Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
PROFESSOR MARTIN
SHIRLEY, PROFESSOR
IAN CRUTE
AND PROFESSOR
CHRIS POLLOCK
1 NOVEMBER 2006
Q140 Dr Harris: When people leave
your institutes, as they would do normally and particularly with
this wave of redundancies, do you have any idea where they go?
Do you set up any monitoring system to find out whether they are
even still in science? That might be useful to the country.
Professor Pollock: We know those
numbers of staff who have been prepared to tell us. It works out
that roughly 50% get jobs within science elsewhere and 50% of
people, mainly the older staff, effectively have taken this as
an opportunity for early retirement.
Q141 Dr Harris: You have a rigorous
system for checking where they go.
Professor Pollock: We have a system.
Q142 Chairman: Should you have a
rigorous system?
Professor Pollock: It would be
very difficult to have a rigorous system because I do not think
the staff are obligated to tell. If they take a three-month gap
and then get a job—which has happened in at least two cases—they
are not obliged to tell us. It would be information that would
be extremely useful to have on a corporate scale, but I am not
sure that we have the tools to guarantee to acquire it.
Q143 Dr Harris: You would agree that
there is no formal oversight—for the reasons you have given,
you would say—of the scientific skills lost and, indeed,
those retained in public sector research as a result of Research
Council cuts and closures.
Professor Pollock: I would say
that is true for turnover throughout science.
Q144 Dr Harris: Do you think it would
be a good idea if we could capture this, because it could be argued
they are a very expensive resource.
Professor Pollock: Yes, in principle,
I would.
Professor Shirley: We did not
necessarily put a lot of resource into monitoring where people
were going. We put more resource into making sure that those who
left during the restructuring had every support from the institute
to have another career in science if we could facilitate it. We
really did work very hard to make sure that all the scientists
who were leaving the system could, if they wanted to, find jobs
elsewhere. We facilitated that through transfer of equipment to
a new host centre or the transfer of grants with them as well.
Q145 Dr Harris: You are responsible
for your own staffing plans. Is there any way you can incorporate
within your proposals to when you have cut-backs the long-term
needs of the country in terms of the skills base in certain areas?
In other words, there are certain things that the country might
need and, if you make redundant two-thirds of the people in that
area, people cannot switch at a later date, at senior level, into
that expertise that has gone. Might that ever be a factor, or
do you have to look at how you can look at the bottom line?
Professor Shirley: I think we
are very mindful of the long-term needs of the UK science base.
When you are forced to make cuts and lose posts, it is very difficult
to do. You have referred to the bottom line. I think that during
the course of the restructuring of the institute we took a much
longer strategic view on what the UK needs and what competencies
were required and we tried to work through that as perhaps the
core to the decision-making process.
Q146 Dr Harris: If Defra cuts a big
research contract, does not re-commission it, then they are not
considering whether it is sensible in the medium to long term
to lose those people to this country or to that field. There is
nothing you can do about that because you rely on that funding
to employ those people doing those jobs.
Professor Shirley: I think there
is something we can do about it, because, if we think that this
is an area of science which is critical and it maybe does not
fit, for whatever reason, Defra's portfolio of interest, we can—and
we have done in the past—use our core strategic grant to
make sure that we can retain the skills of particular individuals.
We can transfer them from perhaps a Defra-funded grant through
to our core grant. We do that and have done that.
Q147 Dr Harris: Can you give us examples
of that later?
Professor Shirley: Yes. I can
do that. This, of course, then puts tension on the core strategic
grant. It means that we then have to accommodate those individuals
in the course of our portfolio, so there is a knock-on potential
where a Defra action then leads to something else happening within
the system, where we have made judgments about the longer-term
needs of the UK science.
Professor Crute: I think you raise
an important point. Sometimes you might say that a gap can open
up between the sort of science the BBSRC is very keen to support
and the science that gets supported by other funders, such as
Defra. Under those circumstances, there is no doubt that the skills
can be lost, because essentially there is no home for them from
the different perspectives of different funders. Obviously we
try to bridge those issues as best we can. I will not take up
the Committee's time now but I can certainly come forward with
three or four areas at Rothamsted where you could say that the
national capability has been eroded as a consequence of that gap
opening up.
