Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report


2  Proposed changes to chemistry provision at Sussex

Development of proposal

6. The proposal to close the chemistry department at the University of Sussex was announced in a press notice, released on 12 March 2006, entitled Development of biosciences and changes to chemistry provision. The press notice describes the changes in life science provision as follows:

"New posts are proposed for biochemistry and genome research, and biology and environmental science […] The plans in biosciences involve retaining organic chemistry and chemical biology—areas of chemistry where Sussex is strong. Sussex would no longer offer straight chemistry degrees, but would continue to run programmes in chemical biology, which is a leading area of research and development. From 2007 the department would be renamed the Department of Chemical Biology".[7]

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alasdair Smith, explained in oral evidence that the genesis of the proposals lay in a new strategic planning process at the University:

"We had at the meetings of the Senate and Council at the end of December wide ranging, strategic discussions […] From January onwards, initially in my executive team of half a dozen or so, […] we spent three days looking in great detail at all the areas of university provision, deciding at this crucial point in time as we come up towards the next research assessment exercise, to the new fee regime in 2006, to the introduction of full economic costing of research, which were the areas of the University's activity that we should give the highest priority to in making academic investment and therefore which were areas that we needed to cut back on to create room for investing in strong areas".[8]

The resulting plans for the future academic profile of the University—including the proposal to refocus chemistry—were then presented to, and approved by, the new Strategy and Resources Committee, including representatives of Council and Senate, Deans and the President of the Student Union, on 10 March. The press notice outlining these proposed changes was released two days later.[9] The proposals were then considered by the University Senate on 17 March.

7. Following the Senate meeting, Sussex issued a further press notice stating that although the Senate had endorsed the proposals for the strategic direction of "investing in excellence", it had also "proposed to Council that Sussex should hold off making decisions on plans in relation to the School of Life Sciences—including the planned additional investment in Biochemistry, Biology and Environmental Science, Psychology, Genome, and refocusing the Department of Chemistry".[10] The press notice further stated that "the Dean of Life Sciences will now be working with his academic colleagues, in consultation with staff and students, and with external advice, to look urgently at and review all the options for the way forward across the Life Sciences, which will be presented to future meetings of Senate and Council". The timescale for the review was 6-7 weeks. The sequence of events is summarised in Box 1.Box 1: Overview of the development of the proposal to refocus chemistry at Sussex
December 2005: New approach to strategic planning approved by the University's Senate and Council. Deans for each school working with Vice-Chancellor's Executive Group start to create academic development plans in line with the new planning process.

2 March 2006: Sussex University informs HEFCE of its proposals.

10 March 2006: Plans are presented to, and approved by, the new Strategy and Resources Committee. Plans included additional investment in biosciences and 'refocusing' of chemistry.

17 March 2006: Plans are presented to the Senate. The Senate endorses the overall proposals for the new strategic direction but proposes that any decision on changes to the School of Life Sciences be postponed, including refocusing of chemistry. Dean of Life Sciences commences 6-7 week review to explore all the alternatives. Special meeting of Senate to be called at the start of the new academic term.

4 May 2006: Strategy and Resources Committee to meet to consider the results of the Dean of Life Sciences' review.

12 May 2006: Planned meeting of the Senate to consider the review.

15 May 2006: Planned meeting of the Council to consider the review.

Rationale behind proposal

8. In its press notice of 12 March, the University made the following observations in support of the proposed changes to chemistry provision:

The University concluded with the assertion that "Overall, retaining a chemistry department in its present form for the long-term would cost an extra £750k, with no guarantee of long-term success in recruitment or research activity".[13] These arguments are considered further below.

STUDENT DEMAND

9. Our predecessor Committee's Report Strategic Science Provision in English Universities highlighted the pivotal role of student demand in securing strategic provision of STEM subjects, noting that "Only by addressing the root cause of the decline in student numbers can further departmental closures be prevented".[14] The proposed changes to chemistry provision at Sussex need to be seen in the context of a number of other departmental closures in England and Wales in past years (see Box 2). These closures have coincided with a significant decline in the number of students graduating with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, which fell by 27 per cent between 1994-95 and 2001-02, and by a further 7 per cent between 2002-03 and 2004-05.[15]Box 2: Some recent closures of chemistry departments
University RAE rating in 2001
Exeter4
King's, London4
Queen Mary, London 3a
Swansea, Wales4

10. Professor Smith was candid about the influence of student demand on strategic decision making, telling us that because "universities have to look at the provision for student demand", no STEM department at any university could be considered "safe".[16] However, despite the national trends, the numbers applying to study chemistry at Sussex have been on the increase. Dr Gerry Lawless, Head of Chemistry at the University, told us that not only were the total numbers rising, student quality had remained strong:

