Memorandum submitted by UCL (FC 49)
1. UCL is pleased to make a submission to
the Committee's inquiry into funding cuts for research. We emphasise
our great concern at the £915 million cuts across higher
education budgets that have been announced so far. Together with
those that are forecast to follow, these have serious implications
for the sector and are beyond what universities can easily absorb.
The cuts are particularly alarming given the international competition
in research that the UK faces at a time when our competitors are
investing heavily in universities and in research. We are concerned
that the proposed cuts risk undermining the substantial investment
in world-class research than has been made over the past decade
and significantly damaging the long-term health of the UK research
base—with consequent impact on our international competitiveness,
economic prosperity and wellbeing. The cuts also illustrate a
lack of understanding that investment in higher education and
research is vital for the UK's economic recovery.
2. This submission makes comments in response
to the points raised by the Committee in relation to: evaluating
the impact of research; the effects of funding cuts on research-led
institutions; ring-fencing research funding; and the announced
STFC cuts. We finish with some general conclusions on investment
in the research base.
EVALUATING THE
IMPACT OF
RESEARCH
3. UCL strongly supports efforts to better
capture the impact of UK research, which is important both to
justify public investment and to enable the academic community
to demonstrate the critical value of research to the UK. Examples
of the different ways in which UCL's research has had major social
or economic impact are given at Annex A.
Evidence for impact of research
4. Undertaking research is crucial for the
continued success of the UK economy and strength of our society.[55]
The benefits of university research to the UK are great, although
not always easy to quantify. The available evidence tells us:
— that the UK is a world leader in research
and number one in the G8 of advanced industrial nations for research
publication productivity (third in the world for citation productivity);[56]
— a particularly good return given that
the UK is ranked seventh in the G8 for public funding,[57]
and a strong indication of the return on public investment in
research;
— that there is a significant financial
return on public investment in research: one report has estimated
the return to be equivalent to £0.39 in perpetuity for every
£1 of investment[58]
and another that every £1 of pubic investment in research
stimulates additional investment eight-fold over eight years;[59]
and
— that UK research generates significant
economic impact in terms of supporting business, attracting inward
R&D investment,[60]
generating new products and processes,[61]
creating spin-off companies, providing skilled people, and so
on.
5. There is therefore a clear rationale
for continued public investment in research, which will generate
a substantial financial return over the long-term and continue
to deliver the new knowledge, products and services which attract
investment and boost our prosperity.
6. We emphasise that the benefits of research
go beyond the financial to wider, less easily measured economic
benefits such as job creation, increased productivity, improved
healthcare, enhanced quality of life, or increased sustainability.
Publications such as the Research Councils' Excellence with
Impact[62]
and Universities UK's Eureka UK! [63]have
described the myriad ways in which university research has had
an impact on our society and boosted our prosperity. The UK is
also dependent on the strength of our research base for intangible
benefits, such as our quality of life and cultural wellbeing.
It is imperative that we do not under-estimate the importance
of those research impacts which are enormously beneficial although
not readily quantifiable.
Evaluating impact
7. Evaluating the impact of research is
known to be extremely difficult. Much remains unknown about the
most effective and accurate methods of evaluation. As a recent
report for HEFCE noted, "In some instances, the link between
the original research and the demonstrable benefits are clear.
But this is the exception rather than the rule. More often than
not, impact is achieved through the implementation of the results
of a number of research projects from a variety of HEIs over a
long time frame".[64]
8. A retrospective approach is likely to be
more successful in terms of identifying impact that has arisen
from research (as the evidence referred to above shows), although
there remain significant problems in terms of the extent to which
specific impacts are directly attributable to specific research.
HEFCE's approach to REF has illustrated some of the difficulties
in assessing impact, not least that it will likely assess only
what can readily be captured and reported (with verifiable data)
rather than the full wealth of impacts arising from research in
universities.
9. Although the REF approach seems reasonably
sensible as a starting point for gathering of some evidence of
the impact of research in UK universities, it remains a limited
approach which will only partially assess the impact of research.
It is also as yet untested. UCL's response to the REF consultation
expressed concerns that devoting 25% of assessment of impact was
too high a proportion for such an untested element. We also made
clear that research impact should be considered in its entirety,
including academic impact, rather than precluding academic impact
when evaluating the impact of research, which imposes a false
dichotomy in assessment.
10. The Research Councils' ongoing Outputs
and Outcomes Collection project may in time shed further light
on ways of evaluating impact retrospectively and it will be important
to learn from this.
