Memorandum submitted by Dr D Crouch (FC
05)
1. I have worked in academia for 15 years.
My field of research is science, focussing specifically on cancer
biology. I categorically feel that the impact of the majority
of research projects CANNOT be measured in the short term, and
should not be used to decide where to make cuts in spending. The
feasibility or effectiveness of estimating the economic impact
of research, both from a historical perspective and looking to
the future, cannot be predicted accurately (see specific examples
detailed in paragraph 2 below).
2. Some examples to support this are given
below, where the significance and potential of each discovery
was not realised until many, many years later. These include:
Penicillin—this discovery was a completely
accidental by Alexander Fleming in 1928. However due to difficulty
in its production, it wasn't successfully mass produced until
17 years later (1945), and led to the Nobel Prize for Fleming,
Florey & Chain in 1945.
Keratins—discovered in 1952, but it wasn't
until 39 years later (~1991) that it was discovered that
mutations in the keratins were the cause of many skin fragility
disorders. Gene therapy studies were published around 2000.
TAQ polymerase—discovered in 1965. Its
potential in molecular biology was not realised until 1980s when
Cetus applied it to synthesise DNA (polymerase chain reaction
or PCR). It was named molecule of the year in 1989, 24 years
after its discovery. Estimate $2 billion in royalties. Nobel
Prize awarded in 1993 to Kary Mullis. Developments in PCR
are still ongoing today.
Green Fluorescent Protein—discovered in
1960s from jellyfish, but was only first used in 1992 for
fluorescent imaging of cells and proteins. This protein has revolutionised
how and what questions scientists can ask. This initially was
a simple description of a protein in a jellyfish, whose properties
were only exploited 32 years later. Developments are ongoing
today.
Structure of DNA—crystal structure by
Watson and Crick in 1953 was an academic exercise, but which
much later helped in the development of wider applications many
years later eg Human Genome Project in 2003.
DNA sequencing—discovered in the 1970s
by Maxam & Gilbert and Sanger. The wider application of this
for forensics, clinical diagnostics, biotechnology industry, and
the human genome were not realised until much later.
Restriction enzymes—discovered in 1970 and
led to the development of recombinant technology. Nobel prize
in 1978.
Recombinant DNA technology/molecular biology—has
revolutionised the way scientists work. At the time (~1970s),
there was no concept of the full potential of this, and years
of incremental developments have led to an incredibly powerful
technology base. This was recognised by a relatively quick patent
(1980), but this was still some 8 years after the discovery.
Discovery of x-rays—in 1890s, Rontgen
persevered with the development of x-rays. The impact of this
in medicine was not realised until later.
3. Projects that have a measurable impact
within the limited timeframe of the REF have been supported by
many years of background research. The majority of strong solid
science does not happen in restricted periods of time.
4. Measuring impact would credit very few
research projects which are at a sufficient stage of development,
and at the stage of having impact in terms of patenting, drug
discovery, therapeutics etc, whilst not crediting the majority
of projects whose long term potential is not realised.
5. Research is for the long term. Measuring
impact and rewarding small numbers of projects will restrict our
long term investment in future research, restrict the projects
undertaken and could be detrimental to future scientific developments
in the UK.
6. Measuring impact in this way could restrict
research that scientists do. Most scientists do research that
asks fundamental and important questions, however, it should be
understood that major advances in the field are often only realised
later or are completely serendipitous (see paragraph 2 for
a few examples).
7. Research projects may not have a major
impact in their own right at one particular time, however, might
contribute to the greater picture eg multiple cohort cancer studies
around the world all contribute to the greater scientific picture,
but these wouldn't all be done at the same time. So timing of
all studies would have to be the same for a project to have impact
which is completely unrealistic.
8. The time scale for different research
projects differs enormously depending on their complexity and/or
novelty ie whether they have been running for many years or just
initiated. Hence, projects that can be realised in the short term
might have impact, whilst longer term projects would be graded
as lower status as they did not realise their impact within the
timing of the REF. Also projects that just have been initiated
could be graded as low impact.
9. I declare an interest in this.
1 February 2010
| 
