Annex A
IEE evidence to the House of Commons Science
and Technology Committee Inquiry: Strategic Science Provision
in Universities
THE HEFCE RESEARCH
FUNDING FORMULAE
1. The RAE gradings of departments or subjects
do not necessarily provide a true picture of the contribution
of the academic community to wealth creation and quality of life.
Successful innovations do not flow only from world-class research
departments. There are very many significant pockets of excellence
in non grade 5 departments, which frequently produce excellent
and internationally competitive PhDs as well as exploitable innovation.
There are also many pockets of speculative research that go on
to achieve great breakthroughs. However, the over emphasis on
publication quality and international reputation threatens to
significantly disadvantage research that has yet to generate published
material or other mechanisms for defining outcomes. In turn this
threatens to discourage rather than encourage those "blue
skies", "curiosity" and "adventurous"
research activities that should be positively encouraged and adequately
rewarded. There is a severe risk that the vital work of these
groups will be placed in jeopardy by a funding formulae that is
biased towards 5/5* departments. Indeed, the cut-off between 4
and 5 is now so great as to potentially jeopardise the financial
stability of whole departments. In essence, the current RAE formula
places at risk many of the departments which provide opportunities
for young/new researchers to develop their skills and confidence
and hence threatens to undermine the sustainability of the UK
research community.
2. An equally problematic issue is that,
not withstanding the headline figures showing real term increases
in funding, much of this is associated with special initiatives
with hypothecated funding, the consequence being that the core
grant is always under pressure. To enable the universities to
plan strategically for what is most important for them, their
students and their region, it is essential to ensure that the
core grant, especially the QR element, is maximised.
CONCENTRATION OF
RESEARCH INTO
FEWER DEPARTMENTS
3. Exploitable innovations spring up in
a vast range of institutions—the wider the (fertile) field
the greater the probability and scale of innovation in the UK.
In addition, innovation can arise wherever there are bright people
and these might not be concentrated only in 5/5* departments.
In fact, so called "lesser" universities and departments
are often the breeding ground for elite departments and provide
a natural succession for ambitious young researchers. In addition,
whilst the larger industrial companies could probably cope with
research departments "not on their doorsteps", small
and medium sized organisations tend to build relationships with
their local universities, often creating local spin-offs that
inject wealth creation into local areas. Concentrating research
into fewer departments would create deserts of research in many
areas of the country, and would adversely impact on local innovation
and wealth creation initiatives, and regional development plans.
We must maintain a regional and national capacity in university
science and engineering teaching and research, providing of course
that the research is internationally competitive. On the other
hand, in some subjects there are probably too many departments
vying for limited funding. Spreading funding too thinly tends
only to create mediocrity amongst many whilst we should be aiming
for excellence amongst a few. The question to be answered is "how
few is few?"
CHANGES IN
THE WEIGHTINGS
4. In November 2003 the IEE responded robustly
to the HEFCE consultation "Developing the Funding Method
for Teaching from 2004-05" which included a proposal to downrate
the funding of engineering courses from B (with a multiplying
ratio of 2) to B2 (with a ratio of 1.6) on the basis that engineering
courses do not need the large traditional labs. This proposal
appeared to be based firstly on a view that engineering departments
were receiving more funds than actually required and secondly
that simulation and modelling can replace high cost equipment.
5. There is clear evidence from the IEE's
accreditation visits that the assumptions that have led to the
proposal to downrate the funding for engineering course are fundamentally
flawed. However, generous cash allocations might seem, they are
simply insufficient to equip laboratories with equipment of the
type that graduates are likely to be confronted with when they
progress into industry.
6. One of the ways in which electrical and
electronic engineering departments have responded to the dilemma
of teaching with out of date equipment and insufficient resource
has been to introduce the use of computer simulations. There are
many advantages to simulating activities such as system design
using computer software, and of course there is the added advantage
that the computers can then be used for a wide range of additional
activities, unlike specialist laboratory equipment. However, reports
from our accreditation teams provide overwhelming evidence of
the value to students of properly equipped hands-on laboratories
and adequately resourced practical work, in terms of the potential
to gain real-world hands-on practical skills. We are of the opinion
that computer simulation should be supplementing practical work
and not replacing it.
7. Science, engineering and technology (SET)
subjects are already seriously disadvantaged and receive less
than 50% of the funding going into medicine. Furthermore what
is invariably misunderstood is that design is an essential component
of engineering. However, design can only be taught in small groups
and hence the staff-student ratios are intensive, and equipment
must be available for each group. Indeed, the resource demands
of engineering design are as equally intensive as those necessary
to cater for the "four around a bed" principal for medicine.
