Memorandum submitted by South East Physics
Network (SEPnet) (FC 40)
1. The South East Physics Network was set
up by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 2007
with the explicit aim of sustaining the discipline of Physics
in the South East of England. For that reason we have taken the
unusual step of responding to this inquiry on behalf of a group
of Departments in one discipline because the most recent changes
of funding of Scientific Research have the potential, indeed are
likely, to undermine that endeavour.
2. The response is structured so far as
is possible to correspond with the suggested format.
3. SEPnet expects that the decisions on
allocations or on making cuts between the broad areas of science
described by the designation of the existing research councils
and academies, is something that should be informed by a broad
range of scientific inputs through the Councils of each research
body and government scientific advisors, and co-ordinated by the
Director General, but ultimately is the decision of government
and consistent with is strategic objectives. Within an existing
Research Council/Academy the decisions on which areas of science
or which projects should be the decisions of the scientific community
guided by peer review and with regard to the overall strategic
direction set by government.
4. Evidence has been collated to demonstrate
that the overall economic benefit of research is positive and
it has been collated by the Institute of Physics among others.
The report "The Economic Benefits of Higher Education Qualifications"
by Price Waterhouse Cooper for the Institute of Physics and the
Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file.pdf.
5. It is also possible to assess historically
the economic benefit of individual research themes a considerable
time (10-20) years after the initiation of a programme. The Research
Councils annual reports contain many examples of this sort of
lag in Physics and all other areas. It is much more difficult,
if not impossible, to assess the likelihood of economic impact
in advance of a particular study unless that study is carried
out with the explicit purpose of economic benefit when it is arguably
not frontier research. Such forward assessment of economic impact
can therefore never be more than an amalgam of the track record
of individuals/institutions and guesses about outcomes. For the
purest of research the latter component is purely speculative.
6. It should be noted that the RAE or REF
process run by funding councils to inform QR funding, that places
emphasis on the last five or six years, is unlikely to capture
the bulk of the underpinning activity that has led to such recent
economic benefit.
7. If there is a shift in funding from the
more blue-skies, long term research towards short term economic
benefit whether by allocation or by virtue of cuts it will disproportionately
affect the research led HEI's in the UK. This is because those
institutions that have a larger proportion of the fundamental
research that underpins a smaller amount of demand-led activity
in their own institutions as well as almost all of the activity
in demand-led institutions in anything but the short term.
8. We note that STFC has not suffered a
budget cut compared with expectation but has had to repay a previous
loan, accept a payment from the other research councils and then
form an internal judgment about what can be funded on the basis
of scientific peer review given other demands on its budgets.
It is our view that some of this difficulty originates with the
fact that STFC budget has to address many different demands not
all of which are in their control. Thus, the increase in the sterling
amount of payments for international facilities impacts directly
on the spending that STFC can make on grant funding. The process
of limited sharing of research budgets among all councils to pay
for international facilities is a step to recognising this problem,
but more could be done. It is not sufficient to take this from
the Science Vote before it is allocated to research councils but
could not some steps be taken to safeguard payments in Euros and
dollars using government receipts in those currencies?
9. The cuts in STFC allocations to grants
announced recently exemplify the problem set out in Section 7
in an acute way. Almost all of the grant research funded in HEI's
is performed in what would be called research intensive institutions.
Those institutions have established a research base encouraged
by Research Councils and the RAE in the past that has concentrated
in areas of high scientific endeavour at the frontiers of subjects.
Within our own areas of activity in SEPnet, but more generally
in Physics, this has been taken to imply work in the areas of
Astrophysics, Cosmology and Particle Physics; areas of immense
scientific importance and public interest. However, the economic
benefits that flow from such activities in the short to medium
term are the trained people and the narrower economic benefits
flow more slowly from the fundamental ideas and instrumentation.
Concentration in these areas associated uniquely with STFC, as
well as work on Nuclear Physics, is therefore concentrated in
rather few departments which therefore have a staff structure
very dependent on STFC funding as the Wakeham Review of Physics
noted. Some of our Physics Departments fall into this category
with one having as many as 78% of its staff associated with STFC
funding and three others approach 70%. The reduction of STFC grant
funding for these Departments which have come to rely on it is
likely to destabilise some of these Departments just at the time
when, under HEFCE's guidance, we have been seeking to build both
undergraduate numbers and research portfolio to better sustain
Physics as a core Discipline in South East England. We are disturbed
by this apparent inconsistency when both streams of funding emanate
from the same Department of State. It is noteworthy that this
destabilisation may well result in a reduced ability to train
undergraduate numbers owing to enforced losses of staff.