Q148 Chairman: I have been looking
up the statistics from BBSRC, and, between you, from 2005 onwards,
you are likely to lose 200 science posts. That is a very significant
loss of science capability. It does worry the Committee that we
do not know where those people are going. There is no system to
retrain them into other areas of science and to retain them in
the science base. I am putting the question to all of you, hopefully
with a nod, that that is something we should be doing, either
yourselves, BBSRC or the Government, or all three.
Professor Crute: It is certainly
true that there is no mechanism in place which will allow us to
collate and integrate a body of data which would put, you might
say, a magnitude of concern on those figures.
Chairman: You accept that.
Q149 Dr Turner: Can you describe
the relationship with the BBSRC. Do they take any close interest
in the day to day management of all institutes or do they leave
you at arm's length to get on with it?
Professor Shirley: The working
relationship I have had as director and as acting director of
BBSRC has been incredibly positive and very supportive. They are
there to facilitate, they are there to work with us, but a lot
of the running of the institute is left very much to us to develop
a science structure which is consistent with the BBSRC's mission.
They have the post of director of science and technology, so there
is a very nice interface between that position and the institute's.
That works particularly well because there is now a conduit of
information exchange both ways. BBSRC has been very supportive
of its funding for this whole area of science that we are in and
that has been unequivocal. They really have stepped in and made
sure that the funding and the quality of the science has been
maintained. My answer is that it is a very positive relationship
with BBSRC.
Q150 Dr Turner: Probably because
of the nature of your institutes and the fact that they have to
be on the land, as it were, you presumably have been fairly immune
from the pressure of other Research Councils to break up institutes
or to co-locate them with other academic institutions.
Professor Shirley: I am sure the
Committee is aware of the Follett Review of Governance which is
now being played through, so all institutes are now looking at
their governance relationships vis-a"-vis BBSRC. This is
a process that is near completion towards the end of this year,
with changes being introduced from 1 April 2008. We are not immune
to change and we are working with BBSRC to look at these issues
of governance.
Q151 Dr Turner: You agree that we
have a strong element of freestanding-ness in your institutes.
What is the feedback into BBSRC from yourselves? Do you have representation
from the institutes on BBSRC strategy boards?
Professor Crute: I am a member
of the BBSRC Strategy Board, so the answer to that is yes. I also
sit on the BBSRC Estates and Equipment Board so I have an input
into that side of things as well. All directors have a role, you
might say, within the operation of BBSRC. The only thing I would
add to what Martin said in terms of the relationship with the
BBSRC is that at the level of running a business, obviously, on
a day-to-day basis, we are chief executives of our organisations
and we have responsibility for that. We have six-monthly meetings
with BBSRC in the context of business planning. Essentially, we
develop a business plan and that is something which is reviewed,
as I say, on a regular basis. From the point of view of control,
we are independent organisations, but at the same time BBSRC is
our sponsoring body. They employ the staff, they provide us with
a very large amount of money and it would be surprising if there
was not a very close relationship. Barely a week goes by when
I am not in contact with somebody at BBSRC about something.
Q152 Chairman: Would you accept that,
Professor Pollock?
Professor Pollock: I have nothing
further to add.
Q153 Dr Turner: Could you tell us
something about BBSRC's review process, which presumably you are
subject to at periodic intervals. Is it particularly disruptive?
Do you feel it is fair? Is the peer review element appropriate,
in the sense that your conditions are very different from those
of a short-term response grant and operation in a university.
What is your feeling about it?
Professor Pollock: I would first
of all point out that I am also Chairman of one of the RAE sub-panels,
so I am very well aware of the detailed research assessment exercise
process as it impinges on universities. I think I am in a reasonable
position to comment on this. All the institute directors are very
strongly supportive of the institute assessment exercise because
it has been set up in a way that acknowledges the breadth of mission
of individual institutes and because it involves a personal visit
from the panel to look at the work in totality. The feedback that
you get from the institute assessment exercise is incredibly valuable.
