Memorandum from Prospect, BGS Section,
submitted by Andy Kingdon, Prospect BGS Section President
We are concerned that the NERC have instructed
its institutes not to make any separate representation to your
committee (information sourced from BGS board members) which would
allow the concerns listed below to be a matter of open public
debate. NERC has an agenda of reallocating funding from its institutes,
including BGS, to universities. This might have merits to the
universities but the institutes are likely to have a different
view and should surely not be prevented from expressing this.
This is being done for NERC's convenience not the long term merit
to the UK public. The Select Committee on Science and Technology
should request such separate representations from NERC'S institutes
to obtain an honest and complete picture of this situation.
Our concerns are:
1. THREATS TO
BGS PUBLIC GOOD
ROLE AT
MONITORING, SURVEY
AND MAINTAINING
NATIONAL DATA
ARCHIVES
BGS conducts survey and monitoring of the subsurface
of the UK land mass and continental shelf and maintains national
archives. It is a world renowned provider of public good science
in the UK and internationally, including such public interest
areas as carbon sequestration, radioactive waste disposal and
facilitation of international climate change studies. Research
is conducted independently, and in collaboration with industry
and academia from the UK and internationally.
The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is our
sister body with a parallel remit. NERC has recently reorganised
CEH with major redundancies. This decision was based on a preconception
that universities are always the best location to carry out research.
Whilst this is true for much research their ethos of leading edge
science and rapid publication and makes them inappropriate locations
for monitoring and survey work, the core activity of CEH and BGS.
Many of BGS' current activities are only made
possible because of these archives and the long-term continuity
of data collection. This allows scientists an overview of UK's
past environment underpinning much research but it also provides
much information of everyday relevance to the UK public. For example
BGS now provides information for "Homebuyers Packs"
linked to individual addresses, allowing the public to assess
the risk to their own house of problems such as subsidence or
exposure to radon gas. This is only possible because of BGS' culture
of collecting and maintaining national data archives.
Despite a specific requirement on all NERC grant
holders to deposit data in national collections only a fraction
of such data is actually deposited. Within BGS, in contrast, this
submission rate approaches 100%. Such science does not frequently
feature in the highest profile journals but supports UK PLC in
wealth creation and provides practical information for ordinary
citizens.
2. "RISK"
BGS is part funded by a core strategic program
defined by NERC and part by commissioned (or co-funded) research
undertaken for private and public sector bodies in the UK and
worldwide. Such research supports core funding and underpins BGS
scientific excellence.
NERC have made two major recent cuts in BGS'
core funding, despite specific requests for an increase in the
most recent BGS Science Management Audit. NERC are now apparently
concerted about the perceived "risk" of such work, a
euphemism for cutting it. CEH is now restricted to no more that
40% of its total budget from Commissioned Research; BGS currently
receives ~ 50% of its budgets from commissioned research allowing
it to achieve many important benefits to the UK. If NERC are unwilling
or unable to fund BGS to an appropriate level then BGS should
be given the flexibility to procure resources from other sources.
If this is prevented then there will be inevitable be loss of
national scientific capability and associated redundancies.
3. THE NERC "FLEXIBILITY"
AGENDA
The NERC chief-executive, Professor Alan Thorpe,
has expressed a wish to implement 10% cuts in all Research Council
Institute (RCI) budgets to achieve "greater flexibility"
in funding, a euphuism for redirecting funding to universities.
This is justified by reference to NERC Council, a body which currently
has no representation from NERC's wholly-owned research centres
(including BGS). If institutes were properly represented then
NERC Council might have reached different conclusions. NERC is
fully entitled to decide the balance of funding between its institutes
and universities but that process should surely be open, transparent
and decided after appropriate representation from all concerned
stakeholders. This is palpably no longer the case. Peer review
is only a fair process if you are reviewed by your peers. In that
scenario we are confident BGS would score highly.
4. FUTURE GOVERNANCE
OF BGS
The recent "Costigan review" of RCI
proposed that BGS' status within NERC should be re-examined with
consideration of alternative models including "Company Limited
by Guarantee" or "Trading Fund". Prospect's BGS
Section can see advantages and disadvantages in all models, including
the status quo, and has no view on these alternatives other than
that all should be considered on their merits. However NERC considers
any alternative model for BGS as "off limits", whereas
cuts are apparently for discussion at above BGS level. BGS is
not being given an opportunity to influence is its own destiny.
June 2006
| 