Departments in demand-led institutions, although
there are relatively few in Physics, will not be affected in the
same way because their reliance on STFC is much smaller.
10. Because of our international subscriptions
the cuts elsewhere in the system have been draconian. Even DIAMOND,
which is seen as a successful project deserving of high status
by STFC's science board, has a budget which is likely to slow
the completion of phase three of its instrumentation installation.
Across the board of Physical and Life Science's use of such facilities,
the STFC's cuts will have very real negative consequences; we
are already running facilities (eg ISIS) at levels well below
their optimum, simply in order to save money on the electricity
bill. The effect on the laser community, astrophysics and many
other scientific areas is arguably worse. Generically, research
is slowed down in highly competitive subjects and it takes a long
time to regain a competitive position once it has been lost. As
well as the effect on individual careers the ability to recruit
and retain the best people is diminished. Although the scope and
mode of the prioritization exercise is generally supported (since
it had community involvement), there are specific areas where
community advice was ignored, and there is a tangible lack of
transparency about how strategic decisions have been made. The
structural review of STFC is welcomed, because Lord Drayson has
recognized how science spend can be unduly affected by outside
factors (international subscriptions, but, just as importantly,
facility costs). But the outcome of this review isn't yet known.
11. The UK education system is patently
failing to deliver in Science. Of particular concern to us is
its failure to deliver academics for research and teaching: SEPnet
physics departments are heavily reliant on non-UK physicists,
with only approximately 40% of academic staff educated entirely
in the UK. The current German Excellence initiatives and France's
new attempts to emulate them could easily lead to an exodus of
the best continental physicists out of the UK system, leaving
unfilled positions. Cuts in STFC and elsewhere will make the problem
worse as they will further damage the career structure in the
UK.
12. We have evidence in our institutions
that the Additional Student Numbers released in July 2009 increased
numbers of students in our own classes where they were allocated.
We note that despite a growing demand for places in Physics in
South East England as a result of our efforts at recruitment encouraged
by the HEFCE places, our application for yet further student numbers
was rejected.
13. The effect of any HEFCE cuts in the
unit of funding for STEM subject students would be catastrophic.
The unit of funding has been insufficient for a long time. It
is that which has driven the closure of a significant number of
departments of Physics and Chemistry in the period 1995-2005 (which
correlates with a simultaneous drop in UK undergraduates in those
disciplines, a situation from which we have only recently begun
to recover). Whilst the vulnerable subject money has helped over
the last couple of years any new cuts are likely to result in
another round of closures (and from experience, an associated
drop in total student numbers) which is absolutely contrary to
the governments aim of providing extra support for STEM subjects.
14. We note the comments on the ring-fence
applied to the Science budget within the Research Councils. It
is suggested that the HEFCE QR fund and Departmental Research
budgets might be ring-fenced. First, this is entirely against
the very notion of QR which is to support research within an institution
in the best way determined by the management of the University
with its governors. If that is to be altered we shall veer towards
a continental model of government involvement at a detailed level
in institutions. The absence of such control is, empirically,
the reason for the every success of UK HE to date. Equally importantly,
it is vital to recognise that a ring-fence allows no flow in either
direction of funding. Because there is strong evidence to suggest
that Research, particularly in the physical sciences is in deficit
in most institutions, it is currently supported by other activities
so that a ring-fence would likely be detrimental to the cause.
15. We applaud the government's increased
investment in Science and its bold attempts to deliver an enhanced
Science base and an improved innovation platform. Some of these
investments have been very successful and the creation of TSB
is one such example, but the policies have not been altogether
coherent. If the strategy is to get more students to study scientific
subjects then there must be incentives in place for both the students
and institutions to take and educate such students effectively.
The only incentive that will be effective (short of dictat) is
money, and there has not been adequate prioritisation of funding
in the direction of what is said to be strategically important
whether through education or research. Furthermore, many of the
drivers in HE are towards enhanced volume as well as improved
quality in pursuit of greater finance. It is likely that the country
can only afford a smaller volume of high quality research, which
does not argue for reduced funding but a more strategic distribution
of the funds available.
Professor Sir William Wakeham FREng
Chair of SEPnet
DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST
The submission is prepared on behalf of the
Network of Six Physics Departments from:
University of Queen Mary University of London
Royal Holloway University of London
University of Kent
University of Surrey
University of Sussex
University of Southampton
Evidently the Departments all have an interest
in preserving or enhancing science research funding, particularly
in STFC, the unit of resource for teaching in Physics and the
Number of Students studying Physics.
Professor Wakeham is also Chair of the UUK/RCUK
Task Group on Full Economic Costs.
| 
