Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:120-122 (19 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.39454.402813.AD
Geoff Watts, freelance journalist
1 London
geoff@scileg.freeserve.co.uk
It is just over a year since David Cooksey published his plans to reform UK research funding. Geoff Watts reports on how the ideas are working
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
"It aint broke, but lets fix it anyway." Although this is not a sentence you will find anywhere in the text of David Cookseys 2006 report on the funding of medical research in Britain,1 this coarse description does capture the thinking that underpins it. Generous praise for the achievements of UK health and medical research—then a "but." Its rather like a school report: doing pretty well, but could do still better. And this teacher is having his way: the reports central recommendations are being implemented. So what is happening—and should researchers be nervous?
It was Gordon Brown who set the ball rolling a couple of years ago with his announcement that Medical Research Council and National Health Service research and development funds were to be combined in one ring fenced pot to be held jointly by the secretaries of state for health and (as was) trade and industry. Brown was
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.