Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
2 FEBRUARY 2005
PROFESSOR IAN
DIAMOND AND
MS HELEN
THORNE
Q60 Dr Iddon: I just want to pursue this
line. Ian, whose job is it to identify Higher Education skill
shortages in certain disciplines in this country? Is it RCUK's
job, is it HEFCE's job, or are there too many players involved?
Whose job is it to do that?
Professor Diamond: I think it
is exactly where we have been thus far, Brian, and that is it
is essential that there is joined-up-ness and I think it is essential
that we distinguish between emerging disciplines and established
disciplines. Where there is an emerging discipline that we actually
need to take forward in this country to ensure the health of the
research base, that is the Research Councils' job. However, it
is also the Research Councils' job to work with the Funding Councils
to ensure that the long-term future of some of the more established
disciplines is taken forward. One of the reasons why it is a mix
of the two is because of course the Research Councils fund an
awful lot of PhD students and that is where the youth team is
coming from. We absolutely must be ensuring that in the funding
of PhDs we are able to establish some priorities where necessary.
Equally with the early career fellowships, it will be necessary
to establish some of the priorities that we are seeing, for example,
in the exciting schemes between EPSRC and HEFCE, which are already
being announced and you will see some of which are established,
and through some of the work, for example, a lot of scholarships
which RCUK has been doing. So there is a role for both and the
only way it is successfully going to work is if there is a really
close conversation and strategy in these areas, and that is what
I can assure you is taking place.
Q61 Dr Iddon: Are you happy that subjects
like forensic science are breeding like mice in universities at
the moment and that that is attracting the students in science?
They are doing a good job in that sense, but the problem is that
the basic science departments are closing—Des mentioned
chemistry a moment ago—and you might like to know—and
I am sure you do know—that we are doing an investigation
into forensic science at the moment and the forensic scientists
and those responsible for managing it say that they would prefer
basic chemistry rather than graduates in forensic science.
Professor Diamond: That is a discussion
that we will observe with great interest and also looking forward,
I hope, to joining you again for a discussion on strategic subjects
in the future, and there it is going to be absolutely critical
that we do take a view on how many basic chemistry undergraduates
we need in this country, and that we are able to balance the key
elements of demand and supply. To be absolutely frank, we need
to move one step further back in the supply chain, sometimes,
and to make it clear that a chemistry undergraduate degree is
just the most exciting thing that 14 and 15 year olds interested
in science want to do. So I think there is a real clear role for
us not only to concentrate on what is going on in the university
sector, but to move back. We are very clear on that as RCUK, that
one of our roles will be to look into the schools to make a research
career something that our young people aged 14 or 15 think is
a really exciting thing, rather than permanently having to ask
their parents who do this what they do and when are they going
to get a real job?
Q62 Dr Iddon: You mentioned Charles Clarke's
letter outlining subjects of concern. Who did he consult before
he sent out that letter? Did he consult RCUK, for example?
Professor Diamond: I am not sure
that he did consult us on that particular letter, although we
have been in many, many discussions, both with the DfES and the
Funding Councils about strategic subjects and I am very pleased,
for example, that the list of subjects is not only Charles Clarke's
letter.
Q63 Chairman: Do you think the letter
was a political manoeuvre to buy off the crisis that was developing
in the closure of departments, which is of concern to many people?
Professor Diamond: I have no evidence.
Q64 Chairman: You could conceive of it
as a political gesture.
Professor Diamond: Ian, I have
no evidence to agree or disagree with that whatsoever.
Q65 Dr Iddon: Do you welcome HEFCE's
new power to halt, at least temporarily, departmental closures,
particularly on a regional basis and have you had any influence
or discussions with HEFCE on that topic?
Professor Diamond: I think it
is too early to say that we have had any discussions about that.
I am sure it will be an issue that will come up when we formally
meet with Howard Newby. Again, it is a much more complex issue
than simply the research base, which is and must be our primary
interest, and we have to think much more broadly about demand
and supply.
Q66 Dr Iddon: Are you worried about the
potential for erosion of the science base related to the Ten-Year
Strategy that the government is putting quite a lot of money into?
Professor Diamond: I think it
is important not just for the erosion of the science base but
for the erosion of the academic base in this country that we make
an academic career extremely exciting to our young people. I believe
that in our lifetimes an academic career has stopped being the
goal that it was when Ian probably thought that all his Christmases
had come together when he got his first lectureship or for me
when I got my first lectureship. Now, we have to re-establish
that, and that, I think—
Q67 Chairman: Where has it gone then,
Ian?
Professor Diamond: Where has it
gone?
Q68 Chairman: What went wrong?
Professor Diamond: Firstly my
view very strongly is that there was a general reduction in the
status and value given not only to academics in this country but
also the schoolteachers.
Q69 Chairman: So what are you doing to
put it right then?
Professor Diamond: I think what
we must do is to lobby and to work extremely hard to ensure that
an academic career is attractive. That includes both economic
input and at the bottom—
Q70 Chairman: You mean pay them decent
salaries?
Professor Diamond: I absolutely
agree, and at the bottom you know that we are trying very hard
to do that by lobbying and giving major increases in postgraduate
research stipends and in priority subjects where there are market
forces—
Q71 Chairman: What about short-term contracts?
Professor Diamond: I think short-term
contracts are something which we really have to get a grip on.
We have the Concordat, which is currently the subject of the current
Roberts' Review. Julia Goodfellow—
Q72 Chairman: That man is reviewing,
if it moves he reviews it.
Professor Diamond: It is great!
Did you see he has gone global?
Q73 Chairman: Yes, I know that now; he
is touring the world to advise on education systems of every country.