11. Recent changes introduced by the Research
Councils to grant applications requiring impact summaries represent
a move towards encouraging researchers to think about the potential
impact of their proposed research. The Committee will be aware
that this has caused perturbation in the academic community. The
ways in which impact plans are used by individual Research Councils
when making funding decisions remains unclear. UCL emphasises
that funding decisions should continue to be made on the basis
of research excellence alone, as it may not be possible to predict
what the ultimate outcome or impact of research will be. It is
important that the Research Councils do not implement any practice
which means that only those applications which are able to describe
potential impact are funded, as this would lead to the stifling
of the research base and a failure to fund many exciting and innovative
research proposals.
12. We emphasise that whilst the impacts
of research nationally can be clearly demonstrated at an aggregate
level, and whilst it is possible to publish "case studies"
of the impact of research, attempting systematically to evaluate
the impact of research at the level of an individual project or
department is problematic. UCL believes that assessing the impact
of research at an institutional level would better capture the
full extent of and contribution to research impact.
13. We would also distinguish between demonstrating
the benefits and impacts of publicly-funded research on the one
hand (which is entirely appropriate), and making funding and policy
decisions based on perceptions or predictions of impact on the
other. Using research impact as a driver rather than a desired
outcome of policy risks undermining the strength, dynamism and
diversity of our research base.
EFFECTS OF
FUNDING CUTS
ON RESEARCH-LED
INSTITUTIONS
14. The £915 million cuts (likely to
be followed by further cuts in the future)[65]
that have been announced to higher education budgets, including
science and research, will inevitably pose great difficulties
for universities. It is imperative that we recognise that our
research-led universities remain one of our most valuable national
assets and that we act to secure their future sustainability.
15. In particular, Government should recognise
the role of research and research-intensive universities in developing
solutions to global problems, through the generation of new knowledge,
simulating technological innovation, and informing policy. Research-led
institutions, such as UCL, which offer a high-quality research
environment, concentration of talent, and a breadth of cross-disciplinary
research excellence are able to play a particularly valuable role
in contributing to the solution of global problems. Tackling many
of the most complex social and global problems requires synthesis
of knowledge from across different disciplines to provide new
ways of thinking and multi-dimensioned approaches that combine
different perspectives. This can only be found in those institutions
which foster a breadth of research excellence. However, sustaining
such excellence will be extremely tough in the face of research
funding cuts.
16. We therefore argue that future research
policy will need to recognise that research-intensive universities
offering multidisciplinary research excellence across a breadth
of expertise make a unique contribution to this agenda by enabling
the tensioning of different strands of knowledge against each
other, an invaluable capability to enable the advancement of knowledge
and understanding and to address global challenges. In the context
of the announced funding cuts and the current financial climate,
it is likely to require that clear strategic decisions will need
to be made on research funding policy. Research policy must maintain
appropriate levels of funding for our leading research-intensive
universities to enable the continued pursuit of research excellence
and sustain our knowledge base—it is on the generation and
wise application of knowledge that our economic prosperity and
social wellbeing depends.
RING-FENCING
RESEARCH FUNDING
Science Budget
17. UCL welcomes the increase in the Science
and Research Budget over the past decade, which has more than
doubled,[66]
and the projected increase of 17.5% between 2007-08 and 2010-11.[67]
The ring-fencing of the Science Budget within the responsible
department has been a successful policy which has sent an important
message both to the research community and to other government
departments about the need to protect and maintain research funding.
It also means, by and large, that the principle of funding for
research has been immune from departmental spending pressures
(although these will inevitably determine the amount of funding
available for the Budget). We would strongly urge the continuation
of the Science and Research Budget ring-fence in future spending
reviews.
Departmental research budgets
18. Spending on R&D by government departments
has decreased by 28% overall between 2000-01 and 2007-08 in real
terms, and in terms of the proportion of overall R&D in the
UK it comprises by 9%.[68]
This is particularly concerning given recent emphasis placed on
the value of public procurement of research[69]
and on the importance of evidence-based policy-making, including
by this Committee. Government departments should invest adequately[70]
in relevant research. We believe therefore departmental research
funding would benefit from a ring-fence to protect it from other
funding pressures and to ensure that Government departments are
investing suitably in research.
