Memorandum submitted by the Engineering
Professors' Council (EPC) (FC 15)
SUMMARY
1. The Engineering Professors' Council (EPC)
represents the interests of engineering in higher education. It
has over 1600 members in virtually all of the UK universities
that teach engineering.
(a) failure to invest in world class facilities
implies that it will be impossible to meet the Government's vision
as set out in Higher Ambitions and the Science and Innovation
Framework;
(b) the quality of UK academic research in engineering
is world class;
(c) the investment in UK publically funded engineering
research does not reflect the contribution engineering makes to
the economy;
(d) a bold, imaginative approach to engineering
research is needed if solutions are going to be provided to the
global challenges at the same time as ensuring sustainable economic
growth.
(e) incremental engineering research is required
because that demonstrably achieves impact in the long term;
(f) a new framework needs to be created to develop
transformative research that produces engineering solutions to
global challenges;
(g) a review of the distribution of funds to
HE is needed to ensure that the focus is on the front line activities
of generating and disseminating knowledge; and
(h) there should be increased focus on those
activities that do not contribute directly to generating and disseminating
knowledge in order to achieve the efficiencies needed.
2. EPC would welcome the opportunity to
give further details of its views on the means of funding science
and scientific research that would deal with the global challenges
and achieve the vision of the Government expressed in Higher Ambitions
and the Science and Innovation Framework.
THE IMPACT OF SPENDING CUTS ON SCIENCE AND
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
RESPONSE
3. The Engineering Professors' Council (EPC)
represents the interests of engineering in higher education. It
has over 1600 members in virtually all of the UK universities
that teach engineering. They are all either professors or Heads
of departments. It has as its mission the promotion of excellence
in engineering higher education teaching and research.
4. The EPC are concerned that cuts to core
and research funding will impact on the ability of its members
to develop engineering solutions needed to deal with the challenging,
changing environment and their ability to continue to deliver
a world class education for engineers for the future. Further,
many members of the EPC are also professional engineers and are
concerned that professional institutions' contribution to society
through skills and expertise cannot be sustained if the cuts lead
to a reduction in engineering graduates and research output. Creating
a sustainable future will require an adequate supply of research
informed engineers educated to a world class standard; a fact
that the Government has recognised.
5. However, EPC accepts that cuts are inevitable
because of the dire state of the UK economy. This is at the same
time as major investment will be required to cope with climate
change, both the need to limit the change to the climate through
the development of a low carbon economy and the need to address
the impacts of climate change through changes to the built environment
and the behaviour of society. This will require a paradigm shift
in design of new products and systems including, for example,
the development of new materials and smart materials, and changes
to manufacturing and operational processes.
6. There are a number of issues that EPC
raise related to:
(a) achieving the objectives it set out in the
"Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014: next
steps", including, for example, making progress on the supply
of high quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) graduates to achieve its overall ambitions for UK science
and innovation;
(b) whether the extra student support, which
the Government announced on 20 July 2009 for 10,000 higher
education places, delivered students in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics courses; and
(c) the effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit
of funding" for STEM students.
7. There has been an upturn in applications
to engineering (in 2009 8.1%) and in the increase in numbers
registering for engineering (in 2009 4.6%). Universities,
however, are limiting numbers entering engineering programmes
because of the reduction in staff, limitations in space and the
increasing focus on research. Entry standards have been raised
as consequence of increased demand but with limited places. This
can only be beneficial as it will lead to an increase in the quality
of the graduates. Some of the extra student places announced in
July 2009 would have gone to engineering. The increase in
the number of students choosing to enter engineering and the increase
in entry standards are in line with some of the ambitions of the
UK Science and Innovation Framework to create a strong supply
of engineers but do not meet the proposal set out in the Higher
Ambitions document to remove caps on talent nor with the concerns
of the CBI for the need to increase the number of engineering
students.
8. Therefore:
(a) there is increasing demand for engineering
places;
(b) the number of students entering engineering
is increasing but not at sufficient rate to meet the demands of
industry and the vision of the Government; and
(c) entry standards have been increased leading
to an increase in the quality of graduates which does meet the
demand of industry and the vision of Government.
9. EPC and Engineering UK (formerly ETB)
have shown that the provision of well founded engineering base
for research and teaching is not sustainable which is not in line
with the Government's Science and Innovation Framework to produce
sustainable and financially robust universities nor with the desire
to produce a world class research base as a component of the UK's
innovation infrastructure. Further, the lack of funding has also
resulted in a lack of investment in facilities needed to develop
the STEM subjects as identified in Higher Ambitions.
10. The potential cuts in funding will further
impact on engineering students as there will be a further decline
in unit resource per student putting further pressure on engineering
facilities. Engineering departments have been successful in attracting
overseas students which has helped subsidise the facilities. The
Government (Higher Ambitions) is encouraging further investment
in postgraduate education but that can only be supported by an
investment in world class facilities. Efficiency savings and further
cuts in unit of funding will inevitably lead to a decline in resources
to support the educational base for professional engineers.
11. The ratio of engineering academics to
students has been increasing; the number of academics with practical
engineering experience in industry has been in steady decline.
Thus, there has been an overall decline in appropriate support
to students.
