Memorandum submitted by UK Deans of Science
(FC 43)
1. We are extremely pleased that the Science
and Technology Select Committee has announced this inquiry at
a time that is critical for the UK in both political and economic
terms.
2. The UK Deans of Science (UKDS) has members
in around 70 HE institutions that have significant science portfolios.
Our primary aim is to ensure the health of the science base of
the UK through the promotion and support of science and scientists
and of science research and science teaching in the UK's HEIs.
3. We wish first to place on record our
appreciation for the significant increases in real terms in the
science budget that have occurred over the past 10 years.
4. We understand that various government
and non-government groups are in the process of modelling cuts
of up to 20%. Cuts at the top end of this range applied to the
university STEM community would bring negative consequences that
would take up to 10 years to put right. The effect of a reduction
of a few percentage points would depend on the decisions as to
where the cuts should fall but, in spite of the strong and negative
response that would ensue from some quarters, could be dealt with
in the short term. However, our greatest concerns are the message
that any reduction in the science budget will give to young people
considering committing their careers to science and the effect
it would have on companies that rely on a strong science base
in the UK to justify continuing to invest here. Even more important
is the opportunity that currently exists to change the nature
of the UK's economy.
5. The issue of "message" is something
that cannot be dismissed lightly. The science community and the
government have worked successfully in recent years to make the
study of science more attractive. UK research output is world
leading and the UK has increasingly become an attractive place
in which to study and to do research. We need to ensure that appropriate
and continuing investment takes place to ensure that we do not
now give a message that science has lost its national importance.
Such investment is also important to protect our reputation with
international undergraduate and postgraduate students—an
area of potential growth provided actions are not taken that diminish
the reputation of UK higher education.
6. We realise that any argument that the
science budget should be immune to the need to contribute to the
reduction in the country's budget deficit may be interpreted as
straightforward protectionism. This is categorically not the case.
The government and almost all political parties now accept that
developments in science and engineering will be the only basis
through which the UK can remain economically viable and it is
through investing in them that the major national and global challenges
(climate change, energy and food sustainability, health and wellbeing,
etc) will be solved.
7. The recent global economic crisis has
led many countries to make difficult investment decisions. France
is investing heavily in its universities, the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act is injecting an additional $8.9 billion in
research ensuring that several large spending areas, including
the National Science Foundation, are on course to double their
budgets over the next 7 years, and many other countries are deliberately
increasing their expenditure in research at this time. Indeed
it is difficult to find any other nation that is cutting back
on its investment in SET research. We simply cannot believe that
in such an international environment a saving of a few hundred
million pounds per annum (in the context of the UK's annual national
and local government public spend of ca £1.4 trillion) is
the right course of action. There is currently an almost unprecedented
opportunity for a strategic rebalancing of the UK to a more sustainable,
knowledge-based economy that makes full use of advances in science
and technology, including the development of a more competitive
workforce at all levels and especially the next generation of
research leaders. We urge the Science and Technology Committee
to make this point as forcibly as it can and to work with other
committees in both the Houses to ensure that this message is heard,
understood and acted upon. A failure to invest appropriately now
will leave the UK behind as the world recovers from recession
and within three years it will be too late to catch up.
THE PROCESS
FOR DECIDING
WHERE TO
MAKE CUTS
IN SET
SPENDING
8. Where cuts may fall is likely to have
repercussions in the future. The cuts will have been caused by
decisions of politicians, not the SET community. The science community
may have many views on how and where cuts in spending might be
made but we believe that decisions in this case should be made
by those who have decided on any reduction in funding. They must
explain their reasoning and be ready to accept responsibility
for the short and long term consequences of their actions.
