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:
"One would be to maintain a broad based
chemistry department [
] that had the prospect of developing
back to the absolutely first rate chemistry department. The second
option would be closure [
] That is, accepting that the chemical
biology department would not work. The third option is to look
at some intermediate option where chemistry at Sussex is refocused,
concentrates on the relationship between chemistry and the other
biomedical, biological sciences and where a smaller scale of operation
can operate with excellence in teaching and research and recruit
an adequate number of students to make it viable".[42]
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 perioda 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