HEFCE research funding
19. There has been a welcome year-on-year
increase in the recurrent research funding provided through the
HEFCE block grant, which has increased by over 50% in cash terms
between 2000-01 and 2009-10.[71]
This significant investment in QR research funding has delivered
stability and has helped institutions to continue to improve their
research quality and strategic management of research. The many
benefits of QR funding are described in a recent HEFCE publication.[72]
20. Whilst ring-fencing HEFCE's research
budget may have advantages in providing an additional safeguard
for the dual support system of research funding, it may also risk
serious adverse knock-on effects on other parts of the budget
(for example teaching funding—sustainable teaching funding
and maintaining the unit of resource is vital for institutions
and we would not want to see ring-fenced research funding at its
expense). It is also worth noting that the HEFCE budget, as well
as supporting several different activities in universities, is
already devolved and managed at arms-length from Government departments
so is arguably more secure than departmental budgets.
21. That being said, we emphasise that the
maintenance of QR funding is vital for the continued stability
and agility of our research base, and for providing the stable,
un-hypothecated funding stream that enables universities to invest
sustainably and flexibly in research activities and infrastructure.
QR is also vital for facilitating strategic investment, supporting
emerging areas of research and curiosity-driven research, and
underpinning or pump-priming other research grants, including
those from business. UCL reiterates its support for QR and for
the dual support system.
THE IMPLICATIONS
AND EFFECTS
OF THE
ANNOUNCED STFC BUDGET
CUTS
22. The announced STFC budget cuts are highly
problematic for the research community and for universities. The
impact on UCL in particular is:
— large rolling grants in Particle &
Astrophysics/Space are expected to be cut by at least 15%, which
is likely to mean a loss of engineering and support capability,
as well as a reduction in post-doctoral opportunities and adverse
impacts on smaller responsive-mode grants, especially in astronomy;
— the loss of 1-2 PhD studentships per
year, which, whilst financially overall is not greatly significant,
is serious for the research groups affected (equivalent to around
a 15% cut);
— an expectation that fellowship success
rates will reduce by a similar amount pro rata across the College—in
particular the abolition of the PDRA fellowship round after proposals
were submitted has significantly demoralised talented postdoctoral
researchers who in many cases were submitting their first grant
application; and
— ongoing doubt over the viability of specific
projects (this remains despite UCL's major projects being very
highly ranked and demonstrates the adverse impact of the cuts
on high-quality research).
23. More generally, there is very little
breadth left in the STFC programme areas which means that initiating
any new project will be very difficult. UCL and other universities
are also encountering increasing difficulties in securing support
for talented early/mid-career staff. This is exacerbated by cuts
being made to UK research funding at a time when our major competitors
are investing heavily in research. The cuts risk causing serious
long-term harm to the health of UK research and unquantifiable
damage to retention and recruitment of both international students
and researchers.
24. Aside from financial difficulties, we
would also emphasise that cuts at this point in the funding cycle
impact adversely on strategic planning and the balance of the
STFC funding portfolio. The abandonment of long-term preparation
for potential international projects to be developed in the future
will have serious long-term consequences. This highlights the
importance of effective forward planning, particularly in the
context of tight budgets, in order to maintain the balance of
the funding portfolio.
25. UCL is particularly concerned at the
STFC cuts given that the difficulties at STFC have been known
for two years, and that STFC has overseen a significant transfer
of resource from universities to industry and the central labs.
Although recently acknowledged, there appears to be a lack of
political will in addressing the problems in such a way as to
restore the confidence of the academic community The overall impression
is of the neglect of this area of science in the UK, compounded
by a lack of strategy as to how the UK invests in and exploits
facilities (in the UK and internationally). Unless rapidly rectified,
this will adversely affect UCL's recruitment and retention of
students, postdoctoral researchers, technical staff and academics
across a swathe of physical sciences.
THE FINANCIAL
DOWNTURN AND
INVESTMENT IN
THE RESEARCH
BASE
26. UCL wishes to emphasise the absolute
importance of continuing to invest in the UK's research base.
Our research base remains one of our most successful assets; our
leading universities number some genuinely world-class institutions.
27. Research investment should be a long-term
strategy which recognises the importance of safeguarding previous
investment, rather than allowing our research base to be undermined
and risking the loss of our leading global position, as well as
necessitating costly remedial investment in the future.
28. It is also important to bear in mind
the international context, both with regard to competition (our
competitors are adopting strategies of targeting significant funding
to develop leading research-led universities which pose constant
challenges to the UK's leading position) and collaboration (addressing
global problems will require increased collaboration, including
to facilitate capacity-building in developing countries). The
UK will need to continue to invest sustainably in research-intensive
universities to remain at the forefront of research and able to
set the agenda on the global research stage.
