APPENDIX 73
Memorandum from Professor MacDonald, University
of Lancaster
The Committee is inviting evidence on the following
points:
1. The impact of HEFCE's research funding
formulae, as applied to RAE ratings, on the financial viability
of university science departments;
Grade 4 in the RAE means that departments include
international and national research. It does not indicate weak
research. But the funding model has potentially made many Grade
4 science departments non-viable. Universities have adopted a
variety of mechanisms to cope with this. For example, some departments
have been asked to take large student numbers. Research in others
has been cross-subsidised from financially more viable departments.
Neither approach has had the effect of improving the quality of
research.
2. The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend;
We feel that it is entirely wrong to restrict
science research to a small number of departments. It engenders
a "comfort" culture, which in turn can lead to fossilisation
in terms of new ideas and enthusiasm. Critically, it also restricts
mobility among young researchers. A disastrous consequence of
over-concentration might be that most students would attend universities
without research in science. If science research is focussed in
some universities and non-science research in others, then universities
identified as research-led in other areas would simply cut science
to maintain their research-led position.
Modern science makes greatest advances in interdisciplinary
work, both with other science departments and, increasingly, with
departments in the social and management sciences. We are not
advocating the unsustainable situation where all universities
have the full spectrum of the sciences. Rather, we see a situation
where each institution develops its preferred, integrated combination
of the natural-social-management sciences and can compete for
funds accordingly.
3. The implications for university science
teaching of changes in the weightings given to science subjects
in the teaching funding formula;
Our experience is mixed in relation to specific
disciplines. The extra funding given, for example, to Physics
has been helpful but has not been sufficient to make a real difference.
On the other hand, the reduced funding for Biological Sciences
and Environmental Sciences has had a deleterious effect on their
work. Rebanding Psychology puts serious constraints on laboratory-based
work.
More generally, we asked our Finance Office
to do an exercise on the effects of rebanding and reweighting
across different faculties. The exercise was based on applying
the rebanding retrospectively to 2003-04. The income lost for
our two science faculties together was £1.4 million, which
went to humanities, social sciences and management. This means
that the university received proportionally less funding than
before the rebanding and reweighting exercise. While HEFCE may
argue that it is up to the university to allocate its funds in
accordance with its strategic plans, this is somewhat disingenuous.
Universities have internal financial pressures and any shift in
income will ultimately be reflected in shifts in resource. Quite
simply, if less money comes in for science, less will be distributed
to science. This seems a retrograde step at a time when the government
is trying strenuously to strengthen the UK science research and
teaching base.
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;
As a research-led university, we are opposed
to teaching-only science departments. It is our experience that,
whereas non-research active staff can teach adequately at Year
1 (and maybe 2) level(s), they are usually unable to deliver cutting-edge
material to more advanced courses and are ill equipped to offer
relevant project work. Science thus becomes more restricted, there
tends to be more handed-down truth and a lowered ability to understand
how science is made.
Such a move could have far reaching consequences.
Teaching-only departments would depend entirely on student demand
and would have to put on courses to attract students, whatever
the national need or employability issues. Science teaching would
be two tier—with some students in non-local, research-led
science departments asking high grades, others in local, teaching-only
departments asking low grades.
5. The importance of maintaining a regional
capacity in university science teaching and research;
Students tend to attend relatively local universities.
They will move away from science if they cannot do science at
their local universities—except for high achievers who go
to the institutions asking for high grades. Industry, particularly
SMEs, uses expertise in local universities. Industry deserves/requires
more than "handed-down" knowledge. In fast-moving industries
the need is for up-to-date research, not for handed-down research.
Teaching-only departments can pass on knowledge made elsewhere,
but will not themselves be innovative enough to give industry
the science innovation edge.
There is, however, a strong case that regional
capacity can be built up through inter-university collaboration.
We have been working closely with other research-led universities
in the north-west to develop, where possible, complementary science
research programmes.
6. The extent to which the Government should
intervene to ensure continuing provision of subjects of national
or regional importance; and the mechanisms it should use for this
purpose.
Some recent Government initiatives, eg those
aimed at stimulating growth in Mathematics and Statistics, have
been very welcome and potentially successful. The introduction
of Full Economic Costing will encourage us to critically examine
our priorities and the efficacy of our financial models. More
problematical nationally is how to deal with the decline in such
essential subjects as physics, chemistry and engineering. As a
short-term measure, departments could be helped by direct Government
funding. Ultimately, however, their viability will depend on healthy
student recruitment and retention in the field. That requires
convincing schoolchildren of the value and personal benefits of
a carer in science and technology.
February 2005
| 
