Annex C
Dear Vice Chancellor
I am writing as a former graduate in Chemistry
from the University of Exeter (BSc 1966, PhD 1969) about the effect
of the University's development plans on science teaching at the
University. I have no doubt that you have received many messages
about the impact of these plans on the Chemistry Department, including
from members of University Convocation like me, expressing sentiments
of sadness, distress and outrage—all of which I have felt
over the past few days. However, I hope that you will read on,
because this letter is not simply one expressing the sentiments
that you might expect.
I am a biochemist on the staff of the Department
of Biology at York. As you will also see from my letterhead, I
am Chair of the Biochemistry Board of Studies, so I have an interest
in, and some experience of, the interface between the two parent
disciplines which are the cause of present concern in Exeter.
I believe that I would be right in saying that the external view
of the Chemistry Department is that it is stronger in the classical
areas of the subject, rather than at the interface with Biology;
this is not to disparage the achievement of Professor Jenny Littlechild
in securing funding for her Unit. Likewise, the strengths of Biology
are seen very much at the organismal level, and beyond, rather
than at the molecular or medical levels. The have been recent
appointments that are seeking to bridge this interface, but I
think that the essential picture is valid.
As I understand the plans, it is envisaged that
the solution to the problems lies in a new School of Biosciences.
In my opinion, it is very optimistic (and misguided) to feel that
salvation lies in that direction. There is a lot of very mature
and established competition in the area of molecular biosciences,
an area that could not be presently described as secure in Exeter.
It will be extremely difficult to replace the bulk of the current
Chemistry staff with new staff (presumably of 5/5* quality, since
this is what it is all about) in time to achieve much by 2007.
Exeter would have to invest massively to achieve the necessary
staff recruitment, and there are real chances of failure. In addition,
student recruitment in the prospective area is likewise very competitive.
I speak with direct experience of both undergraduate and graduate
course recruitment. So the new staff, as well as looking to establish
their positions rapidly, would have to engage heavily in the business
of student recruitment, if they are to match the heroic efforts
of the present Chemistry staff in that direction.
In short, the proposed changes are very high
risk, in terms of staff appointments and student recruitment,
and they likely to be hugely expensive. What is being lost is
all too clear to see.
I hope that, before coming to its decision,
the University might consider that it can achieve a desirable
strengthening of the molecular and medical biomolecular science
area within the present departmental structures by routes that
are evolutionary—even if with a greater degree of pressure
on the two Departments to move in this direction. In my opinion,
the absence of a sound Department of Chemistry, with its vitally
important expertise across a range of molecular understanding,
is a major impediment to a University's efforts to maintain a
serious presence in science, even if, as it appears from the current
plan, this presence is viewed as being pre-eminently some kind
of adjunct to supporting medical science.
Many people will to be telling you about what
is about to be lost if this proposal goes ahead, and it is a grievous
loss. I am also really concerned that the loss will be to no purpose,
as the solution may not be a viable one. The University would
be better advised to take a longer term view, and invest at the
interface (less that would be needed in the proposed plan) so
that the University would have the benefit of the activities and
students across the range from chemistry through to the biological
sciences.
On a very related but more personal note. My
son visited the Chemistry Department at Exeter on a UCAS admissions
day last year. Of all the Universities that he visited (also Cambridge,
Durham, Nottingham, Bristol and Warwick) the Exeter admissions
experience stood out as being in a different league. I am not
surprised that admissions to the subject this year have risen
so dramatically. Your staff's efforts have been of a very high
order of commitment, and it must be deeply depressing that this
is the outcome for them. Of course, publicity for the University
policy has blown them out of the water this year. I hope that
solutions can be found that restore confidence in their subject
at Exeter for the future, and would urge you to consider these
seriously, even at this late stage. Molecular and medical bioscience
is needed at Exeter, but so is chemistry; and the one exists best
when supported by activity in the other.
I am forwarding copies of this letter to the
members of the Chemistry Department who are on Senate, as well
as to one or two other senior members of the Department.
Dr Jim Hoggett
|
