Memorandum submitted by the University
of Leeds (FC 45)
The funding cuts in question follow an overall
dilution of QR across the sector as a result of the RAE. Whereas
research-intensive universities have largely recorded increases
in research expenditure over the past few years, the last three
years have seen the value of Research Council new awards essentially
remaining level (as evidenced by data accumulated from the Brunswick
Group of Universities). Thus, the current funding cuts come on
top of ongoing economies and the falling (in real terms) value
of new awards, ie, they are impacting on a sector already under
some stress. Science is increasingly technologically led. Thus,
any "flat line" in financial terms leads to a real-terms
cut in research ability. Whilst we need some sectoral re-organisation
to cope with this and perhaps regional specialisation, it must
be recognised that unless STEM is protected, our ability to deliver
will spiral downwards.
The process for deciding where to make cuts in
SET spending
1. It is not unreasonable an expectation
that funders would respond to pressure on resources by becoming
more selective as to the areas and individuals that they support,
to maximise the benefits from what remains rather than spreading
more thinly across the sector. This leads to concentration of
funds in target areas and may result in perturbation of funding
patterns.
2. The Royal Society of Chemistry and the
Institute of Physics recently commissioned a study (Nigel Brown
Associates, December 2009) of the sustainability of research in
UK university chemistry and physics departments. Not surprisingly,
both are in deficit. Their heavy overall dependence on public
funding (85-88% in 2007-08), and the rising costs, means that
universities are less likely to be able to protect these departments
from the anticipated funding pressures, especially if they are
to sustain high quality teaching. Thus, selectivity in research
funding is likely to result in chemistry and physics departments
across the sector experiencing severe financial pressure.
3. The Research Councils remind us of their
long-standing intentions to direct resources towards projects
which demonstrate "Impact", and an expectation of matching
support from industry. The proposed assessment of Impact is an
obvious, though not undisputed, feature of REF. Impact-driven
research is not a new concept. The University of Leeds is an excellent
example of an institution which has embraced the Impact agenda.
Historically we have a culture of working at the interface between
academia and society (industry, government) through multidisciplinary
collaborations within the campus and externally. However, we would
highlight the need to keep a balance between the funding of underpinning
science (eg, through ring-fencing) to ensure that radically new
ideas can be developed and that future generations of researchers
can be supported and nurtured.
4. At Leeds, we have the agility to diversify
our sources of research income and, indeed, approximately half
of staff in STEM subjects have engaged in "applied"
research over the past year. Whereas engagement with industry
(either directly or through agencies such as RDAs) offers an alternative
source of research income, the knowledge and understanding created
by this route may be subject to restrictions on dissemination.
Neither can the funding gap be easily made up through non-RC-funded
routes. At Leeds we would require a tripling of our current expenditure
on research from such sources to meet this gap. Clearly, this
is an unrealistic expectation. Whilst European funding for research
is still buoyant, the special transitional flat rate and the low
overhead recoveries on some schemes are a serious disadvantage.
Thus, the process for deciding on cuts in SET spending should
not assume de facto the ability of institutions to plug
the gaps in basic research from other sources.
5. There are signs that Research Councils
are likely to find it easier to cut spending on the support of
postgraduate research students. These students are a critical
part of the research base and if the cuts fall on them, we will
undermine our pipeline to new blood and create a recruitment crisis
further down the time-line. In recent years the Research Councils
have encouraged us to regard the training of postgraduate research
students as a "people" activity to develop research
careers and a broader skills base, eg, through "Robert's"
funding and DTCs. We are in danger of moving backwards in this
respect.
Evidence as to the feasibility or effectiveness
of estimating the economic impact of research
6. The need for a measure of the economic
impact of research is critical to the use of this parameter as
a means of directing research funding. Currently, the metrics
are being investigated for the REF through pilot projects involving
evidenced case studies. Fundamental to this exercise is that claims
of impact should be based on sound basic research and, in the
retrospective approach, that the time to realise that impact can
be significant, eg, 5-10 years. However, the approach to evaluation
can only be subjective, as the economic parameters are difficult
to identify and quantify retrospectively.
7. Some departments, eg, Pure Mathematics,
are understandably nervous about expectations in this respect.
It is important, therefore, that any approach adopted to measure
impact takes on board the different expectations across the disciplines.
Similarly, concern has been expressed that an economic impact-driven
approach to research funding is likely to lead to incremental
and un-adventurous science.
