APPENDIX 68
Memorandum from the CBI
INTRODUCTION
The CBI welcomes this inquiry and is pleased
to provide written evidence to the Committee. The main points
of our submission are summarised below:
— HEFCE's funding formula places increasing
pressure on institutions with non-5* rated science departments
by encouraging vice-chancellors to focus funding on those departments
that will be rewarded by the RAE.
— While we support the creation and
fostering of recognised centres of research excellence there is
concern that the RAE does not recognise, and fails to support,
the breadth and depth of research talent that exists in the UK
research base—much of which offers critical expertise to
both large businesses and smaller companies.
— The issue which needs to be addressed
is how best to support a number of small leading-edge institutions
while retaining the vitality of the broader science base.
— The CBI believes there no reason
why teaching and research must be bound together. If the funding
formula can be changed accordingly, teaching-only science departments
could be viable. One proviso would be that links must be maintained
between teaching establishments and the research base.
— The highest priority should be on
forging a reputation for the UK as a place from which and in which
to do science and conduct innovation-related activity. The most
relevant perspective is therefore the outward facing one, in which
the UK's strengths and weaknesses, including the capacity and
vitality of its science base, are considered in a global sense.
— Strategic, long-term skills planning
founded on an evidence-based assessment of the UK's future skills
needs should provide the rationale for any intervention by government.
Limited intervention now is more desirable than wholesale intervention
at a later stage in an attempt to recover lost time, or to attempt
to rescue the science base. The cost of not getting it right now
will be to fail to deliver in the future.
1. The impact of HEFCE's research funding
formulae, as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings,
on the financial viability of university science departments
HEFCE's funding formula is placing increasing
pressure on institutions with non-5* rated science departments
by encouraging vice-chancellors to focus funding on those departments
that will be rewarded by the RAE. Departments that are perceived
to be the least financially viable in their own right are likely
to be considered for closure.
As the effects of the funding regime become
more acute it is likely that most science departments will also
look increasingly to high fee-paying international students to
supplement their income.
The combination of these factors will have two
particular consequences for the UK science base. First, it is
unlikely that the remaining 5/5* departments will be willing or
able to expand to provide the places formerly offered by departments
that are forced to close. This will lead to a diminution of national
provision in science subjects. Second, this overall reduction
will be compounded by further reductions in provision for UK students.
This on its own will have a significant impact on UK industry
as it is recognised that many international students will ultimately
return to their home countries, leading to an overall weakening
of the UK science base.
2. The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend
There is obvious merit in creating and fostering
recognised centres of research excellence to permit prestige institutions
to compete on a level footing with the world's best science departments.
However, such an effort must not compromise
the breadth and depth of research talent that exists in the UK
research base. Many departments or individuals which fall outside
of this "world class" categorisation offer niche, but
critical, expertise and have a proven ability to respond positively
to the needs of both large businesses and smaller companies. It
would be unrealistic to assume that this type of niche service
and level of responsiveness to industry would be provided by a
small handful of centres of excellence.
There are two further potential negative consequences
of concentration which must be guarded against: a reduction in
overall capacity in the science base and a lack of competition
between leading researchers.
Assuming that it is desirable to have some concentration
of expertise, the main issue to be addressed is how best to manage
the process of supporting a number of small leading-edge centres
of excellence while retaining the critical niche areas of excellence
that support industry so well.
An unreformed RAE is not the tool by which this
will be achieved. There are concerns that the process has already
begun as a consequence of the RAE funding formula and that expertise
on which industry relies is now being threatened.
3. The implications for university science
teaching of changes in the weightings given to science subjects
in the teaching funding formula
The likely consequence of a reduction in the
weightings will be to exacerbate the under-funding of science
departments. Any erosion of the differentials in the funding formula
will therefore further weaken the provision of science teaching
in the UK by making such courses less financially viable.
