APPENDIX 15
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
of Chemistry
1. The RSC welcomes the results of the Research
Assessment Exercise published in December 2001. The significant
increases in the proportion of chemistry research units rated
as 5 and 5* is a cause for celebration. In the 1992 exercise 7
departments out of 67 were rated as grade 5, in 1996 11 out of
59 were rated as 5 or 5*, and in 2001 19 out of 45 departments
were rated 5 or 5*. The proportion of researchers working in 5
or 5* departments has risen from 19.2 per cent in 1992 to 57.0
per cent in 2001. The RSC welcomes this increase. Furthermore
we feel strongly that the 2001 figures more accurately reflect
the true international standing of UK research in chemistry as
shown by bibliometric measures.
2. The RSC notes that the improvement in
the overall quality of the research in chemistry has taken place
against a background of improving quality in virtually all units
of assessment. In 1992, 22.0 percent of researchers worked in
grade 5 cost centres whilst in 2001 54.7 per cent of researchers
worked in 5 or 5* graded departments. The RSC suggests that part
of this improvement is real and part is due to an improvement
in the operation of the RAE, most especially in the way in which
judgements are made of what is international quality research.
We are not of the opinion that there has been significant grade
inflation in the operation of the RAE.
3. It is noteworthy that the total number
of chemistry cost centres entering the RAE has fallen by 18 since
1992. However, the number of chemistry researchers entered has
only fallen from 1388 to 1300 over the same time period. Taking
these data together we see that this reflects an increase in the
average size of chemistry departments. The data also indicate
that in chemistry high quality research is more easily achievable
in larger cost centres. This is understandable because many aspects
of chemistry research rely on expensive shared facilities that
may not be available, or rather may not be affordable, in smaller
research units. Also, chemistry has benefited from the infrastructure
funds that have been made available recently, and the improvement
in facilities that this has brought about will result in improvements
in both the quality of the research environment and in morale.
Chemistry also requires a high staff input into teaching and hence
individual teaching loads are higher in smaller units, which means
that the time available for research becomes too little for individuals
to make a significant impact.
4. The RSC notes that the reduction in the
number of chemistry research units entered in the 2001 RAE results
from a combination of two factors. These are the chemistry department
closures that have occurred (in both the new and old university
sectors) and the fact that some research groups have been entered
into units of assessment that are not defined as chemistry. Departments
that were unlikely to do well in the chemistry unit of assessment
did not enter the exercise—thus there were no departments
rated at grade 1 or 2 in 2001. The key issue to note here is that
on this basis there has been a 27 per cent reduction in the number
of universities recognised as having a coherent chemistry research
programme. Similar changes in the same direction have occurred
in physics.
5. The RSC is concerned that the 11 chemistry
research cost centres that were rated 3b and 3a in the 2001 exercise
may be vulnerable to closure. This possibility will become a reality
if funding council research monies are only assigned to 4, 5 and
5* departments. Whereas closure of all 3-rated departments will
not affect a very large number of academics (163 researchers work
in 3b and 3a rated chemistry departments), such a closure programme
would reduce the number of chemistry departments to 34. The RSC
believes that it is unlikely that universities would maintain
an undergraduate teaching programme in chemistry to honours degree
level in these vulnerable departments if there were essentially
no research activity.
6. Consequently, were there to be a further
round of chemistry department closures as a direct consequence
of the 2001 RAE exercise, then this could result in areas of the
country where is it would become difficult to study chemistry
at undergraduate level at all. Currently there is there is no
overall national strategy for the provision of undergraduate places.
The UK needs a better technologically educated population, but
whilst current policies do appear to be leading to an improvement
in research, there may be a concomitant "knock-on" effect
on the provision of undergraduate courses in chemistry. Similar
pressures are likely to be experienced by other physical science
and engineering disciplines.
7. The RSC accepts that relative to the
amount of money available for research through the funding councils
the direct cost of the RAE to HEFCE and the other funding councils
is small. However, these costs do exclude the costs that the universities
have to bear. In addition the administrative burden on universities
in terms of time is high. A reduction in that administrative burden
would be welcomed.
8. Nevertheless, the RSC believes that some
form research assessment should continue. Having gone down a path
of differential funding to reward high quality work, the UK cannot
afford to stick with the picture of research as revealed in 2001.
9. Proposals have been put forward that
perhaps 5 and 5* rated departments should not need again to submit
to an RAE exercise for a period of at least five years, or at
least that a "light touch" approach should be used next
time for these cost centres. Given the success of the RAE process
in improving the quality of UK research, any policy that does
not explicitly include top rated departments in the future would
in fact result in the majority of UK researchers not being included
in the exercise. This would almost certainly have undesirable
effects through reducing accountability for a large proportion
of the funds allocated as a result of the RAE. In addition, if
the next RAE exercise were not to be undertaken during (say) the
next ten years, then complacency amongst the top rated departments
would be the likely outcome, not to mention that currently lower
rated units would not be rewarded for improvements. The RSC believes
that running a full exercise in about seven years time could be
a good compromise. A smaller scale exercise could also be run
in four years' time, whereby lower rated departments only might
be assessed in an attempt to see if they yet justify a higher
grading.
10. It is our contention that the UK university
system has responded to the demand placed upon it by the UK government
that it should improve the quality of its research output. The
RSC also believes that UK universities' research is good value
for money and compares very well with our economic rivals. However,
the genuine improvements achieved must not be allowed to stagnate.
Using current algorithms and no increase in overall funding, it
is our understanding that the large increase in research quality
observed could paradoxically lead to some of these cost centres
receiving less research funds for the academic year 2002-03 than
2001-02. This would be a wholly unacceptable outcome, guaranteed
to produce cynicism and a lowering of morale. The RSC believes
strongly that departments currently rated 3b and 3a should receive
some research funding support. This is not an onerous request—in
fact, even now 3-rated departments receive only a small proportion
of the funds available for research through the Funding Councils.
However, because of the effects that even a small level of funding
to 3-level cost centres could have on support for higher rated
Departments, the RSC considers it is essential that the Science
and Technology Select Committee should argue for increases in
the overall levels of support funding for UK universities.
11. Currently much emphasis is placed on
the interfaces those chemistry shares with biology, health and
materials science. In order to continue to build these interfaces,
which will have a direct bearing on the health of the nation's
citizens and economy, the strengths identified by the RAE in core
chemistry should be built upon. The UK spends a relatively low
proportion of GDP on research in comparison to our G8 competitors.
University researchers in the UK have done well and the quality
has improved substantially. The corollary is that they deserve
enhanced funding in order to continue the improvements already
made in the quality and quantity of output.
January 2002
| 