    "Applications for chemistry have increased 45 per cent from 2003 to 2004, 27 per cent for 2005 and 40 per cent for 2006. Our market share of the national applications for chemistry has increased from 1.2 to 1.4 to now 1.8 per cent. Overall, our university only has a market share of 0.8 per cent. We are attracting high quality chemists to Sussex".[17]

Yet the University memorandum was sceptical about the sustainability of this trend, stating: "While applications have shown a welcome growth this year […] there is no guarantee this would lead to sustained and viable numbers in the department".[18] The declining popularity of chemistry at undergraduate level is without doubt a national concern. The department of chemistry at the University of Sussex should be applauded for countering this trend and securing an increase in the numbers of students applying to study chemistry. It is disappointing that the University has taken such a negative view of the sustainability of this achievement, rather than seeking to build on this success.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

11. As indicated above, the press notice announcing the proposed changes implied that the financial situation of the chemistry department played a role in undermining its viability, particularly when forecast income from the 2008 RAE was taken into account. Despite this, both Professor Smith and Dr Lawless were adamant that the decision to refocus chemistry was not taken on the basis of financial expediency. Professor Smith admitted that the University's financial situation was "difficult" but insisted that "the proposals for chemistry are not driven by the overall financial position of the university".[19] Dr Lawless also told us:

    "This is not a financially driven proposal. Of the five departments of life science, we have one of the smallest deficits, circa 80K. The others deficits range from 120K to 300K".[20]

However, financial performance is cited in the University's memorandum as one of the factors underpinning decisions made within the new strategic planning framework. The University's efforts to downplay the part played by financial considerations in the decision to refocus chemistry are at odds with the importance it has attached to the expected income of the department in the next RAE. Although the decision may ultimately be strategic, it is one that is clearly rooted in financial concerns. The University need not have sought to deny this reality.

12. HEFCE provides universities with funding for research, so-called QR (quality related) funding awarded on the basis of RAE performance, and for teaching, calculated on the basis of institutional expenditure. HEFCE funding is allocated to universities as a block grant; Vice-Chancellors are free to administer the funds as they see fit, which means, for example, that QR income earned by a high-scoring department may be used to subsidise a department with a lower RAE score. During this inquiry, we heard assertions that financial decisions taken by the University regarding income earned by the chemistry department had played a significant role in weakening the department. Dr Lawless described the department as "under-resourced" and argued that if the full QR grant won by chemistry in the 2001 RAE had been available to the department, the department would have been able to make appointments to replace the staff who had left, thereby avoiding the anticipated loss in QR income due to the smaller size of the department.[21],[22] Professor Smith refuted this, saying: "I do not accept that QR grant has been taken away from chemistry".[23] Similar accusations were made about appropriation by the University of income earned by the chemistry department from intellectual property (IP). Accounts provided to us in confidence by the University indicate that the department is likely to generate around £100,000 over two years, divided between the department and University according to a set formula. We have not sought to resolve the extent of any redistribution of funding at Sussex—these are decisions for the University. The adequacy of existing funding arrangements to support the provision of expensive science subjects has been questioned by our predecessor Committee and remains unresolved.[24] Irrespective of the decisions at Sussex and the wider arguments, the fact remains that Vice-Chancellors are fully entitled to use income from one department to subsidise another—a principle that continues to play a role in the demise of STEM departments.

13. In view of the significance being attached to the small size of the department, we asked Professor Smith why he had not taken steps to make funds available for the recruitment of new staff to replace the key staff who had retired or moved elsewhere. He told us: "I did not go out to get others because it is very hard, looking across the full range of provision in the institution, to justify replacing staff in a department that is recruiting 20 undergraduate students a year when I have a Department of English that is recruiting 300 students a year, and where the students and their parents are complaining about staff/student ratios of 25:1 or 30:1".[25] Financial management has played a role in the declining fortunes of chemistry at Sussex—historical levels of investment in the department will inevitably have impacted on its attractiveness to both staff and students. The small size of the department (in terms of both faculty and students) is now singled out as a significant factor in determining its future. However, responsibility for the shrinkage of the department rests squarely with the Vice-Chancellor, who has made no attempt to replace key staff.

14. We were interested to note that Professor Smith was far from enthusiastic at the prospect of the RAE being replaced after 2008 by a metrics-based quality assessment process, as mooted in the 2006 Budget. He told us:

    "I believe a switch from a QR system based on RAE to a QR system based on metrics is likely to be systematically unfavourable to institutions like Sussex. That is, relatively small, research based universities".[26]

Whilst the Government's decision to conduct a fundamental review of the RAE is welcome, it is essential that the review involves thorough and detailed consideration of the potential implications of any replacement system, including any unintended effects on the sustainability of STEM departments. Professor Smith also agreed that the introduction of full economic costing was "an issue" in terms of its potential impact on commercial research contracts.[27] We urge the Government to be proactive in evaluating the impacts of the introduction of full economic costing to ensure that emerging problems are identified at an early stage.