The scope and breadth of SET disciplines, and the infrastructure
required to support them is certainly no less than that required
for medicine. Therefore, if the UK believes that SET is vital
to the UK economy then sufficient resources should be made available
to see that it is adequately funded. If implemented the HEFCE
proposal would have had a very severe adverse impact on computer,
electrical and electronic engineering departments. The dire state
of the laboratory facilities in many, and some might say the majority,
of university engineering departments provides clear evidence
that these departments need their funding levels to be uprated.
OPTIMAL BALANCE—TEACHING/RESEARCH
8. We have received evidence that supports
two schools of thought. The first suggests that research provides
dynamism to teaching. Teaching-only units could appear to the
students as lacking in involvement with the wider academic community.
Postgraduate research students, through laboratory demonstrations
and other tutorial activities, contribute significantly to the
learning experience of undergraduates. In all departments some
research is necessary for curriculum richness, relevance and modernity,
and ultimately for credibility and viability. Furthermore, students
(particularly those from overseas) will select universities that
provide the best overall learning experience and there is clear
evidence that their selection decision is heavily weighted in
favour of those departments that have vibrant research activities
and access to the most current knowledge. On the other hand it
can be argued that provided lecturers keep abreast of research
in their areas and ensure their teaching reflects the most recent
science, then there is no overwhelming requirement for research
to be carried out in every institution. The two models can exist
side-by-side and would not only sustain the research base but
also allow some universities without research departments to remain
viable. For our science and engineering based industry to prosper
in a world market place, we need graduates who have the skills
and tools to use advanced knowledge to the benefit of their employers
and the general economy.
REGIONAL CAPACITY
9. Regional capacity has two elements. Firstly
there are the demands of the RDAs, and secondly the fact that
university departments "are where they are". Research
departments can contribute enormously to the evolution of regional
high technology ventures and to the development of regional policy,
providing a dynamic and secure future for the regions. RDAs and
Devolved Administrations (DA) need to tackle this in relation
to such issues as inward investment and the presence of (and plans
for the development of) science or engineering based multinational
companies and SMEs. However, whilst RDAs and DAs are well placed
to invest in established technologies and industries within their
communities of interest, they are not well placed to deal with
"new" or strategic science issues. Indeed a lesson was
learned in the area of nanotechnology where each RDA wanted its
own centre but with no coherent knowledge transfer or exploitation
strategy. This was resolved by putting in place a national strategy
driven from the Centre. The nanotechnology experience has clearly
demonstrated that the national science strategy must be planned
and coordinated centrally. However, even here regional requirements
must be considered and of course elements of this strategy could
be delivered regionally, but again in a planned manner. In essence
the RDAs must clearly understand what research they can reasonably
influence and fund, and what must be the domain of the research
councils or other central funding bodies. Similarly the research
councils must be aware of regional capacity needs and these should
be addressed in a planned manner rather than the ad hoc process
that currently exists.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
10. A two-part approach may be useful. Too
often, for example, chemistry is being taught by biology graduates
and too often the mathematics tuition is not provided at a sufficient
level to support pupils in (for instance) their instruction in
physics. Coupled with this, league tables for secondary schools
have encouraged schools to direct pupils into areas where high
grades will be achieved (at the expense of science). The secondary
school/college population needs to be much better encouraged into
science and technology—properly qualified teachers, more
intellectually exciting syllabus material and less of the entirely
practical "CDT" activities. Gripping advertising, such
as used by the armed forces in cinemas, could also be a possibility.
On the other hand, government intervention in the overall "size
and shape" of university departments needs a more careful
and coherent approach. What is required is a model that takes
a long-term view on the number of graduates and researchers required
to maintain and sustain the national science and innovation strategy.
Government intervention should therefore be based on measures
that ensure its long-term strategy for science and innovation
will be delivered. This intervention needs to be timely and involve
all stakeholders.
11. Industry also has a role to play, particularly
to ensure that critical infrastructure and industrial capabilities
can be sustained. An excellent example is the IEE's Power Academy.
Under this scheme the electrical power industry has established
its long-term requirement for graduates and has put in place arrangements
(including incentives) to assure the necessary flow of engineers.
Selected universities have agreed to run undergraduate courses
to meet these needs. Government should encourage other sectors
of industry to establish similar models, and indeed the manufacturing
sector is already considering this type of scheme.
| 
