Examination of Witness (Questions 60-68)
PROFESSOR STERLING
FRENG
13 JULY 2009
Q60 Dr Harris: You want to keep your
feet on terra firma in this case. I have to ask you a slightly
leading question because of the time: if the Government says,
"We think these are winners", would you think it was
satisfactory for them to leave you in a position of telling the
losers they were going to lose funding? Or would you expect politicians,
whoever the Government is when you are Chairman, if they are going
to put an existing budget more into certain areas, to be prepared
to say which areas lose out? Would you feel it is okay for them
to say, "STFC, you are going to have to find out where this
money comes from"?
Professor Sterling: I think that
depends on the granularity of the decision which is being taken.
If it is a very high level one, it is up to the politicians to
justify why they are moving large chunks of money at a high level
between research councils. If it is about whether one facility
or not is being supported, I think there is dual responsibility
there, because the STFC will have had a part in the advice which
has gone to Government and if Government has therefore backed
it then both parties are committed to that route and must defend
their decision.
Q61 Dr Harris: Do you accept there
may be scenarios where you will be the scapegoat?
Professor Sterling: Unquestionably.
Q62 Dr Harris: And whether you are
prepared to back that?
Professor Sterling: After 19 years
as Vice-Chancellor I know that if there is one person who gets
blamed if things go wrong or if difficult decisions have to be
taken, it is the Vice-Chancellor. Although in this situation I
am not the chief executive but I am the Chairman, I too would
be exposed to comment from the community, which is presumably
where most of it would come from, that we have not adequately
defended that particular area. I am perfectly well aware that
there would be a lot of flak-flying if there are difficult decisions
to be taken.
Q63 Dr Harris: What is your view
of the likelihood, and how do you think you will cope, with the
flat-cash allocation in the next Comprehensive Spending Review?
Which you know means effective cuts.
Professor Sterling: In real terms,
yes. I am not in a position to understand the detailed disposition
of the Budget and where the strategic plan lines up with that
Budget, that is something I need to understand at fairly early
stage; the alignment of what the Council has said it wants to
do with the expectations of the money likely to be available.
I would imagine that all research councils have been through a
process of scenario planning to analyse what happens if the grant
goes down by X per cent, how does that match with the priorities
we have already identified within the strategic plan. What I would
be uncomfortable with is if there was no such contingency planning
because grants go up and grants go down, and I would expect there
to be scenario planning.
Q64 Dr Harris: In terms of the workforce
that STFC funds—and you will have seen it within universities,
think of the workforce in your science departments in Birmingham—do
you have any priorities for developing that workforce which you
can identify you would like to see possibly dealt with during
your tenure as Chairman of the STFC?
Professor Sterling: That is an
interesting thought. I am sure it is true that the skills base
which is within the STFC is highly sought after in the commercial
world. I have come across, even as an engineer, technicians who
operate within the physics world who are absolutely first class
and have a market value, whether they be in universities, in a
lab or in the commercial world. So I think there is surely an
element of preparing people were there to be difficult times ahead
for alternative careers. But I do not think STFC employees would
have any difficulty at all. It is a world-class operation and
they would be able to survive in the commercial world.
Q65 Dr Harris: I am grateful for
that but I am interested in not so much that but whether you have
any insight to bring to the gender balance issues which exist
in the physics and engineering workforce, which cannot have escaped
your knowledge.
Professor Sterling: It has not
and despite lots of efforts, particularly in the engineering world
which I am very familiar with, has not shifted very much over
time. There is still a large male dominance in engineering and
it is still true in physics.
Q66 Dr Harris: Do you think that
is a problem which STFC could do something about, such as having
grants directed towards promising female scientists to recognise—as
the Marie Curie grants do at EU level—the particular challenges
they face? Publication grants, and that sort of thing?
Professor Sterling: Promoting
interest in physics amongst women strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
The WISE programme—Women Into Science and Engineering—started
some 20 years ago and did have noticeable effects, but it remains
stubbornly a male-dominated area particularly. I do not know why
women do not see science and engineering as attractive but the
facts of it are they do not.
Q67 Dr Harris: I am asking whether
you would have a feminist agenda as Chairman.
Professor Sterling: I would always
want to be even-handed when it came to funding arrangements. I
do not think one can go into selective funding particularly for
one gender or the other. Actually encouraging activities, it strikes
me, is perfectly reasonable but not to actually be judging one
particular proposal less harshly or favouring it more because
it happens to come from a woman rather than a man is a dangerous
path.
Q68 Chairman: On that note I am going
to bring to an end this interrupted session. Thank you very much
indeed, Professor Michael Sterling, for being with us and being
so patient with us this afternoon. I do not think we know a great
deal more about how you are going to lead this organisation at
the end of this session but hopefully the next time we meet you
we will have a clearer idea of that, but we do thank you very
much indeed.
Professor Sterling: Thank you,
Chairman.
| 
