Supplementary memorandum from Prospect
INTRODUCTION
1. Prospect submitted evidence to the Select
Committee's inquiry in June. Subsequent developments affecting
Research Council Institutes and the wider public sector science
base have not alleviated the concerns raised in our evidence,
leading us to publish our Charter for Public Science in September—a
copy of which is enclosed.
2. We would like to use this opportunity
first, to comment briefly on the current state of public science
in the UK and second, in response to the Select Committee's request,
to address issues arising from the transfer of research institutes
to universities.
THE STATE
OF SCIENCE
UK
3. At the time of writing, the UK's public
science facilities are the subject of intense scrutiny. For example
BBSRC's, 2004 review of the Silsoe Research Institute has been
followed by the wider-ranging Costigan review, sponsored by the
Office of Science and Innovation, and the ongoing Follett review
of BBSRC's institute governance. The Follett process is, in our
view, a disproportionate response to a situation diagnosed by
Costigan as less than perfect but workable. It is proceeding in
parallel with KPMG's review of the Institute of Animal Health
and DEFRA's Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), whilst DEFRA
itself has recently completed its own Laboratory Strategy Review
and has had to deal with the scientific consequences of the Hampton
Review and creation of Natural England. At the same time, the
consequences of the review and reorganisation of the Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology are still in progress and institutes sponsored
by the Scottish Executive have experienced their own detailed
review by Arthur D Little consultants less than two years after
a similar review on "Proposed Collective Structure"
by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
4. Prospect accepts entirely that publicly-funded
science should be subject to scrutiny to ensure fitness for purpose
and value for money. However, it is our contention that the intense
but disparate nature of these reviews neither fulfils any strategic
purpose nor provides value for money. It is difficult to discern
from published data the full costs of these reviews and their
consequences—for example in terms of redundancy—and
we think it would be worthwhile for the Select Committee to collect
this information. The information we do have indicates for example,
that BBSRC has spent well over £250,000 on reviews and the
Scottish Executive over £100,000 and that redundancy and
compensation costs are likely to be in excess of £70 million.
Such a sum would fund, for example:
— 70% of all VLA business for one year;
— A medium-sized research institute
for 7 years;
— All of SEERAD's agri/biological research
for two years.
5. Of course, the financial costs tell only
part of the story. To find the authentic voice of public sector
science today, we must look to the scientists themselves. Prospect
did so in November when, in response to a membership survey, almost
1,000 working scientists from across the UK shared their experiences
with us. A summary of their views is enclosed. It paints a picture
of committed and dedicated professionals increasingly frustrated
by the constraints of short-term funding, poor pay and career
prospects. It also highlights key areas of research that are being
lost including in the areas of climate change, biodiversity, animal
health and welfare, and fish diseases.
UNIVERSITY SCIENCE
6. Prospect shares the desire expressed
by a range of commentators to ensure a healthy and vibrant university
science base. However, we believe that it is short-sighted and
misconceived to assume that public science is better performed
by universities. As set out in our briefing "Who's looking
after British science?", Research Council Institutes compare
favourably with, and indeed possibly outperform, universities
in terms of:
— Publications in prestigious, peer-reviewed
journals[26]
— Engaging with, and addressing the
needs of relevant stakeholders and end-users;
— Multi-disciplinary research;
— Ability to undertake long-term studies;
— Access to and maintenance of land
and facilities.
7. Research Institutes and universities
have different stakeholders and activities. For example, institutes
are strongly encouraged to focus on policy-driven applied and
strategic research in contrast to universities, where more "blue-skies"
research is undertaken. Thus, research institutes can undertake
longer-term studies whereas this would be very difficult in universities
because of the need to publish quickly in high quality journals
to satisfy the demands of the Research Assessment Exercise. It
is therefore appropriate that they are assessed differently. Where
there are mutual or overlapping interests (eg addressing specific
research questions), there is ample evidence of collaboration.
The differences in expertise and infrastructure between research
institutes and universities should be valued and encouraged since
there is a place for both in a nation with a diverse scientific
agenda. On the other hand, if institutes continue to be subsumed
into universities the future for long-term applied research will
be precarious.
