the government to identify unwarranted bureaucracy that, for the most part, is imposed on the research sector by that very government.

As one example, the review briefly mentions the Trusted Research agenda - a relatively new, relatively burdensome bundle of obligations imposed on research organisations to manage national security threats from research - as a 'key priority' that is a 'very complex challenge'.

There are zero recommendations for universities to meet Trusted Research compliance obligations without having to introduce significant bureaucracy. There are no recommendations for government to improve the way they regulate in this space.

Okay, but Trusted Research is new, perhaps there hasn't been time to develop best practice? On the other hand, research contracts have been identified as a pain point for decades. Surely the review produced some concrete proposals for improving research contracting?

Or not.

"Contracting and collaboration agreements are a major source of delays because many research organisations prefer to use their own version rather than standard formats such as Brunswick or Lambert Agreements."

The Brunswick Agreements have no official status - they were drafted by particularly driven and dedicated research contracts professionals in research organisations, alongside the significant amount of day-to-day work. These people recognised that each institution having its own template was inefficient and worked, of their own volition, to develop a new sector standard for everyone's benefit.

The true story of the Brunswick Agreements is one of universities - of research contracts teams - taking action to reduce bureaucracy. But the Tickell review ignores that reality in favour of a narrative that universities are making life harder than it needs to be.

My personal experience is that most research organisations do use the Brunswicks, or some variant - where possible. But the truth is the Brunswicks were designed for a specific purpose - UKRI funded research awards where the collaborators on a project are all universities and there are no complexities around IP, data, etc. In other words, an increasingly small proportion of the workload. The Brunswicks aren't fit for each and every research project where funder terms, regulatory arrangements, intellectual property plans, and the type of activities can vary hugely.

And even if they are used, some funders make it even harder - one government funder requires sight and approval of collaboration agreements prior to signature (despite having secured their rights in the grant funding contract). This can means that after months of negotiation to an agreed contract, that funder can require negotiations are reopened to make changes that suit their preference. Why wasn't this identified as a step that delays contracting for little benefit?

Lamenting Lambert

The template Lambert Agreements (the result of a previous review that identified contracts as a pain point) are designed for use with industry - developed by government, industry, and universities as a 'reasonable middle ground'.

Nine times out of ten, industry won't accept the use of the Lamberts, preferring their own pro-industry templates that require extensive negotiation to approach reasonableness.

When they are used, contracting can be quick and simple. Even then, some adaptation might be required if specific regulatory issues apply.

Templates also aren't as simple as 'use them' or 'don't use them'. They require maintenance, updating to account for changes in law, policy, or funder requirements. One of the reasons the Brunswicks are likely to fall out of favour is they aren't adequately maintained, as nobody has the time or resource to do so.

I think it's a misdiagnosis to say that contracting is a major source of delays because research organisations prefer to use their own templates.

Research Contracts Teams

?"Use of generalist professional services department to provide key elements of research support – for example, legal services – can lead to longer delays because of a lack of familiarity or confidence with handling research grant agreements or contracts."

Making things simple is a complex task.

Research contracts is a speciality and specialists are more efficient than generalists. If you want your internal bureaucracy to be efficient, you need specialists who can apply their expertise to arrive at quick decisions, and triage the low risk contracts that need a light touch from the high risk contracts that require more thought and resource allocated.

If you treat everything as essentially the same activity with the same risk profile,

• the low risk contracts take too long (because you are over-working them),
• the high risk contracts take too long (because you don't allocate the extra resource and expertise necessary to properly handle them), and
• the medium risk contracts take too long because you are overburdened with the above.

So research contracts specialists are required to make effective risk based decisions.

But many organisations don't have research at anywhere the volumes required for it to make sense hiring dedicated research contracts staff, so they necessarily rely on legal teams or non-contracts research professionals. The review doesn't engage with this issue.

Recommendations

Research Contracts are indeed an area of significant bureaucracy. Some of this is necessary - I'm not sure why it needs to be said, but cutting edge research is complex.

Legislation is also complex - UK GDPR (especially sensitive data from vulnerable study participants), Export Controls, Intellectual Property, State Aid (or Subsidy Control), Human Tissue Act, Clinical Trials Regulations, Tax, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, Higher Education and Research Act - and this is before starting to consider adapting a contract to comply with institutional policies, each with their own nuances.

What is frustrating about the Tickell Review (and to be fair the many, many, many previous reviews) is that direct action could significantly reduce the bureaucracy that is imposed on research contracts.

There is tremendous opportunity here, both within organisations and at a wider, research sector level - I'm likely being unfair to the Tickell Review as it wasn't about research contracts specifically, and a lack of direct focus on a very difficult issue easily explains the lack of depth in both articulating the problem and the solutions proposed. Still, it is undeniably disappointing.

As I tuck my children in bed tonight, I'll tell them a story - of a future UK Government Research Contracts Review, whose recommendations are bold and sweeping. Whose analysis is deep and insightful, acknowledging a multitude of perspectives and accepting wisdom and advice from those already working to solve issues.

They'll go to sleep, and they'll dream of the recommendations from my fairytale review. Perhaps they'll go something like this.

1. Government regulators should provide tailored, sector specific guidance to reduce uncertainty, leading to quicker assessments. For example, the ICO should provide detailed guidance on determining controller/processor status in research projects. This is a complex area of law, and it's no surprise organisations end up at different decisions, proposing different (mandatory) contractual clauses. Guidance from the ICO, including checklists and case studies for the research sector, would bring greater certainty. Other examples include the Export Control Joint Unit, Charities Commission, Subsidy Advice Unit (the UK body responsible for the subsidy control regime, formerly state aid), HMRC.
2. Government funders should harmonise grant funding terms across bodies. UKRI already mostly use the same set of terms - but many other departments also fund research. Must like the EU use a harmonised grant agreement even outside of Horizon Europe, the UK Government should move towards a single set of research grant terms. Where possible, these should be developed in consultation with the charity sector in the hopes the same - or similar - terms could be adopted by other non-government funders.
3. Government funders, charities, universities should combine forces to develop and strongly recommend a single research collaboration agreement template for use in the research sector that does not need tailoring to each funder's requirements. This activity should be funded by government, not squeezed in alongside spare moments that never come.
4. Where government funds collaboration with industry (such as through the CASE Studentship scheme), it should mandate the use of specific, reasonable templates on a single standard, but suited to the scheme. This would avoid the prolonged battle of templates between research organisations and industry.
5. A single best practice network/representative body for research contracting should be established. Research contracts professionals already do their best to share best practice, but no sector body currently caters well to them. ARMA, PraxisAuril, AULP - all have research contracts members, but none have a critical mass. Having a representative body would allow that body to engage with others, explaining the consequences of well-meaning decisions on adding to delays in contracting. We have them for Research Integrity, Public Engagement, and Open Access. Why not Research Contracts?

I don't mean to point the finger solely at government - universities can, should, and in many cases are, doing more than ever before to rationalise their own internal processes and risk appetite. But any such action will necessarily be limited in impact - there's a real opportunity for the government to take bold, meaningful action at the sector level.

My reading of the Tickell review is that this opportunity for real change has (again) been missed in favour of a few jibes at those working diligently in research contracts, doing their best under often extreme and conflicting pressures.

If you are interested in hearing how one university transformed their research contracts service, please see the programme for this year's ARMA Conference.