Professor Diamond: That is because
the Roberts' Committees are excellent, they come out with great
work and the Research Careers Committee, of which Julia Goodfellow
is the RCUK representative, I am sure will work in that way, and
Helen will be attending the next meeting.
Chairman: Do not go global Helen, just
get it sorted out here!
Q74 Dr Iddon: A £70 million strategic
fund has been made available. Has RCUK had any discussions with
the DGRC about where that money can be applied? It is my view
that perhaps most of it will go into the healthcare disciplines.
Professor Diamond: I do not have
any evidence of that whatsoever, Brian. I am conscious that every
Research Council has had a very helpful set of discussions with
Keith O'Nions about their priorities and that the allocation of
that money is what Keith O'Nions is, I am sure, with his team
currently spending every waking hour thinking of how to maximise
the benefit to the overall science base of so doing.
Q75 Mr Key: Could I come back to this
question of where you are trying to get to in all of this? I do
not think you have had this document, but the Office of Science
and Technology RCUK Review of 2004 of which the Ruffles' Review
was based, says under the heading of Objectives and Purpose, "No
one following the publication of the Quinquennial Review had much
of a clue as to what was required. Was it all a euphemism for
a single Research Council? Were the Research Councils to move
within the government rather than remaining independent and outside?
This would seem to be critical. It took a year to come to terms
with what was a highly qualified, ambiguous QQR Report, hence
the slow progress. Need to be clear on demarcation between strategy
and executive. It is not executive, it is a portal." And
on visibility it says, "Visibility is not as high as it should
be. Not too good. RCUK has little visibility in the academic world
where it is seen as a compromise between merging the Councils
and keeping their independence." I do not doubt your personal
commitment to all of this but has the government not got it all
wrong in expecting you to fulfil a mission which has been so fiercely
criticised?
Professor Diamond: I think it
is fair to say that if you set something up you do not expect
it to have visibility overnight, and I think it was entirely right
that there were reviews after one year and reviews after two years,
but I think you then have to look at the visibility over time.
I am sure that Helen might have some statistics which would perhaps
tell you where we are today, rather than that document.
Q76 Chairman: I would like to add to
that, Helen. What is your reason for being? Who are you, where
are you going and what is your objective? If you disappeared tomorrow
who would care? Not you personally!
Ms Thorne: Not me personally,
no, that is fine! I actually think that we have had a really important
role. The Quinquennial Review did acknowledge that Research Councils
were working together beforehand, but I think what RCUK has really
done is given that visibility—and I do mean internally and
externally; I think it has given real focus to help the Councils
work together; and I think it has accelerated the process, albeit
acknowledging, as Ian says, it does take time when you set things
up. Inevitably it is a bit more time consuming and resource intensive
when you are trying to do things as a group of eight organisations
rather than people doing it individually. But I think once you
have put that energy and that effort in and developed the common
working procedures and processes you have built trust between
the different organisation and the individuals, and I think that
is when you really can start delivering. And I think certainly
in the months since the report has been published we have continued
to forge ahead and I think the signs are very positive, and I
think we are going into this year with a real confidence that
we are going to start delivering much more on our objectives.
Professor Diamond: Could we just
give you the statistics? Just look at the hits on the website.
Helen, can you remind us?
Ms Thorne: At the start of 2003,
when we had not been around very long, we were getting about 1,000
hits a day on the RCUK website, which is not very many. The stats
for the last quarter are 22,000 a day; we are getting over four
million hits on our website every quarter now. So somebody knows
we are out there.
Q77 Mr Key: How many unique visits is
that, because that is the statistic that actually matters?
Ms Thorne: I do not have that
figure at my fingertips, but it is pretty impressive. Plus at
the moment I think we do recognise that what the Roberts' Review
said was right and that perhaps we do not have as much external
visibility as we would like. Right now we are reviewing our external
relations strategy, we are doing a perceptions audit and the initial
responses to that are very encouraging.
Q78 Mr Key: Could I ask you now about
your regional strategy because you do have one, you have engagement
with the Regional Development Agencies network and I am a bit
bothered about this. What is the extent of your engagement here
because we have heard in previous inquiries that the RDAs really
do not have the expertise to interface with the scientific community
and yet they have been given a role, for example, in nanotechnology.
What is the extent of your relationship with the RDAs and with
the regional agenda?
Ms Thorne: In terms of our engagement
with RDAs we have been working with them since RCUK was set up.
It was one of the priority groups of organisations that chief
executives felt that we needed to go out and work with, and we
do work with them through a whole range of different bodies, through
the Research-based Funders Forum, through the Technology Strategy
Board and through the Regional Innovation Science and Technology
Group. Also, Research Councils are represented on six of the Science
and Industry Councils that have been set up so far. So, we have
a whole range of different networks and it is a whole web of interactions,
really, both expertise and operational.
Professor Diamond: What RCUK does
is to ensure the joined-up-ness of that.
Q79 Chairman: Have you talked to Regional
Development Agencies at all? Do you know what they are? They have
a lot of scientific money for nanotechnology, for example.
Ms Thorne: Yes.
Professor Diamond: Exactly. We
do all the time talk with RDAs. Where it would be inappropriate
would be simply to say that we have an RCUK person who
dashes around between each RDA. So what our strategy is, as with
many other things, is to ensure that there is a Research Council
person on particular RDAs and that that person has, if you like,
a brief not only to speak to their own Research Council but to
make sure that there is contact elsewhere, and from my own Research
Council we have been contacted recently by other Research Councils
saying, "Look, I am on this particular RDA and we really
do need some social science input here," and that comes in.
| 