12. Therefore:
(a) UK engineering education is currently inadequately
funded;
(b) a further reduction in the unit of funding
will impact on the facilities needed to ensure a world class engineering
education;
(c) the UK engineering education is dependent
on overseas fee income to be sustainable; and
(d) failure to invest in world class facilities
implies that it will be impossible to meet the Government's vision
as set out in Higher Ambitions and the Science and Innovation
Framework.
13. There are a number of issues that EPC
raise related to:
(a) the process for deciding where to make cuts
in SET spending; and
(b) what evidence there is on the feasibility
or effectiveness of estimating the economic impact of research,
both from a historical perspective (for QR funding) and looking
to the future (for Research Council grants).
14. There is increasing evidence (eg EPSRC's
Review of Civil Engineering Research, 2010) that much of engineering
research is incremental by nature and that incremental approach
has impact some of which can only be seen over a prolonged period.
This is especially the case in those sectors that are risk averse
which engineering is by nature because of the need to protect
society from disasters. However, the opportunities and the demand
for transformative research have created an exciting era for engineering
research. Seeking creative applications for the recent discoveries
in natural, biological and mathematical sciences and linking that
to the concept of a low carbon, sustainable economy means that
engineering is entering a new age of discovery which fits with
the Government's and society's need for change. Indeed, this could
be the opportunity to help achieve the vision of the Government
as set out in the Science and Innovation Framework and the demand
of industry as highlighted by the CBI.
15. Historically, and which continues to
exist in other countries, publically funded engineering research
was undertaken by research organisations. The Government has actively
promoted HEIs as being the prime source of publically funded research
output. There are some 4,500 academics engaged in engineering
research which represents about 9% of the total number of research
active academics. The percentage of academics engaged in engineering
research does not reflect the contribution engineering makes to
the economy and society; that is publically funded engineering
academics as a proportion of all academics is significantly less
than the proportional contribution engineering makes to GDP. This
suggests that engineering research is currently underfunded challenging
the vision for a strong and innovative research base. Despite
this a review of the RAE 2008 by Engineering UK shows that
UK academic research is world class (more than 60% of academics
were rated internationally excellent). This issue is not with
quality of research but with quantity though cuts in core funding
could impact on the quality of the underlying engineering base
for research.
16. We are entering an era of unprecedented
change in which the global challenges of climate change, food
supply, poverty alleviation, migration, water supply, energy supply,
natural disasters, security, wealth creation and transport will
require engineering solutions. This requires a bold approach to
investment which justifies a means of assessing risk and impact
but at the same time requires adventure.
17. Therefore:
(a) the quality of UK academic research in engineering
is world class;
(b) the investment in UK publically funded engineering
research does not reflect the contribution engineering makes to
the economy compared to the investment in other disciplines;
(c) a bold, imaginative approach to engineering
research is needed if solutions are going to be provided to the
global challenges at the same time as ensuring sustainable economic
growth.
18. This is not about making cuts but about
making wise investments. The dual funding system should ensure
a well resourced engineering base that underpins the research
(and teaching). Clearly it does not at the moment so any cuts
in core funding will impact on that underlying resource. Research
funding can be aligned to government/industry/society needs through
focused calls or be driven by curiosity. Both have impact though
curiosity driven research is more likely to be long term which
makes measuring impact difficult. Focused research often addresses
immediate needs but long term impact may be limited because it
is about solving problems not delivering solutions. The current
structure for research funding may be inappropriate as it naturally
tends to safe research because of the necessary reliance on seeking
a consensus view of what is required and because of the governance
structure of the funding agencies.
19. Therefore:
(a) incremental engineering research is required
because that demonstrably achieves impact in the long term; and
(b) a new framework needs to be created to develop
transformative research that produces engineering solutions to
global challenges. This research is likely to exist at the discipline
boundaries. The existing governance and operation of the research
funding agencies can facilitate this research but it would be
worth investigating whether an alternative structure would be
more beneficial to obtain greater impact with reduced funding.
20. There are a number of issues that EPC
raise related to:
(a) the implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts; and
(b) the scope of the STFC review announced on
16 December and currently underway.
21. Universities have two roles:—to
generate and disseminate knowledge. Generating is through scholarship
and research; dissemination is through education, training, events,
papers and consultations. The implication is that if we are to
maintain our world class status then there is a need to consider
the function of universities. These autonomous bodies have been
driven by initiatives, legislation and codes of practice to such
an extent that a significant proportion of funds to HE is not
used to or support the generation and dissemination knowledge.
The impact of this can be demonstrated by the fact that full economic
costing applied to consultancy activities typically amounts to
300% of the cost of academic time. The difference between this
rate and the lowered rates typically changed by industry highlights
the cost to society of providing a system that delivers the majority
of higher skills and research output the UK seeks but within a
complex, over engineered framework for HEIs.
22. Therefore:
(a) a review of the distribution of funds to
HE is needed to ensure that the focus is on the front line activities
of generating and disseminating knowledge; and
(b) there should be increased focus on those
activities that do not contribute directly to generating and disseminating
knowledge in order to achieve the efficiencies needed.
Professor B G Clarke
President of the Engineering Professors Council
| 
