APPENDIX 57
Memorandum from Professor Keith Burnett,
Oxford University
The impact of HEFCE's research funding formulae,
as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings, on the financial
viability of university science departments:
The current funding provided by the combination
of HEFCE and Research Councils is insufficient, as has been documented
in several studies. The research funding is concentrated in the
top-ranked departments, but even 5* science departments at Oxford
are feeling financial strain, while those with slightly lower
rankings are increasingly facing closure.
We hope that fEC will help, but there is a critical
period as it is phased in, and financial constraints are so tight
that more departments may be closed or irrevocably damaged by
cuts in this interim period.
Experimental research is particularly hard hit
by the HEFCE formulae, as it requires more infrastructure (space,
meeting of health and safety regulations, etc) than does theoretical
work. The move towards greater transparency means that management
techniques such as charging "rent" for space are increasingly
being used. Future advances that will contribute strongly to the
UK economy will depend on both experimental and theoretical work
and their interaction. Experimental work is recognised as a key
part of the training of physicists.
A country-wide survey of the costs of "sciences"
needs to be careful to include a balance of experimental and theoretical
work to avoid masking the cost of experimental work.
The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend:
The smallness of the small number is very controversial
across the community. However, it is clear that there needs to
be some possibility for supporting excellence. Now even excellent
departments are struggling to survive and maintain their excellence.
The implications for university science teaching
of changes in the weightings given to science subjects in the
teaching funding formula:
The overall support per science student has
steadily decreased in real terms, with the result that science
teaching has become seriously under-funded. Now the "enhancement"
for the cost of teaching experimental subjects is being decreased,
whereas experimental science is becoming increasingly complex.
The combination inevitably forces a move to minimal training of
students in modern experimental techniques. This cannot be good
for the future of UK scientific research nor its science-based
industry.
Furthermore the overall shortage of funding
for university science (teaching plus research) is demoralising
UK academic staff to an extent that must also act to decrease
the number of students deciding to study science.
The optimal balance between teaching and research
provision in universities, giving particular consideration to
the desirability and financial viability of teaching-only science
departments:
The United States is an example of a successful
mixture of types of institutions. There are several highly esteemed
undergraduate colleges (eg Dartmouth, Swarthmore) where faculty
may conduct some research in the summers, but the emphasis is
on teaching. Most universities do both teaching and research,
with a range of weightings. The US example leads us to think that
there is no one "optimum" and it is preferable to let
each institution determine its own balance. The current UK finding
system doesn't seem to allow such a choice, with departments dependent
on research income for survival.
The importance of maintaining a regional capacity
in university science teaching and research:
The increasing personal costs of an undergraduate
education will lead more and more undergraduates to wish to go
to a nearby university and save money by living at home. Thus
the importance of maintaining a geographical distribution will
increase.
The extent to which the Government should intervene
to ensure continuing provision of subjects of strategic national
or regional importance; and the mechanisms it should use for this
purpose:
The fact that some departments have already
closed is very alarming and should be treated as probable evidence
that many others are endangered. Even those not faced with imminent
closure will be losing out to departments in other countries in
the international competition for the best faculty members in
science. This is particularly true in experimental fields where
the provision of research infrastructure is crucially important.
At least an interim intervention is urgently
needed until fEC is fully implemented and its benefits are felt
in the universities.
In addition, a realistic solution to the problem
of the missing part of fEC for charity and EU funding is required.
The principle of transparency in use of funds argues against using
funding from one area to subsidise work in other areas. Charity
support is not equally distributed over all sciences, but is concentrated
in medical areas. It is good that universities have some freedom
in deciding how to use their HEFCE income for strategic developments,
but it should not be the norm that QR income "earned"
by research excellence for example in a physics department goes
to fund the missing fEC for charity-funded medical research. The
logical consequence of transparency is that if the UK government
wants to get the benefit of charity and EU funding, it should
either work with those bodies to get them to pay the full fEC,
or it should decide to provide explicit funds to top-up charity
and EU grants.
January 2005
| 