Chemical biology

15. A key element of the proposed changes to chemistry provision was the creation of a small department of chemical biology. The University described chemical biology as "a leading area of development at the interface between chemistry and biology where exciting new opportunities exist" and told us that by focussing on this area it would be playing to its strengths. However, it transpired that the concept of a chemical biology department was the main reason for the Senate's deferral of the decision on the proposed changes to the School of Life Sciences. Professor Smith told us:

Dr Lawless was also highly critical of the idea, saying that he had sought "a lot of external reports on the proposed refocusing" and "without exception, they all thought this was a crazy idea, absolute madness to propose that you could have a department of chemical biology in the absence of a chemistry programme".[29] According to Dr Lawless, there was "not a single example of such a department that merely delivers chemical biology".[30]

16. In oral evidence on 2 November 2005, the then Chief Executive of HEFCE, Sir Howard Newby, told us: "my personal view, which is perhaps a slightly old-fashioned one, is that I believe students need to be grounded in a discipline before they can then be multi-disciplinary".[31] We agree. Success in interdisciplinary subjects relies on foundations laid by strong core disciplines. The idea that chemistry can be replaced with a stand-alone chemical biology department is highly dubious and certainly unsupported by any evidence. Our predecessor Committee also expressed concern in its Reports Strategic Science Provision in English Universities and Forensic Science on Trial about the move away from the core sciences to more "student-friendly" courses such as forensic science.[32] Dr Lawless was sceptical about their value too:

    "We have had numerous meetings with the RSC [Royal Society of Chemistry], with UK pharmaceutical groups, and there is a clear message out there. What they require are chemists, chemists with maybe an interest in chemical biology".[33]

We have seen very limited evidence of employer demand for non-core STEM subjects and students embarking on such courses may be unaware of the careers for which these degrees will realistically equip them. By working together with the Sector Skills Councils, Regional Development Agencies, learned societies, employers, careers advisory services and universities, HEFCE could play a useful role, both in leveraging student interest in non-core STEM subjects to promote the uptake of core STEM subjects, and in ensuring that the employment prospects associated with different STEM degrees are communicated to prospective students.

Consultation and communication

17. Another target of criticism in the development of the proposals to refocus chemistry was the University's approach to consultation and communication. Professor Smith admitted to us in oral evidence that "there was a very limited amount of consultation with the Department of Chemistry until we went public with the proposals at the very beginning of March" so that although "there was very full consultation" with the Dean of Life Sciences, "it was at quite a late stage that people like Gerry, the head of the Department, were brought into the discussion". [34] The Vice-Chancellor argued that this was a necessary precaution to prevent the proposals from being leaked to the press: "we needed to control very carefully the early stage of discussion so that we could have sensible discussions in private before the discussion went public".[35]

18. Despite the Vice-Chancellor's reticence about publicity, a press notice describing the proposed changes was issued shortly after the Strategy and Resources Committee meeting on 10 March[36]. Letters containing this information were also sent to students who had received offers to study chemistry at Sussex. Professor Smith described the resulting "huge wave of publicity" that greeted the University's proposals as "unfortunate", conceding to that it would "be harder to roll back from" the plans as a result of this.[37], [38] Although the University's desire to ensure that anyone affected by the proposed changes was informed directly is understandable, the decision to make public proposals that had not even been approved by the Senate made it look as though the changes in chemistry provision were inevitable. Moreover, there was a high risk that this could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, by catalysing the departure of staff in the department and putting off prospective students.

19. It seems that the lack of consultation undertaken during the development of the proposals was also a factor in the Senate's decision to order further reviews of the options for changes to chemistry provision. Professor Smith was quoted as saying after the Senate meeting on 17 March:

    "there is a trade-off between giving plenty of time for open discussions and having a long period of planning blight during which staff and prospective students are unsure what is going to happen. We have [now] decided we do need a longer period".[39]

In addition, the Dean of Life Sciences was quoted as saying the proposals which he had played a major part in developing were "intellectually unviable" and "unworkable"—admissions which can only enhance the impression that the process of developing the proposals was fundamentally flawed.