29. It should also be noted that our leading
research intensive universities play a crucial role in the development
and maintenance of strategic relationships between the UK and
the world's emerging economies and markets such as those in China,
India and the oil states. This is due in large part to those responsible
for decision-making receiving their education in the west and
in UK universities, often at doctoral level—so key decision-makers
in key emerging economies are a product of our research base.
It is also due to the relationships that exist between many individuals
in the research base of emerging economies, whose expertise plays
a significant role in informing policy development, and researchers
in leading universities. In this sense, the UK's research base
underpins not only the new knowledge and technologies on which
UK exports depend, but also the human and social networks through
which the UK's trading position is maintained. Any cuts in funding
for the UK's research base threaten this position.
30. If public funding is reduced, it will
be necessary to seek alternative sources from funding elsewhere.
Whilst recognising universities' own responsibility for pursuing
other funding sources, we also urge the Government to consider
what incentives it can offer to business to increase investment
in UK R&D (where we lag behind our competitors in any case)[73]
and to boost charity research spending.
31. Finally, we wish to reiterate our severe
concern at the research funding cuts and to urgently caution against
any further cuts implemented as part of a short-term response
to the current financial downturn, which will have grave long-term
consequences and risk the health of our research base and our
economy for many years to come.
January 2010
Annex A
IMPACT OF UCL RESEARCH
UCL's research grant income in the last financial
year (August 2008—July 2009) totalled nearly £249 million.
Public funding accounts for less than half of this (47%) with
the remainder received from industry, charities and overseas—a
ration of roughly 1:1 for public: private research funding.
A selection of examples describing the impact
of UCL research is given below.
INFORMING POLICY
The Commonwealth Secretariat commissioned six
briefing papers on managing the health effects of climate change
for the Commonwealth Health Ministers Meeting on Health &
Climate Change and the World Health Assembly meeting (which sets
priorities for the World Health Organization) in May 2009.
The briefings drew on the report of the UCL-Lancet
Commission on Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change, which
asserts that climate change is the biggest global-health threat
of the 21st century. It was the work of UCL academics from many
disciplines across the university—including health, anthropology,
geography, engineering, economics, law and philosophy—recognising
that addressing problems for global health requires expertise
drawn from across range of disciplines, with new ways of integrating
ideas.
BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERY
OF "MAGNETRICITY"
Research led by the London Centre for Nanotechnology
(LCN), a joint venture between UCL and Imperial College London,
has discovered that a magnetic charge can behave and interact
just like an electric charge in some materials.
The research proves the existence of atom-sized
`magnetic charges' that behave and interact just like more familiar
electric charges, and demonstrates a perfect symmetry between
electricity and magnetism—a phenomenon dubbed `magnetricity'
by the authors of the research. The discovery could lead to a
reassessment of current magnetism theories, as well as profound
technological advances.
IMPROVING HEALTH:
PIONEERING SIGHT
THERAPY
UCL research is developing a cell replacement
therapy from human embryonic cells which could cure age-related
macular degeneration, which affects around a quarter of people
over the age of 60 in the UK. The goal is to replace cells essential
for "seeing" lost through disease at the back of the
eye. The project, led by Professor Pete Coffey, has trialled surgical
procedures in a number of patients using the patients' own cells
have illustrated that a cell-replacement therapy can work, demonstrating
a significant improvement in sight and preventing blindness. The
project aims to introduce the therapy into clinics by 2011.
Pfizer has recently made a multi-million pound
award to UCL, to advance the development of the stem cell-based
therapies and an international collaboration between the Medical
Research Council and the Californian Institute for Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM) is funding a major £2.4 million study to
bring stem cell treatment for AMD to the point of clinical trial.
EVOLVING OUR
CULTURE
A major investigation by UCL historians, led
by Professor Catherine Hall, into Britain's debt to slavery, "Legacies
of British Slave Ownership", has caused two major UK businesses—Rothschild,
the merchant bank, and Freshfields, the City law firm—to
become the first to apologise for their historic links with slavery
after the study revealed founders of banking dynasties who benefited
from slavery.
The research aimed to create the first `encyclopaedia
of British slave owners', with the project building a systematic
analysis of the economic, commercial, political, cultural, social
and physical legacies of slave ownership. The study sought to
highlight the major companies, art collections and institutions
that can trace their existence back to colonial slavery in the
19th century.
CREATING WEALTH
UCL academics who helped to design the rules
for the sale of contracts for third generation (3G) mobile phone
licences, raised £22.5 billion for the UK government—equivalent
to 2.5% of GDP.
Drawing on their research into game theory and
the economics of competition, Professor Ken Bilmore and colleagues
advised the Government on the design and implementation of the
licence auction. All the companies had to bid simultaneously;
as the bids increased, each company re-assessed whether they would
still make a profit despite the rising costs—so the winning
bids came from the best business cases.
