According to its Royal Charter, the British Council exists to “encourage cultural, scientific, technological and other education co-operation between the UK and other countries”. Stakeholder feedback, like Government policy, strongly endorses the promotion of science as part of the UK cultural landscape and the encouragement of scientific cooperation between the UK and other countries.
The Council has defined its tasks as „link[ing] scientists globally and provid[ing] information for international researchers on jobs and funding in the UK‟ and „grass- roots discussion of science and sustainability issues‟. It does this through research collaboration, public engagement, capacity-building and STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Maths) education. The British Council delivers projects in these areas using Grant-in-Aid and Partnership resources, and undertakes some competitively tendered work (eg for DFID and the European Commission).
The Council interprets its technology remit as the application of knowledge through applied sciences, with a focus on sustainable development and emerging
technologies. „Knowledge Economy partnerships‟ in several countries support collaboration between UK and host country universities and industry to support transfer of technology and knowledge. Examples include an IT business centre in Russia and cooperation on nanotechnology; and in China, the UK-Chongqing Collaboration on Technology Transfer programme:
Two apparently contradictory views relating to impact and influence emerged in feedback to the Review on science. The first was that the Council should ideally do more to promote science and scientific achievements as an integral part of UK heritage. The second was that in practice activity often appears 'random',
uncoordinated and lacking impact: only 4% of FCO Heads of Mission rated British Council science work as 'significant'; 5% thought the quality of its efforts to be 'very effective'.
The Review Team considered both strategy and delivery of British Council science activity. We found evidence that the Council had over time expanded research- related activities independent of wider UK strategy, consultation or collaboration. This has sometimes led to confusion, particularly for overseas partners; overlapping activities; lack of sustainability or follow-up; and administrative complexity. We found some sense among stakeholders that, as in other areas, the British Council lacked accountability and was hard to influence. Overlap and confusion between the roles of the Council and the Government‟s overseas Science and Innovation Network (SIN), present in 28 countries and 47 cities, emerged as a particular concern. On delivery, the Council often scores well on specific activities and its ability to use networks to make introductions, organise events and help UK organisations get a
122 foothold in new countries. The Council has less of a role once markets or
businesses mature and scientific cooperation becomes more substantive. As far as research exchanges are concerned we found some evidence that the British
Council's ability to support research exchanges derives from long-established networks and links to Government, and that no other single organisation could deliver this function across the same geographical reach.
However, the lack of strategy and coordination with key UK partners (across government and among scientific institutions) means that the Council is not as effective for the UK as it could be. The Government's International Science Strategy (ISI) currently being drafted aims to link at a strategic level activity across UK
government, the British Council and key stakeholders in the scientific community. It will also provide clearer guidance on coordination of country strategies and
collaborative delivery.
Having come across evidence of overlap and poor coordination (eg the Technologies projects cited above which might appear to sit better with SIN/UKTI), the Review Team considered whether SIN and BC work could be merged (or SIN teams based with BC as happens in Tel Aviv). However the British Council lacks real expertise or the resources to undertake substantive science work beyond the promotion of
science and collaborative activities. At the same time, it has a widespread network and a remit to promote British culture in its widest sense, and is often highly praised for its marketing and promotion campaigns and skill: one stakeholder suggested the Council should be the "diplomatic arm of science”. SIN teams on the other hand are expert in their field and deployed in countries where the UK has an identified science and technology interest.
We conclude that Council and SIN team skills and expertise are essentially complementary and that better coordination and articulation of strategic aims in-country should enable each to have a defined role in delivering for the UK. We therefore recommend against a merger of staff.
We recommend that the British Council‟s role in this field be better defined in line with the Government‟s new International Science Strategy and
coordinated with specialist UK bodies. We further recommend that the Council engage proactively and collaboratively with Embassies in delivering the new UK International Science Strategy. The contribution of the British Council should focus in particular on promotion of science and have a clear and defined in-country role that complements the SIN professional network.
123