ESTIMATING THE
ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF RESEARCH
FOR QR FUNDING
AND RESEARCH
COUNCIL GRANTS
9. We believe that the success of UK science
as it leads the recovery from recession will be clear evidence
of impact and that science research has had clear and quantifiable
effects on the profitability of UK plc. Measuring impact can be
more difficult, but if both the research councils and HEFCE stand
by their claims that the excellence of research comes first and
that impact is a secondary factor in making decisions about grants
for research councils and, for the Research Excellence Framework,
is a process of describing the effects of scientific work over
a reasonable period, not a measure of knowledge transfer, then
we believe that metrics for measurement can be defined. Areas
like particle physics, where impact takes a long time, must be
recognised and indeed the diversity of time scales and kinds of
impact are important. Excellence in research comes first but impact
is real and can be measured.
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT
OF CUTS
ON DEMAND-LED
AND RESEARCH
INSTITUTIONS
10. We may have misunderstood this part
of the Committee's inquiry but the apparent suggestion of a distinction
being made between different classes of university is unclear
to us. Most universities are led by demand both in teaching and
research. If a differentiation is being made between a "research-only"
institute and universities that always have research and teaching
functions, then we again feel that this is an artificial taxonomy
as the function of a research institute should include training
("teaching") as well as research.
THE IMPLICATIONS
AND EFFECTS
OF THE
ANNOUNCED STFC BUDGET
CUTS
11. There are two major concerns for our
members. The first is the inability of research areas to plan
programmes of research because of the instability introduced by
the STFC's cuts, both on this and previous occasions. The second
is the ability to pay our way in major international collaborative
ventures, and the ability to maintain clear lines of sight so
that UK scientists are not seen as bad or second class partners.
We understand that the recent cuts are related to currency fluctuations
and would suggest that ways should be found to moderate the effect
of currency fluctuation. In addition the removal of the Research
Councils' end of year flexibility in previous cost cutting exercises
has contributed to the immediate problem and will mean that start/stop
systems will be more prevalent than they need to be. Where investment
in major international activity (such as ESA) is part political
and part scientific, it is unfortunate if the associated costs
impact on the whole of the STFC-funded research community.
THE SCIENCE
BUDGET RING-FENCE
12. Members of the Committee will be well
aware that it is always difficult and sometimes impossible to
turn scientific research on and off as funding increases/appears
or reduces/disappears. In some cutting edge, fast moving research
areas a six month hiatus can make it effectively impossible to
ever catch up. There is therefore a real need for the science
budget to be ring-fenced and, as far as is practicable, it should
not be subjected to sudden, large fluctuations. Ideally this approach
should be applied to the HEFCE research budget, but we believe
that this would require an instruction from government to HEFCE
given its current process for allocation of such funding.
THE "SCIENCE
AND INNOVATION
INVESTMENT STRATEGY
2004-2014"
13. This ambitious document was very much
welcomed by the SET community and there is evidence in many areas
that the government and universities are delivering on several
of its goals. We note that the Committee specifically mentions
as one of the "next steps" in this document, 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. There has been a significant positive
movement here through the combined efforts of university science
faculties, scientific professional bodies, the science-based industries
and government. However, the ambition as stated in the science
and technology investment strategy included, inter alia, a "step
change" in the quality of science teachers in schools, the
results in science GCSEs and in the proportion of better qualified
students pursuing careers in research and development. Since we
are now two-thirds of the way through the period of the strategy
some serious quantitative assessment of progress in this and in
the percentage of GDP spent on research and development is urgently
needed.
EFFECT OF
HEFCE CUTS ON
THE UNIT
OF FUNDING
FOR STEM STUDENTS
14. We have indicated above that we believe
that the route out of the current economic crisis is an investment
in the world class knowledge and skills base available in the
STEM community. Any reduction in support at this time will undoubtedly
damage the UK's competitiveness relative to those countries who
are taking a different approach to investment in science and technology.
Any cut in the unit of funding for STEM students at undergraduate
and postgraduate level can only give negative messages to young
people about the importance of science and of a career in scientific
research in the UK.
15. UKDS would be pleased to supply further
comment if requested.
Submitted on behalf of the UK Deans of Science by
Prof Ian Haines, Executive Secretary
| 