20. The detrimental consequences of the lack consultation were highlighted by Dr Lawless. Firstly, he drew attention to the lack of expert input regarding the idea of a chemical biology department:

    "My first knowledge that this process was underway was when the Dean invited me to his office but, under the constraints of secrecy, asked me if I would enter discussions without having any expertise from the chemical biologists in my department. I thought it was unwise to discuss the future of a chemical biology department without having any external input from chemical biologists".[40]

Secondly, Dr Lawless noted that proper involvement of his department at an earlier stage could have obviated the need to re-evaluate the options following the Senate meeting: "if we had been allowed during the last six months to make some of these proposals, we could have come up with a very financially viable plan to save chemistry at Sussex, but we were not given the opportunity". [41] The fact that the Senate demanded a re-evaluation of the options for changes to the School of Life Sciences must be taken as an admission that the proposals presented to them had not been properly thought through, and as a reflection of the lack of consultation undertaken during their development. Indeed, we find it extraordinary that the Head of the department concerned was not consulted on the proposals at the outset and no less extraordinary that the proposals could be so criticised by the Dean of Life Sciences, a principal contributor. In our view, the process followed by the University's senior administration was seriously flawed.

Future of department

21. Looking forward, Professor Smith explained that the review being undertaken by the Dean of Life Sciences was exploring three main options:

We were encouraged to hear that neither Professor Smith nor Dr Lawless felt that closure was inevitable. Indeed, Dr Lawless was optimistic that the publicity surrounding the proposed changes could be used to good effect: "I also think it is very possible to use the media to turn this around and, by making some very senior appointments in chemistry at no expense to the university, to confirm that chemistry is alive and well and has a future in Sussex, simply because we have had so much media attention".[43]

22. Professor Smith and Dr Lawless diverged, however, on the significance of chemistry to the University. Professor Smith told us: "I would prefer Sussex to have a chemistry department but I do not accept the position that a serious science university must have a chemistry department".[44] By contrast, Dr Lawless told us: "I completely reject that", emphasising the interdependence of STEM subjects and the significance of chemistry for medicine:

    "People who are applying to study a degree in biochemistry want a first class degree delivered to them. That must involve some chemistry. If we consider the pre-med programme, a very lucrative programme at Sussex, 40 per cent of that programme is delivered by chemistry".[45]

Dr Lawless also pointed out the contribution made by the chemistry department to teacher training, telling us that the department had the potential to deliver 300 chemistry teachers over a five year period—a significant consideration in light of the Government's commitment to "step up recruitment, retraining and retention" of specialist teachers in STEM subjects so that by 2014 "31 per cent of science teachers have a chemistry specialism". [46],[47] We have not sought to test the reliability of these figures.

23. Ultimately, it is up to the University to decide the fate of its chemistry department. However, the University would be advised to consider whether its future as a serious science university would be sustainable without this department. The Vice-Chancellor and his colleagues would also be well advised to take account of the Government's announced intention to enhance STEM provision. Universities have every right to choose whether and how to invest in STEM subjects, but these individual choices in turn impact on regional and national provision. Given the Government's current approach to higher education policy, we regret that further closures of STEM departments will be inevitable. We address this subject, and HEFCE's role in safeguarding strategic science provision, in the next chapter.


7   http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media546.shtml  Back

8   Q 1 Back

9   http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media546.shtml Back

10   http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media547.shtml  Back

11   The figures for undergraduate chemistry intake at Sussex are as follows: 2000-01, 43; 2001-02, 29; 2002-03, 35; 2003-04, 23; 2004-05, 21; 2005-06, 21. Back

12   http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media546.shtml Back

13   http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media546.shtml Back

14   HC (2004-05) 220-I, p 3 Back

15   HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Education and Skills, Department of Health, Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps, March 2006, para 6.12 Back

16   Q 34 Back

17   Q 57 Back

18   Ev 17 Back

19   Q 74 Back

20   Q 75 Back

21   Q 12 Back

22   Q 82 Back

23   Q 85 Back

24   HC (2004-05) 220-I, chapter 5 Back

25   Q 7 Back

26   Q 83 Back

27   Q 73 Back

28   Q 23 Back

29   Q 26 Back

30   Q 95 Back

31   Q 12 Back

32   HC (2004-05) 220-I; Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Forensic Science on Trial, Session 2004-05, HC 96-I Back

33   Q 95 Back

34   Q 3 Back

35   Q 3 Back

36   http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media546.shtml  Back

37   Q 19 Back

38   Q 18 Back

39   "Chemistry closure 'unviable'", Times Higher Education Supplement, 24 March 2006 Back

40   Q 13 Back

41   Q 29 Back

42   Q 27 Back

43   Q 29 Back

44   Q 38 Back

45   Q 39 Back

46   Q 40 Back

47   HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Education and Skills, Department of Health, Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps, March 2006, para 6.13 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 4 May 2006