Under-funding limits the ability of departments
to offer quality facilities and curricula to students. A reduction
in the weightings given to science subjects will further diminish
the attractiveness of science courses to prospective students.
This situation will only serve to undermine the government's objective
of making the UK the location of choice for science and innovation
activity.
Under-funding of science teaching has traditionally
been offset by the diversion of quality related research income.
The trend of increasing selectivity of the RAE means that this
is a less viable option.
Given that the funding councils make additional
funding available to meet needs such as the maintenance of historical
buildings, we feel that argument could reasonably be made for
additional support for sciences and other subjects of national
importance.
4. 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 government's ambitions for 50% of school
leavers to attend university will make it very unlikely that teaching
can remain coupled with research in the long-term as the necessary
growth in teaching resources is unlikely to be matched by growth
in the level of support for research. It is almost inevitable,
therefore, that the conduct of research alongside teaching in
all science departments will have to be reviewed in the future.
In so doing, the optimal balance should be determined
by an evidence-based assessment of the UK's future skills needs
to define what level of teaching and research support is and will
be demanded by an innovation driven, globally competitive economy.
To limit the quantity and quality of either
by perpetuating the bond between teaching and research in academic
institutions might be to limit the chances of realising the government's
objective of making the UK the location of choice for innovation
activity.
Conducting under-graduate teaching and post-graduate
research in the same institution is undoubtedly a great attraction
to both staff and students. However, it is only at the very highest
academic level that teaching is significantly enhanced by research.
For the most part, the undergraduate curriculum need not be taught
in a research environment.
Teaching-only science departments should serve
to increase the capacity of the science base, producing more graduates
for industry and might also permit the quality of teaching in
UK universities to flourish.
The view of the CBI is that there is no reason
that teaching and research should always be bound together. If
the funding formula can be changed accordingly, teaching-only
science departments could be viable. However, one proviso would
be that links must be maintained between teaching establishments
and the research base.
5. The importance of maintaining a regional
capacity in university science teaching and research
The highest priority should be on forging a
reputation for the UK as a place from which and in which to do
science and conduct innovation-related activity. The most relevant
perspective is therefore the outward facing one, in which the
UK's strengths and weaknesses, including the capacity and vitality
of its science base, are considered in a global sense. In this
sense the regional focus is redundant—the UK does not need,
nor can it sustain, leading edge research institutions in every
discipline in every region of the country.
The focus should be on a building up and sustaining
a small number of national centres of excellence, supported by
high-quality broad capability within a discipline both to meet
the needs of industry and to ensure the future capacity of the
science base. Regionality is not the key issue: as we noted in
our response to Q2, maintaining the breadth and depth of UK talent
in the science base is of paramount importance.
There is an argument for maintaining regional
teaching capacity, in particular because of the pressures on student
finances created by the variable fees regime. However, it is our
belief that, where possible, full-time degree students will continue
to be mobile, attracted to the best universities—although
this must be monitored closely.
6. 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 continuing decline in the number and quality
of science graduates poses a significant threat to the UK's future
economic success. In order to realise the ambitious policy commitments
of the 10-year investment framework for science and innovation,
the government must assume greater responsibility for determining
investment priorities in higher education.
Strategic, long-term skills planning founded
on an evidence-based assessment of the UK's future skills needs
should provide the rationale for any interventions.
Already there is an evident need for greater
financial support for courses which are costly to run, such as
science courses, and within that provision a clear need for a
more strategic approach to developing and maintaining teaching
and research capacity. The present system sees funding spread
too thinly coupled with a failure to take account of strategic
priorities.
In the short to medium term there is a need
not only to ensure continued provision, but also to reverse the
decline in provision that has already reduced the capacity and
quality of the UK science base.
Limited intervention now in the form of strategic
skills planning to target resources is more desirable than wholesale
intervention at a later stage in an attempt to recover lost time,
or to attempt to rescue the science base. The cost of not getting
it right now will be to fail to deliver in the future.
February 2005
| 