The enormous sum raised for the Government contrasts
with the sale of the `second generation' mobile licences, which
yielded payments in the region of just £40,000.
MAKING OUR
SOCIETY SAFER
The Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science is
pioneering "crime mapping" which considers the inherent
geographically quality in crime. For a crime to occur it involves
an offender and a suitable target to come together at a location.
Understanding the role that this location has and the importance
of other geographical factors that result in why a crime happens
(eg the neighbourhood characteristics of the area from where an
offender comes from) can offer vital clues that contribute to
improving how we respond to crime problems and how we catch offenders.
These responses could include those specific to policing and partnership
approaches to crime reduction, but also to support other area
based initiatives such as neighbourhood renewal.
If we can understand more about why certain
places act as popular locations where offenders offend (ie crime
hotspots), why certain areas breed more offenders than others,
and why certain places or people are more vulnerable than others,
then we can begin to more effectively get behind why crimes happen,
become more intelligent in our policing, and design our operational
policing, crime reduction and prevention responses to be more
successful.
55 See for example: Campaign for Science and Engineering
Policy Report, "Impacts of Investment in the Science and
Engineering Research Base" (September 2009) and Arts and
Humanities Research Council, "Leading the world: the impact
of arts and humanities research" (2009). Back
56
Evidence Ltd / Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
International comparative performance of the UK research base.
September 2009. Back
57
The UK spent 1.82% of GDP on R&D compared to an average of
2.24%, according to a study of 21 comparator nations (Evidence
Ltd / Office of Science and Innovation. PSA target metrics
for the UK research base. 2007). Back
58
Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND
Europe. Medical Research: What's it worth? Estimating the economic
benefits from medical research in the UK. London: UK Evaluation
Forum; 2008. This report found that a £1.00 investment in
public/charitable cardiovascular disease research produced a stream
of benefits thereafter that is equivalent in value to earning
£0.39 per year in perpetuity. Back
59
A £1 increase in extra public medical research can lead to
an increase in private R&D spending of between £2.20
and £5.10. The effect of public funding in stimulating business
investment in R&D appears strongest with regard to basic research,
with evidence suggesting that a £1 investment of public funds
in research leads to £8.38 of further investment over eight
years (Alzheimer's Research Trust / Office of Health Economics,
Forward Together: Complementarity of public and charitable
research with respect to private research spending, September
2009). Back
60
See: Professor Paul Wellings. Intellectual Property and Research
Benefits. September 2008; UKTI. UK: Your springboard for
growth Inward Investment report 2008-09 (2009) which showed
an 11% increase in investment, making the UK first in Europe,
and stated that "The UK's long-established and exceptionally
strong science base puts it in a unique position to attract and
serve the world's investors in R&D (p 14). Back
61
In 2007-08, 590 new patents were granted to UK universities and
219 spin-off companies were established; 923 spin-off companies
were still active after three years (HEFCE, Higher Education-Business
and Community Interaction Survey 2007-08, 2009). Back
62
The Research Councils UK document Excellence with Impact provides
a useful account of some of the economic benefits of research
funded by the Research Councils: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/warry.htm Back
63
Universities UK. Eureka UK: 100 discoveries and developments
in UK universities that have changed the world. 2006. Back
64
RAND. Capturing Research Impacts: A review of international practice.
2009. Back
65
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/11/universities-face-meltdown-britain-suffer Back
66
Science budget allocations have increased by 134% between 200-01
and 2009-10. David Lammy MP, response to parliamentary question;
3 Dec 2009 : Column 989W; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091203/text/91203w0029.htm Back
67
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. The Allocations
of the Science Budget: 2008-09 to 2010-11, December 2007. Back
68
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. SET Statistics.
Table 3.2; updated November 2009; http://www.dius.gov.uk/science/science_funding/set_stats Back
69
Lord Sainsbury. The Race to the Top: A Review of Government's
Science and Innovation Politics. October 2007. Back
70
This should include paying the full economic costs of research,
as stated in the Research Councils UK/Universities UK report A
Review of the Impact of Full Economic on the HEI Sector (October
2007). Back
71
See HEFCE Recurrent Grants publications, 1999-2009. Back
72
HEFCE. Securing world-class research in UK universities: Exploring
the impact of block grant funding. November 2009. Back
73
See Campaign for Science and Engineering Policy Report. "Impacts
of Investment in the Science and Engineering Research Base"
(September 2009). Back
| 