8. Prospect is not directly involved in
the transfer of the National Institute of Medical Research to
University College London, but we do have members in a number
of areas that have either experienced the transfer from research
institute to university or are currently contemplating it. The
transfers include Horticulture Research international (HRI) to
the University of Warwick and the Natural Research Institute to
the University of Greenwich. Currently under consideration are
the transfers of the Rowett Research Institute to Aberdeen University,
the Roslin Institute to the University of Edinburgh, and the Neuropathogenesis
Unit of Institute for Animal Health to the University of Edinburgh.
It has also been suggested that the Institute for Grassland and
Environmental Research should be amalgamated into the university
sector in Wales. The Hannah Research Institute was closed completely
and all staff made redundant; a minority of staff managed to win
three years non-renewable funding from the Scottish Executive
to do research at Strathclyde or Glasgow Caledonian Universities
or the Rowett Research Institute.
9. It is worth reflecting the views of those
directly affected. Of course, there is no single perception that
represents the reality for everyone, but the views described below
do typify recurrent themes and concerns:
— Doing research in universities is
expensive, more so than in research institutes. Experience from
the transfer of the Hannah Research Institute to Strathclyde University
suggests that per capita research costs are up to 2.5 times higher
in the university.
— Research staff within institutes
are given responsibility for maintenance and running of communal
equipment for the entire organisation, offering value-for-money
support and avoiding duplication of resources and effort while
striving towards the mission of the institute. That is more difficult
to achieve within universities due to different priorities for
research groups, and will only happen if a departmental head will
channel resources/overheads from grants into communal infrastructure,
something that is often unpopular with Principal Investigators
(PIs) if the perceived benefit is not uniform across different
groups. Hence the reported experience that, "as most laboratories
and communal facilities are used by postgraduates and postdoctoral
workers, there is no great inclination or incentive to keep equipment
clean and/or well maintained".
— The potential benefits of increased
critical mass are not realised as the imperative to attract funding
in practice results in pursuit of many individual projects with
little linkage between them. True themed research will never be
achieved without long-term strategic funding, since the research
follows the pots of money available for it.
— University departments or divisions
lack an overall feeling of collectivity or institute ethos. Although
both universities and institutes conduct research in different
disciplines, the research institute environment is more amenable
to "interdisciplinary" research involving openly working
together across disciplines. Experience of universities however,
is very much that different labs work in competition with each
other. It would be a huge blow to the type of research conducted
in research institutes if inter-disciplinary working was curtailed.
— Consequences for staff are generally
poor. Funding for the majority of researchers on short-term contracts
is virtually non-existent after the age of 40 since they have
to compete either with younger colleagues who are willing to work
for less or with core-funded staff who need only put a fraction
of their time on grant applications. There are also very real
concerns that terms and conditions of employment, including pay
and pensions, will worsen further.
CONCLUSION
10. It would be wrong to paint a uniformly
grim picture of UK science today, and Prospect certainly has no
desire to do so. Much of UK science deservedly commands a world-class
reputation, mainly due to the skills and commitment of those who
do the science—but this will be lost, perhaps irrevocably,
unless it is valued and nurtured by decision-makers and funders.
Prospect is not opposed to change where it is needed and justified,
and we wholeheartedly welcome Government's investment in the science
base since 1997. But the voices of those who are best qualified
to comment should give us all cause for concern. In trying to
understand how we have reached the current parlous position, Prospect
is bound to conclude that there is a strategic failure across
Government to take on the key responsibility of care for the national
science base.
11. If, as argued in his speech in Oxford on
3 November,[27]
the Prime Minister is serious about encouraging more people to
take up science, he must also answer why they should do so when
"jobs are limited, poorly paid and highly competitive".
Whilst our membership survey demonstrates that whilst newer entrants
still have a reasonably positive outlook, the subsequent reality
is that "Many people can only stay in science if they
make personal sacrifices and work very long hours" and,
due to the fixed-term contract nature of university scientific
research, periods of (or permanent) unemployment are almost inevitable.
However much the Prime Minister might wish it, this is not the
way to build the path to the future.
December 2006
26 See Nature Volume 390. Back
27
Our Nation's Future-"Britain's path to the future-lit by
the brilliant light of science". Back
|