It does offer us a chance to benchmark our work against international
standards in a period of review that is both comprehensive and
detailed and hard-hitting but generally fair. I think most of
us would be extremely reluctant to give up the institute assessment
exercise. The only gripe I have ever had with it—and I had
my first institute assessment exercise two weeks after I joined
the Welsh Plant Breeding Station in 1974—is that they do
tend to come around a bit often. We have now moved it to a five-year
cycle, which I think is entirely appropriate. It is a very important
and extremely valuable tool in benchmarking institute outputs
as a whole against relevant international standards.
Professor Crute: The only rider
that I would add to Chris's point is that the panels or the visiting
groups are composed of a mix of academics and other people who
represent industry or sectoral interests and inevitably there
will not be representatives of other institutes there because,
essentially, that would be, you might say, too inward looking.
That can sometimes bring about problems because most people are
not used to the institute environment, so you can get some stochastic
variation in the way in which they look at things, simply because
they are looking at things either from the industry perspective
or an academic perspective and not perhaps benchmarking us even
for the specific areas in which we operate. I would say I have
had the odd grumble about that sort of thing in the past.
Q154 Dr Turner: Is there any fine-tuning
you would like to see in the review process?
Professor Shirley: As Ian was
saying, one likes to have probably the right spectrum of individuals.
We also have a review of our work for Defra as well and I think
that is an area where perhaps a little bit more representation
might be helpful to make sure we have covered the right skill
base that we have in the institute. In terms of process, I think
it works very well.
Q155 Adam Afriyie: Professor Pollock,
you have mentioned benchmarking against international standards
as being one of the benefits of reviews. What efforts do you think
are being made to share best practice domestically and between
Research Council institutes? Is there benchmarking between Research
Council institutes? Is there communication?
Professor Pollock: At a scientific
level there is increasing and effective communication. We have
already joint programmes of work in key areas of science that
stretch between ourselves, Rothamsted, John Innes and Scottish
Crops Research Institute, so there are, I think, plenty of opportunities
to ensure that good science is being carried out in a cost-effective
manner. The BBSRC institute directors meet regularly, informally
among themselves, to discuss issues of improved best practice
in both science and governance and increasingly those discussions
are beginning to involve colleagues north of the Border as well.
Q156 Adam Afriyie: Which I guess
is to be welcomed. There have been some calls for Research Councils
UK to take a more active lead in the sharing of information and
best practice. Perhaps, Professor Shirley, you have a comment.
Do you think they are effectively taking the lead at the moment?
If so, could they do more? If not, what should they do?
Professor Shirley: Probably at
the moment it is a sort of bottom-up approach of sharing best
practice. That is the way that science tends to work. It is a
very effective way of operating. This would happen throughout
the Research Council from the active scientists through to people
like ourselves who are interacting with one another. I hope we
are sharing best practice but there is no formal requirement for
us to do that in the context.
Professor Crute: Certainly when
RCUK was assembled there was a sense that, for example, in the
peer review process and the application for research proposal
there should be some sort of standardisation of process. It has
been put in place. It is too early to say yet how beneficial that
has been but there is a process now. We are looking to this shared
service centre, which, again, is nothing much to do with the day-to-day
delivery of science but is very much to do with best practice
from the point of view of efficiency, and time will tell whether
that is going to be a positive or a negative thing. Certainly,
from an institute perspective, we are remote from the headquarters
in Swindon and we would therefore argue that perhaps it will not
have the same sort of benefit for us, but I could well imagine
that between Research Councils, in a sort of administrative sense,
in the best practice of how you administer science and how you
get best value out of science there are some gains to be made
there.
Q157 Dr Iddon: Obviously you do policy-driven
research for government, namely for Defra. Do you think you get
the policy changes within government soon enough to alter your
research programmes?
