Memorandum submitted by Lancaster University
(FC 17)
We append below our response to the specific
questions. We need to declare our interest in these questions
as recipients of funding from HEFCE and the research councils,
including STFC.
The process for deciding where to make cuts in
SET spending
1. It is not clear whether this refers to
national or institutional cuts but HEFCE do not fund at specific
subject level so decisions are made at the local level. In an
environment of decreasing funding our internal funding systems
at Lancaster permit a level of buffering that allows strategic
considerations and interventions when required. With a decrease
in government funding the viability of departments then becomes
increasingly dependent on the number and quality of students attracted
and the ability to attract international students.
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)
2. The request to consider the potential
impact of a research project and how this would be achieved at
the application stage (ie as now done for RCUK grants) is reasonable.
Research in the UK has well documented major impacts on the economy
and society so it is sensible to ensure that these are achieved
and articulated. While the impact questions have been bedding
in, there has been a concern about the predictability of impact
and how the information is used in the evaluation process. We
are now getting indications (eg from EPSRC) that it is valid to
label research as "fundamental with no obvious application
identifiable at this stage" but that, when appropriate, a
strong impact development plan will give an advantage when judged
alongside a proposal of equal research quality but with an inferior
strategy to achieve impact. If both of these elements are maintained
in practice then it does allow a research portfolio that has a
balance of aims and a continued emphasis on research excellence
which has to be at the heart of the assessment process.
3. Success rates for applications to research
councils are now dangerously low. It should be recognised that
not only will this reduce the amount of current research it will
severely limit the realisation of the impact of previously funded
research. Therefore it is vital that Government maintains it's
commitment to continue to increase funding for science.
4. The inclusion of impact in the REF is
also reasonable so that the massive impact of excellent research
is fully captured and valued. There are technical details that
need to be clarified by the current pilot project and HEFCE need
to be prepared to reduce the contribution of the impact component
(perhaps to 15%) if the practicalities of measurement still look
problematic. This is not to undermine the significance of the
inclusion of impact rather it recognises that a higher proportion
would allocate substantial amounts of government funding on the
basis of unreliable criteria. We would also identify the following
key issues with impact in the REF:
5. The link between impact and high quality
research must be maintained in the REF. This is not the means
by which overall interaction with external organisations is assessed;
it is the impact of the research that is central to this process.
6. The proposed number of case studies needs
to be in the range of 1 for every 10 staff so that there
is the flexibility needed for a research unit to maintain a portfolio
of blue skies research.
7. The final funding formula (that HEFCE
never discuss until after an exercise) must be based on the overall
distribution in the results and not based on the sub profiles
for outputs, impact and environment. To split the funding would
remove the key link between the excellence of the research and
the impact.
The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
8. This classification nomenclature for
Universities is not helpful. Research intensive Universities like
Lancaster respond to market demands in both the teaching and research
that we do. We suspect that it is largely research intensive universities
that now teach the laboratory intensive SET subjects that are
already under pressure (see below) so in this respect a reduction
in SET teaching funding will tend to affect the quality of the
teaching to a greater degree in research intensive universities.
The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
9. The instability in STFC in the last couple
of years has caused disruption and an inability to plan which
is bad for research programmes. It is also bad for international
reputation. Putting two councils together does not seem to be
working—especially if costs on facilities/international
investments impact on the ability to fund science.
10. The loss of end of year flexibility
seems to have put an enormous addition pressure on the research
councils so that they are less able to respond to fluctuations
in demand. This should be revisited.
11. There will always be competing claims
for funding but the focus on ESA, for example, can be seen as
political/policy as much as science and the ability to make balanced
scientific judgements is damaged in such cases.
12. The process behind decisions about international
programmes the UK should engage with needs to be revised. For
example, could there be a conflict within STFC between supporting
national facilities and subscribing to international projects?
13. Issues about exchange rates should not
be allowed to damage major funding. Why can't exchange rate fluctuations
(up or down) be handled outside the research councils?
The scope of the STFC review announced on 16 December
and currently underway
14. As STFC themselves recognise, the implementation
of the proposals from their review has the potential to seriously
destabilise some top quality physics departments. While we clearly
recognise that disciplines cannot be stagnant, some of the proposed
changes in priority will not often be implementable at individual
University level, especially since the range of potential funding
sources is very limited for much of STFC-type activity. Indeed,
we would ask whether the availability of other funding sources
was considered as part of the prioritisation process. For example,
it is probable that the ESA activity is more likely to be fundable
in other ways compared with particle physics. We have little doubt
that the UK will lose some high quality scientists as a result
of these changes.
15. Other results of the review, such as
the reduction in support of postgraduate students, are not consistent
with national strategies and priorities. The research councils
are expected to take the national lead in these areas so the implications
of reduced support could be severe.
The operation and definition of the science budget
ring-fence and consideration of whether there should be a similar
ring-fence for the Higher Education Funding Council for England
research budget and departmental research budgets
16. The level of SET ring fence is probably
about right currently but there is a risk that the absence of
a research ring fence in HEFCE and other government departments
could have serious consequences for the whole research agenda,
including SET. For HEFCE it is important that the absolute level
of research funding available is not degraded.
17. Reduction of research funding in some
government departments, eg MoD, will have a particularly detrimental
effect on SET.
18. This has an added importance in some
SET areas because of the impact of the financial crisis on funding
available from charities.
Whether the Government is 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
19. There has been good progress in science
A levels. More students are now available to do science and applications
in many SET areas seem to be on an upward trend. It is now important
that Universities offer good SET courses that lead to a range
of good job opportunities.
20. It is possible that a decline in the
financial sector will have a beneficial effect on SET recruitment
but we await evidence for this.
21. We do have a concern that we are not
yet seeing these feed through into postgraduate degrees and this
needs to be watched carefully.
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
22. Lancaster University did not take up
the offer of a proportion of the 10,000 extra student places
so we cannot comment directly the question within our own institution.
23. The reason we did not take up these
places was that it was effectively reducing the unit of resource
for those areas that recruited students and this would reduce
the viability of our teaching activity, especially in SET subjects
(see below).
24. We would suggest that in addressing
this question the committee should consider the quality of the
SET departments that took the extra numbers and not just be concerned
with student numbers.
The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit of
funding" for STEM students
25 The current unit of funding for SET subjects
is already at a dangerously low level. We would suggest that in
recent years it has been increasingly difficult to maintain the
technical support base for SET teaching, to maintain teaching
equipment at the level required and to maintain practical class
size levels at sensible levels. Thus any cut in this resource
would have an immediate detrimental effect on the quality of the
education received by the students and would undoubtedly increase
the risk that UK SET graduates are not competitive from a global
perspective.
| 