The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
8. In the past, institutions with research
and teaching activities, have been able to balance income streams
to compensate for perturbations in funding patterns. The compounded
effect of a cap on student numbers, cuts in core funds, and a
reduced opportunity to win research funding are likely to have
a serious effect on the viability of science and engineering in
those institutions.
9. There is concern about the "disciplinary
lottery" in the funding of scientific research through HEFCE's
use of the STEM/part-STEM mechanism. That is, the same piece of
science conducted in a non-STEM discipline attracts less QR resource
than had it been conducted from a STEM discipline. This leads
to a structural loss of ability to invest, without cross subsidy
from other discipline areas, and so the true costs of conducting
quality science in such an environment are not covered under a
part-STEM arrangement. The proposed cuts are likely to have a
disproportionate impact on such research activity.
The implications of the announced STFC budget
cuts
10. Support for research in astronomy through
STFC falls broadly under three headings: the near universe (including
stars, star and planet formation, solar physics, planetary surfaces
and meteoritics, and space plasmas), the far universe (including
cosmology and galactic evolution), and astroparticles (including
cosmic rays, TeV gamma-rays, gravitational waves, neutrino astronomy,
and the cosmic microwave background). It is expected that a department
of astronomy would engage in several of the subfields within these
broad headings, if it is to provide a credible training provision
at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The dismay of the astronomy
community at the considerable broad cuts, and the more extreme
targeted cuts in the STFC budget, is easy to appreciate. Thus,
space plasmas, a subject with important impact, eg, on communications
and climate, has been hit severely, as has astroparticle physics,
with the expectation of the closure of world-leading research
in these areas. Investment in them, and the creation of world-leading
centres of research, has been the result of a rational response
to increases, in recent years, in research funding. The cuts will
severely damage this research base.
11. Concern amongst this community is also
focused on the relationship between the 35% cut (following the
25% cut of 2008) in grants (as the flexible part of the STFC budget)
and the funding by STFC of facilities. This is already causing
leading UK-based astronomers and Solar System physicists to move
abroad or consider leaving science altogether. The direction of
research should be driven by academic excellence, rather than
commitment to the funding of facilities, innovation campuses,
and initiatives such as Aurora.
The scope of the STFC review
12. The long-term nature of particle physics
and astronomy projects, and their reliance on large international
organisations, is an argument for maintaining a separate funding
body to serve this community. This view has already been expressed
by the Royal Astronomical Society Forum and the Institute of Physics.
Following the arguments above, it is essential that any structured
Research Council should have academic excellence at its core.
The operation and definition of the science budget
ring-fence
13. Clearly a ring-fence of the science
budget is attractive to SET but we must take care not to undermine
the funding of science which is undertaken in non-STEM disciplines
(eg, Geography) which already are suffering from a lower allocation
through QR. It has to be appreciated that ring-fencing does lead
to some disciplines being disadvantaged, and the implications
of this approach have to be considered and understood in the wider
context.
Whether the Government is achieving the objectives
set out in the "Science and Innovation Investment Framework
2004-2014: Next Steps"
14. The main problem with regards to the
supply of graduates is that Mathematics and Physics at many schools
is still not sufficiently attractive, or of sufficiently high
quality, to translate into the desired growth in undergraduate
courses.
Whether the extra student support, which the Government
announced on 20 July 2009 delivers students in science, technology
and mathematics courses
15. There are grave concerns about the viability
of this scheme in view of the fact that additional support for
high cost laboratory-based subjects was not included in the provision.
The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit of
funding" for STEM students
16. It is in all our interests that the
cuts in the unit of funding do not have a detrimental effect,
neither on the quality of provision nor on the student experience.
It is our firm belief that students in SET should receive hands-on
laboratory exposure to meet the expectations of the research community
and of their future employers. In response to the need for economies,
colleagues have been inventive in the way they have devised methods
for delivery and assessment that allow larger groups to be accommodated.
We now face additional constraints for which there is no obvious
way to maintain current capacity.
DECLARATION OF
INTEREST
The author of this response is Pro-Dean for
Research in the Faculty of Mathematics and Physical Sciences,
who is active in research and dependent on Research Council and
other sources of Government funding. He has drawn on the views
of colleagues across five faculties, many of whom serve on Research
Council and funding body committees and panels.
| 
