I believe the answer is no, not in general. I construct a purported example below - I would scrutinize this carefully before believing it.
Assume that $K$ is algebraically closed.
From $R = F(a)$, with $a$ trascendental over $F$, we have that $\text{trdeg}_F(R) = 1$.
We also have, by assumption, that $\text{trdeg}_K(R) = 1$. By the fact that transcendence degree is additive in towers (Lemma 9.26.5 in the stacks project), we have that $\text{trdeg}_K(R) = \text{trdeg}_K(F) + \text{trdeg}_F(R)$, from which $\text{trdeg}_K(F) = 0$ follows.
Since an extension of transcendence degree $0$ is algebraic, this implies that $F$ is an algebraic extension of $K$. Since $K$ is algebraically closed, we have $K = F$.
Thus, $R = F(a) = K(a)$.
We recall that if $K\subset R$ is any field extension, and $a \in R$ is transcendental over $K$, then $K(a) \cong K(x)$, where $K(x)$ denotes the field of rational functions in formal variable $x$.
Now, if $R$ is the function field of any plane curve over $K$ that is not birational to $\mathbb{P}^1_k$, we have that $R = K(x,y)$, with $x$ transcendental over $K$ and $y$ algebraic over $K(x)$, but cannot have $R \cong K(x)$. An elliptic curve provides an example, for instance see this question.
Thus, we conclude that for such $R$, one cannot find a subfield $F$ with $R = F(a)$ and $a$ transcendental over $F$.
Now I am just wondering, if we don’t assume $K$ is algebraically closed, does this result hold?
– Lei Sep 01 '20 at 07:23