The criteria used to choose institutions that will benefit from the UK¡¯s Global Talent Fund were ¡°both arbitrary and inconsistently applied¡±, according to an MP, who has called for further clarity on why the north of England missed out.

Attempts to attract leading researchers from abroad using the ?54 million fund were criticised last month after several research-intensive institutions were left out, with?questions raised about the formula used to select the 12 who did get a share of the money.

Chi Onwurah, chair of the House of Commons¡¯ Science, Innovation and Technology Committee,?, the UK¡¯s science minister, to demand answers.

¡°The process he set out¡­seems neither evidence-based nor geographically based nor even policy-based, but some kind of mishmash based on criteria which, as noted by the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, were both arbitrary and inconsistently applied,¡± Onwurah, who represents Newcastle upon Tyne central and west, said.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

¡°This approach seems to be at odds with the government¡¯s stated mission to boost opportunities in every part of the country, and I hope the minister will be able to provide more clarity and context.¡±

In earlier correspondence with the MP, Vallance explained the formula used to select the institutions, which included the universities of Bath, Birmingham, Cambridge, Oxford and Southampton.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

He writes that it was allocated ¡°based on quantitative indicators for certain criteria around research organisations¡¯ track records in attracting and retaining top international R&D talent¡±.

These included the amount of international funding they have received, the percentage of academic staff classed as international and their use of the global talent visa.

Vallance says the formula ¡°did not yield¡± institutions based on the north of England, instead pointing to a range of other innovation funding opportunities available for the region.

But in her letter in response, Onwurah highlights that the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Manchester, one of those not selected, has received €143 million (?124 million) of European Research Council funding across 83 projects since 2007, ¡°far more¡± than the universities of Southampton and Birmingham, which did receive the funding.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Manchester also has a similar percentage of international academic staff to Southampton, and a far higher absolute number, she notes.

Pressing Vallance to explain further, Onwurah asks why devolved nations?were prioritised ¨C with Cardiff 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ, Queen¡¯s 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ Belfast and the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Strathclyde all selected ¨C but not regions in the north of England.

She also asks what weighting was given to each of the indicators used in the formula and?urged the minister to outline the minimum thresholds institutions needed to meet to be selected.

If no northern university passed the assessment, Onwurah further asks for details on the government¡¯s plans to address this apparent disparity in regional research capability and skills.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

¡°It¡¯s disappointing that whilst the Global Talent Fund distribution recognises the role of devolved nations, it doesn¡¯t recognise the importance of regions within England,¡± Onwurah said.

¡°The fund misses out the north of England entirely, despite being home to many world-class research institutions that would benefit massively from extra help to attract top researchers from abroad.¡±

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

tom.williams@timeshighereduction.com