IChemE Presidential Inquiry into chemical engineering research: early findings

Submissions recently closed on the call for evidence section of IChemE’s Presidential Inquiry into the UK’s chemical engineering research sector. IChemE Policy Officer Anastasiia Vasylenko reflects on some early findings

THE UK’s chemical engineering research sector continues to command international respect, with many within the field describing it as innovative, competitive and globally influential. At the same time, a clear message comes through the submissions: the current position should not be taken for granted. Many respondents warn that without addressing structural issues, the UK risks becoming a more difficult place for researchers to carry out their work.

Across submissions, one issue repeatedly arises: the UK is very good at generating knowledge but much less effective at translating it into real-world use – such as scaling up technologies or applying them in industry.

Problems with funding structures

How research funding is structured sits at the core of the system, and for many, this is where they see underlying issues.

Submissions consistently point to a funding landscape where success rates are low and administrative burdens are high. Preparing a research funding application requires a substantial investment and effort, often with little realistic chance of success, which is ultimately taken away from research itself.

This is especially discouraging for early-career researchers who face other entry barriers and limited opportunities for new or unconventional ideas. At the same time, contributors have a strong feeling that funding is concentrated within established groups and large consortia, reinforcing existing structures. As one respondent noted: “The support is excellent, but only for already formed, existing and vibrant networks.”

There is also a strong sense that the system rewards safer, incremental work with clear short-term outcomes rather than supporting more ambitious, longer-term capability-building.

The scaleup gap

The “valley of death” is often used to describe the gap between research and deployment which gives an impression for the issues associated with this phase of research development. There is broad agreement that the UK performs strongly at early-stage research, innovation and discovery. However, as one submission put it: “The UK is very good at generating innovation, but less effective at supporting the transition from research to deployment.”

A lack of pilot and demonstration facilities and other limited support at mid-Technology Readiness Level (TRL) stages, makes it hard for technologies to move forward. Even when solutions are technically sound, they often struggle to get past the early stages. As a consequence, participants noted that it is increasingly common for promising ideas not to fail outright, but simply never to progress. Over time, confidence from both industry and investors slowly evaporates.

Talent pipeline and career issues

The future of any industry depends on its people and the talent pipeline is seen as one of the most sensitive areas in the system. Many early- and mid-career researchers describe a landscape that is highly competitive but not always supportive. Building an independent research career remains challenging and many young researchers do not feel there is enough support or a clear path forward.

As discussed earlier, the time required to secure funding adds another layer of pressure, especially at early stages, where it can slow progress rather than enable it.

Respondents also highlight growing difficulties in attracting and retaining international researchers. Visa constraints and post-Brexit changes have made the system more complex and, in some cases, less attractive. This matters because the system depends on a steady flow of skills and expertise. There is one more long-term concern. Doctoral study is becoming less attractive to domestic students. Inside Higher Ed points to an overall decline in PhD enrolments in the UK, suggesting a broader shift across the system.

Fragmentation and lack of long-term strategy

Another theme that comes through in many submissions is the sense that the system feels patchwork; active and diverse but lacking coherence and continuity.

Research funding is typically organised in short cycles and project-based formats. While this supports activity in the short term, it makes it harder to build long-term capability or invest in infrastructure that takes time to develop.

There is also a sense that academia, industry and policy often operate on different timescales and priorities. This makes it harder to coordinate and sustain a clear long-term direction.

Summary

The UK remains strong in generating knowledge and innovation but there are clear signs the systems supporting the research sector needs to change.

Our investigation remains ongoing and we plan more bespoke engagement with the research community, including further interviews and roundtables, to build our understanding, analysis and recommendations.