Professor Shirley: This is a difficult
one particularly for the context of Defra. It is partly because
we are not always aware of the strategy behind the changes, and
currently we are facing a number of issues with Defra funding
that relate to particular areas of science for which we are not
receiving clear guidance and we are not receiving indications
of whether areas will be funded or not. As an institute I think
we do suffer from a lack of clear decision from a department like
Defra, whereby we have programmes that are coming to an end, we
have indications that Defra wish to continue with those programmes
in the future, but, because they are not clear of their funding
abilities, they are not able to take a decision on the continuation
of those programmes and we are in a position where we are asking
for bridging monies to take us from where we are now, with the
grant coming to an end, to the potential start of the new grant
in six months. We are neither able to get a decision on whether
they will continue in six months time nor a decision on whether
they are able to provide their bridging money in between times,
so we are left, if you like, high and dry, with individuals who
are working on Defra-funded projects, and the money has come to
an end, with no clear indication of whether Defra will continue
in the future or not. It does make planning of some areas of science,
increasingly greater areas of science, very difficult to plan,
and we are having to absorb these positions back on to our core
until we have clarity from the Government department.
Q158 Dr Iddon: Do you think the bulk
of your funding should come directly from BBSRC rather than from
the Government?
Professor Crute: In the period
when Defra was MAFF, MAFF had a very clear policy, that it was
acting as a proxy customer in the context of research on behalf
of an industry. Their relationship was a very much clearer one,
in the sense that the policy was clear and there was a dialogue
which was able to be developed. In the creation, Defra has a different
agenda from the agenda that MAFF had, and we understand that,
but that has created a hiatus in what I will call the dialogue.
The sort of things Martin was referring to are an inevitability
about Defra finding its way. One of the things I have been somewhat
critical of is the fact that Defra's evidence and innovation to
approach was a very inward looking approach. Rather than drawing
on expertise from the outside, to think about priorities and future
directions, and the things that would impact on policy from a
science perspective, it was an inward looking activity on which
there was subsequent consultation and from which we have yet to
see the outcome of that translated into things that they might
want us to take forward. It seems to me that we really have to
establish a much better dialogue, which is a regular dialogue
between Research Councils and between government departments—not
just Defra but other departments as well—that rely upon
Research Councils and their institutes to deliver things which
are of policy importance, so that we can vision the future and
make sure we do not have these gaps opening up where we can lose
expertise or we have to bridge for long periods—and I have
several examples of the latter, which I will not take the Committee's
time on going through. Essentially, we are to all intents and
purposes taking the risk of holding on to human resource and expertise
pending decisions about future directions that government departments
may or may not take.
Q159 Dr Iddon: Are we in danger of
losing some research which is vital for the national interest
as a result of the declining Defra funding in what you call this
hiatus with government?
Professor Shirley: I would say
yes. The reason I say yes is that it is clear that Defra has priorities,
and quite rightly so, but even areas such as those on exotic viruses
at Pirbright, where we are in receipt of a surveillance grant,
that has been frozen at the same value year on year for the past
few years, so, in effect, we are taking a cut on that area of
work with the prospect that it will be kept at the same level
into the future as well. Year on year, we are able to do less
science or we are able to employ less people, and this is an area
of work that spans from foot and mouth through to blue tongue
virus, which we have become acutely aware of more recently, to
African swine fever, to other exotic pathogens which pose a threat
to the UK. We are forced to look at this whole area of activity
to see where we can juggle the research, so there is a risk that
we will lose critical expertise.
Professor Crute: Another point
is one which is not just to do with national expertise but is
the way in which the United Kingdom is appearing to the international
science community, where effectively we all operate as part of
international networks and when these things happen it raises
eyebrows in, you might say, the scientific world about what is
the United Kingdom doing. For example, a specific area of activity
which we looked to as being world leading has all of a sudden
evaporated due to decisions taken outside the Institute.
Professor Pollock: I am very happy
to echo those comments. If you want to sloganise this, I think
the institutes are well adapted to cope with gradual change in
direction from policy customers; they find it difficult to maintain
resilience when the rate of change is very abrupt.
Professor Shirley: I think there
is a danger, with cuts in these areas of science, that we end
up by losing some of the more traditional expertise and we in
turn have to rely on the expertise being generated by PhD students,
for example, to come in and to maintain capability in some areas.
To me that is a real worry, that we are putting huge expectations
on a cohort of youngsters being trained by more experienced colleagues,
when in fact we should have those skills embedded within mainstream
and Defra-funded staff. That is one of the more subtle changes
that is happening in the Institute of Animal Health: we are losing
some of the key staff and relying more heavily on PhD students
to fulfil that research function.
| 
