Research and Financial Relationships with the Arms Trade

The request was partially successful.

Dear Queen Mary, University of London,

I am writing to request information on the research and financial relationships the university holds in the following companies: BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, QinetiQ, Rolls-Royce, GKN, Cobham, Elbit Systems, Leonardo, L3 Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Thales, Boeing, General Dynamics, Airbus, United Technologies, Babcock International, Serco, Meggitt, AirTanker, Chemring and Ultra Electronics and any other arms companies.

Additionally, I am writing to request information on the contracts the university holds with the Ministry of Defence and equivalent bodies and armed forces of other countries.

Please include the following information:

1) For each of the above companies/bodies please list all the projects, industrial consultancy and industrial research that the university has received funding for over the past four academic years, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Details should be broken down by each university department, showing the company or government body who have provided funding, the start and end date of each contract, title of the project/research, and total funding of each project/research year-by-year for the past four academic years. Lastly, please list all external organisations and bodies that are also participants in the projects/research identified.

2) Does the university have, or is it working towards, an ethical research policy that excludes, or could exclude, the companies listed above?

Please provide the information in a machine readable form and spell out all acronyms.

Yours faithfully,

Jessica Poyner

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

We acknowledge receipt of your request and will respond as soon as we can.

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

FOI 2017/F241

 

Dear Jessica Poyner

 

Thank you for your email of 19^th July.

 

I am pleased to provide the following answers.

 

1. We hold some information relevant to this part of your request. We
believe that s.41 (information provided in confidence) and s.43 (prejudice
to commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 apply to
this information and inform you that we are extending the time for
compliance in order to consider further the public interest test with
respect to s.43(2). We aim to reply by this time next week to this part.

 

2. We have a policy on research integrity, which states that the Ethics of
Research Committee is responsible for advising on all  research 
policies,  to oversee  their  ethical  content,  and  to  provide  advice 
on  ethical  and related  issues  arising  from  their  implementation. 
This includes training of researchers, data management, research
misconduct, discrimination, confidentiality, and   acceptance   of
funding:
[1]http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/po...

 

In addition, our Ethical Investment Policy states that: It is important
that the College also ensures that sources of funding for educational or
research projects are consistent with the Ethical Investment Policy.

 

You can find a copy of our Ethical Investment Policy at
[2]http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/po...

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a
review of this decision.  To do this, please contact the College in
writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original
request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address
for correspondence.  You have 40 working days from receipt of this
communication to submit a review request.  When the review process has
been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information
Commissioner to intervene. Please see [3]www.ico.org.uk for details.

Yours sincerely

 

Paul Smallcombe

Records & Information Compliance Manager

References

Visible links
1. http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/po...
2. http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/po...
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

1 Attachment

Dear Jessica Poyner

 

Further to our initial reply of 17^th August, I am pleased to provide this
additional response. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

 

Please see the attached. In keeping with our Research Integrity Policy
(found here:
[1]http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/po...)
the Queen Mary Ethics of Research Committee oversees the ethical content
of our research projects.

 

This is not a complete list. This is because some of the research we
conduct is subject to contracts where we believe the details are exempt
from disclosure under s.41 (information provided in confidence) and s.43
(prejudice to commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000. Firstly, this information would have been provided to us from a
third party, the company or government agencies who provided the funding.
It is supplied and the projects are carried out subject to confidential
contractual clauses. The disclosure of this information would therefore
represent an unauthorised use to which the confider would object and from
which a detriment would result. We do not have the authority to release
this detail of information and to breach this may lead to legal action
and/or the breakdown of relationships with funders. The detriment is
explained further in support of our reliance on s.43(2): we believe
disclosure would be likely to prejudice our commercial interests. If we
release information in to the public domain in a way that breaks the
contractual agreements between the parties it could affect our ability to
retain or attract similar funding. Universities compete with each other
both nationally and internationally for research funding in a highly
competitive market. As a research-intensive university, Queen Mary
University of London needs to ensure it can maintain its competitiveness. 
Although there is a public interest in the transparency of public
authorities, the funding received and research conducted, we believe that
this is outweighed by the possibility of breaching the confidence of our
research partners and the possibility that this could affect our ability
to compete for research funds.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a
review of this decision.  To do this, please contact the College in
writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original
request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address
for correspondence.  You have 40 working days from receipt of this
communication to submit a review request.  When the review process has
been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information
Commissioner to intervene. Please see [2]www.ico.org.uk for details.

Yours sincerely

 

Paul Smallcombe

Records & Information Compliance Manager

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/po...
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/