APPENDIX 25
Memorandum from Professor Sir John Cadogan
I begin by observing that England is fortunate
that the Select Committee for Science and Technology exists, thus
providing a mechanism whereby the Executive can be challenged.
We are much deprived in this connection in Wales. There is there
no such mechanism of challenge to the Welsh Assembly Government
nor do we have a Chief Scientific Adviser or a Minister for Science
(indeed the word Science does not appear in the job description
of any member of the WAG Cabinet). However it does appear that,
for the moment, HEFCW follows the lead of HEFCE in financial allocation
policy, so, if there is an improvement in England following the
deliberations of the Committee, there is a possibility that Wales
may follow suit.
My submission bears only on Chemistry, although
in general my comments are valid for Physics and Engineering.
There are two main mechanisms whereby VCs presently
receive money from the Funding Councils. The first is by way of
the capitation fee and the second is via the bonuses flowing from
the RAE. In future they will also receive much increased contributions
to overheads form the Research Councils. Having received this
money they are then free to spend it as they please. In this connection
it is important to remember that if Government were to instruct
HEFCE to increase the capitation fee for the hard sciences, as
I argue below, VCs would still be free to commit it as they wished.
So David Sainsbury's belief that Government does not believe in
getting involved with an individual university's sovereign right
to run its own affairs would not be threatened.
The evidence is that a major cause of the problem
lies in the size of the capitation allocation per student. The
latest capitation figures which I have for Wales (which I am told
closely follow those for England) are as follows:
|
| £
|
|
| Science (no differentiation between subjects)
| 5,617 |
| Engineering | 6,182
|
| Maths IT | 4,674
|
| Social Sciences | 3,096
|
| Humanities | 3,917
|
| Medicine non clinical | 6,827
|
| Medicine clinical | 13,380
|
|
The figure for Chemistry is simply too small. Chemistry is
an expensive subject, just like Medicine. It consumes expensive
chemicals, it needs expensive equipment and technical support,
its library and information costs are massive in these days of
near exponential growth in scientific progress world wide. Importantly
it also needs lots of laboratory space, space which is much more
expensive than tutorial rooms for Law, say, particularly to meet
today's standards of health and safety. Many Universities have
a costing procedure which exacerbates the Chemistry problem by
charging for total space (which includes everything such as recreational
facilities, upkeep of gardens, administration, Vice Chancellor's
accommodation etc as well as the space actually occupied by particular
departments. Some Universities include the costs of loans for
capital projects). So Chemistry departments not only carry a large
charge for the space they actually occupy they also pay a big
proportion (if not the biggest) of the very large cost of the
of the overheads exemplified in parenthesis above which is charged
in direct ratio of the space they actually occupy. The experimental
evidence is there for all to see, the axe is falling on Chemistry
because this is an expensive subject. If it was not Chemistry
would not be dumped.
Professor Graham Richards is Head of the Department of Chemistry
of Oxford University, the biggest in the UK (no shortage of students
there!) and in my view one of top three Chemistry Departments
in Europe. He is on record as reporting that his Department is
in deficit on the current funding model! Far from there being
anything wrong with this Department everything is right, so the
bean counters must have the wrong model.
I now turn to the widespread canard that the reason Chemistry
departments are closing is that there are not enough student applications.
This was not the case at King's, London, Queen Mary, Exeter or
Swansea for example. The VC at Exeter was honest enough to say
that the reason was entirely based on unit of resource and not
on student numbers. The VC at Swansea said to me "I don't
want any Chemistry students , they are too expensive" echoing
his pro-VC who said "Law is cheap". In this connection
it is particularly of concern that the CEO of HEFCE, Sir Howard
Newby, said (THES 10 September 2004).
"Mr Clarke has said that there is no extra money, and,
in any case, throwing more resources to address a demand side
problem will achieve little: increasing the unit of resource will
not, on its own, produce a single extra chemistry student".
This is misleading, whether intentional or not, and is to
seriously miss the point. The issue is that the unit of resource
is too small causing VCs to close down departments where there
is no shortage of students. It is more profitable to go for cheap
students.
Double the unit of resource for Chemistry and VCs would soon
clamour for Chemistry students (whose numbers are on the increase
by the way). Of course Sir Howard and his colleagues would have
to cut the resource for others and that would open the flood gates
of wrath but I would expect them to be able to handle that. Lest
HEFCE should be tempted to stick to the line taken by its CEO,
the Secretary of State should step in now with a strong Letter
of Guidance. There are many precedents for such; I was on the
receiving end of several during my time at OST (Letters of Instruction
would be a better description). David Sainsbury has said that
he is very concerned about what is happening to Chemistry but
he doesn't control this budget. What about some joined up action
rather than words from Government? Some, with me, may think it
impossible to reconcile the fine words in The Ten Year Investment
in Science with what is happening on the ground in some of our
Universities. The future of the hard sciences and engineering
in this country is at the mercy of local bookkeeping sheltering
under the mantle of university autonomy. National and regional
needs are being ignored.
Apart from false arguments based on so called lack of demand
and the sound arguments based on the central enabling role of
Chemistry research, it is essential to remember that Chemistry
teaching is vital to many other disciplines now that Biology Medicine
and Materials are becoming molecularly based. It is no solution
to let these disciplines teach their own Chemistry—just
look at what has happened in the schools where so much Chemistry,
Physics and Mathematics are being taught by Biologists. Take away
Chemistry, the main language of so much of the NEW FRONTIER science,
from a University and other disciplines also crucial to the future
of the nation will suffer. This is in marked contrast to others
that we can all name, some of which are not disciplines at all
but are beloved of some VCs for their low cost.
And what is the message to the young in the schools when
they see Chemistry being dumped—that Chemistry is important?
Rarely has there been such a serious national problem for
which there is so simple a solution—instruct HEFCE to significantly
increase the unit of resource for the hard sciences, particularly
Chemistry.
January 2005
|
