top of page

Addressing the Environmental Impact of (Digital) Health Research Conversations with UK funders Summary Report

Reference Type: 

Report

MacFarlane, Miranda, and Gabrielle Samuel. 2022. “Addressing the Environmental Impact of (Digital) Health Research Conversations with UK Funders Summary Report.” London, United Kingdom: King’s College London. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/179062600/Summary_Report_of_funding_body_sustainability_workshop_July_2022.pdf

UK funding bodies outside of health research (for example the arts) have already moved to addressing the environmental impacts of the research and/or practices they fund (see P. 25-26). Progress for UK (health) research funding bodies has been more piecemeal. Nevertheless, many funding bodies have already aligned their strategic goals with environmental sustainability, developed position statements on the topic and/or trialled pilot projects that involved assessing the environmental impacts of research. To move towards shared practice across all funding bodies, we propose that UK (health) research funding bodies should (where relevant): 1. Recommend (and where possible, require) that researchers who they fund have certified their research labs using an accredited system such as LEAF or mygreenlabs. Also, putting pressure on HEIs to certify their labs using an environmental sustainability accredited system. Further information p.27-28. 2. Recommend that researchers using data-intensive methods use sustainably powered data centres, make their data accessible for re-use, and store their data in an environmentally sustainable way. Funding bodies should consider adding such requirements to mandatory data management plans. 3. Recommend researchers share equipment and materials where possible. 4. Require researchers to report the approximate environmental cost of their research in funding proposals and provide them with guidance to do so. There are many tools already available to help researchers. These need to be identified and shared. Several resources and links are provided at the end of this document. Furthermore, funding bodies can provide appropriate guidance to researchers through events, funding calls and webpage information. 5. Promote to researchers that while more data is required to provide evidence on the best approaches to reduce the environmental impacts of research, there are some easy wins in terms of reducing consumption. Financially incentivise re-use and recycling

4 6. Invest in research (a) that supports the development of metrics/tools to measure and then assess both carbon and other environmental impacts, (b) that has the goal of promoting environmental sustainability. 7. Engage in networks and develop consistency across funding bodies and the wider research community in terms of tools used and shared practices. e.g., share outcomes of research and pilot schemes; create a shared knowledge bank. Shared learning from within and beyond the R&I sector will avoid duplication of failed initiatives and repurpose successful ones to suit funding bodies’ context specific requirements. Considering how such shared understandings can be sustained over time is important. e.g., having a cross-body committee funded by a resource intensive funding body is a suggestion. 8. Understand that constraining research in terms of resources does not stifle innovation. Quite the contrary, often constraints drive innovation. 9. Use positive language to discuss the environmental impacts of research with researchers. Consider aligning environmental benefits with other benefits, such as cost or time efficiency. 10. Prioritise environmental sustainability equally to social (justice) and financial sustainability. When tensions emerge, careful consideration needs to be given to all three factors as much as possible.

Download Reference:

Search for the Publication In:

Formatted Reference:

bottom of page