Memorandum submitted by the University
of Sussex (FC 19)
1. This response is structured to address
the questions asked by the Science and Technology Committee in
their call for evidence (No 11 (09-10) 13 January 2010).
2. The process for deciding where to make
cuts in SET spending
3. The process should be focused on identifying
priorities for funding in the first instance. The outcome will
automatically identify low priority areas. Work currently underway
by the Natural Environment Research Council to identify training
needs for UK Ph.D. graduate level skills could be used as a pointer
here.
4. An important part of identifying need
will be to balance (a) fields within SET of significant potential
in terms of fundamental advances with (b) the need in some areas
to maintain international competitiveness and (c) the contribution
in other areas to economic growth and stability.
5. What evidence there is on the feasibility
or effectiveness of estimating the economic impact of research,
both from a historical perspective (QR funding) and looking to
the future (for Research Council grants)?
6. A range of studies have been completed,
for example by the HEFCE and RCUK, into the economic impact of
QR. There are important differences between the two bodies. The
HEFCE report is based on returns from HEIs and demonstrate impact
from past activity. RCUK information is principally based on projected
impact noted in research grant proposals. Information collected
at these levels is likely to be more useful than returns from
individual HEIs because of differences across the sector.
7. The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
8. The value for money (£ for £)
in terms of international research excellence is higher in the
UK than elsewhere in the world. Any significant cut to funding
has the potential to undermine this international competitiveness.
The diversity of UK HEIs is significant, as reflected by varying
institutional missions. Those which are research-led, in particular
Russell Group and '94 Group universities rely heavily on QR (HEFCE)
and RCUK funding. These parts of the sector in particular are
therefore highly vulnerable to reductions in funding if one aim
of Government is to maintain the international research profile
of the UK via its HEIs.
9. The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
10. The impact is potentially significant
but more so in some areas of fundamental science than others.
STFC cuts are due, in some significant part, to uncontrolled impacts
on available resource (eg exchange rates). Some areas of STFC
science will be protected and the impact of budget cuts will be
small. There are other areas which are likely to be undermined.
These sit principally within university departments and the consequence
of this will be reduced subject sustainability in a number of
HEIs. One implication of this is likely to be the risk of closure
of some physics departments. Another may be an out-migration of
staff to countries where research funding is available.
11. The scope of the STFC review announced
on 16 December and currently under way
12. There is a lack of evidence that the
STFC is planning strategically or that identifiable future impacts
on budgets are being built in to either financial forecasts or
science programmes. These issues must be addressed in the review.
Many of the current problems have arisen due to the impact of
large (subscription) international projects on nationally-centred
research agendas. Some separation / budget ring-fencing or similar
is required to address this issue and remove the undermining of
key research areas.
13. The operation and definition of the science
budget ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be
a similar ring-fence for the HEFCE research budget and departmental
research budgets
14. On the one hand the science ring-fence
does go some way toward protecting an important part of the academy
but the converse is disproportionate cuts in other subject areas,
which again risk the undermining of national capability. There
would be advantage in ring-fencing the HEFCE research budget but
in parallel with this should be a more effective setting of national
priorities in the medium to long term. This should be one in parallel
with RCUK agendas as part of recognising the importance of the
dual-support system.
15. Whether the Government is achieving its
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 (STEP) graduates to achieve its overall
ambitions for UK science and innovation
16. There are early signs of growth in undergraduate
application numbers in STEM but this is stronger in some subject
areas than others. There are still barriers to growth such as
the need for a more integrated approach to the plethora of Government
programmes to encourage prospective undergraduates into STEM areas
and the need to improve early-years science teaching to school
students.
17. 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 the effects of HEFCE cuts on the
`unit of funding' for STEM students
18. The announcement came too late to have
any significant influence on STEM.
19. If there is an overall reduction in
the "T" unit of resource one possible outcome is that
numbers are moved from high cost laboratory disciplines into lower
cost classroom based subjects, within the tolerance band, thereby
saving costs. Another negative outcome would be accepting high-fee
overseas students on to courses in preference to home/EU students
due to the additional income received from the former.
20. Declaration of interests
21. The University of Sussex receives funding
from the STFC for research in a number of areas. The University
benefits from income (eg HEFCE) earned as a result of teaching
and research in a range of STEM subjects. The University also
receives money from the HEFCE Strategic Development Fund as part
of the SEPNet consortium.
| 
