Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Physics (IoP) (FC 52)
The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity
devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application
of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is
a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences,
from specialists through to government and the general public.
Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific
publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.
The Institute is pleased to submit its views
to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's
inquiry, `The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific
research'. The response was prepared with input from the Institute's
membership. The attached annex details our response to the questions
listed in the call for evidence.
If you need any further information on the points
raised, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Professor Peter Main
Director, Education and Science
The process for deciding where to make cuts in
SET spending
1. There are three levels at which the decisions
about where to make cuts in SET spend are made:
— at HM Treasury level, where overall departmental
budgets are set, including the total amount available for research;
— at government departmental level, where
R&D budgets and allocations of budgets to the various spending
bodies (ie research councils, etc) are set; and
— at research council and equivalent levels,
where the distribution of resources to projects, facilities and
grants is made.
2. On the first, it is important that a
strong case is made for the Science Budget, and this would be
better made if the Minister for Science and Innovation had full
control over the Science Budget as a separate submission, rather
than being a component of the budget of a much larger department
with a wide range of responsibilities.
3. On the second, and in light of the difficulties
faced by STFC during the CSR07 allocation process, the RCUK Review
of UK Physics recommended that the DGSR would benefit from the
advice of an independent advisory group during future CSR allocation
processes to ensure there are no unintended consequences of allocations
and there is accountability to the scientific community.[74]
This recommendation arose as it was considered that the burden
and pressure of making such difficult discussions regarding the
allocations could be eased with input from the wider scientific
community. In the Institute's view, this is unlikely to lead to
major changes in the allocation of funds, but we support the recommendation
nonetheless which has been accepted as it will help improve the
transparency of the arrangements. A number of national bodies,
such as the Royal Society, have been selected for this purpose.
However, room should also be made available for appropriate representation
from learned societies, universities and individual academics.
In addition, within departmental R&D budgets, cuts will be
made at department and sub-departmental levels. The Institute
is of the view that each department should retain its chief scientific
advisor on its board to allow greater scrutiny and coordination
of these cuts.
4. On the third, it is important that unavoidable
cuts are made in line with a well-defined science strategy for
each research field. There is a tendency evident in the recent
STFC prioritisation exercise to look at individual projects, which
can distort the overall science strategy. It is noticeable, for
example, that the long-term investment in future facilities has
been heavily cut, which of course preserves more current research
but at the expense of future capability. In addition, it would
be desirable if there was more international membership of the
peer review and advisory committees.
What evidence there is on the feasibility or effectiveness
of estimating the economic impact of research, both from a historical
perspective (for QR funding) and looking to the future (for Research
Council grants)
5. The Institute has direct evidence of
the problems of attempting to quantify the economic impact of
research from a historical perspective.
6. The Institute, along with EPSRC, STFC,
and the Royal Astronomical Society, commissioned Oxford Economics
to conduct a study to demonstrate the economic impact of physics
research and to illustrate some of the wider social impacts of
physics research.
7. Oxford Economics used a case study approach
which selected three topics (ie LCDs, satellite navigation, and
MRI scanners) on the basis that UK-based physics research was
proven to be critical to the development of the technology, and
which benefitted the UK economy. The study focused on demonstrating
achieved gross economic benefits to the UK on the basis of empirical
evidence and stakeholder consultations, without consideration
to the costs of providing that benefit.
8. Some of the immediate limitations of
this approach were that the study could only provide an illustration
of the potential applications and benefits arising from the underlying
physics research; the benefits could not be grossed-up to estimate
the impact on the whole of physics research as the topics were
not fully representative of the wide range of physics research;
the demonstrated benefits would be purely indicative; and the
strategic and policy benefits of physics research could not be
quantified.
9. From the Institute's experience, estimating
the historical impacts of research to the UK, using a predominantly
quantitative approach, is a very difficult exercise. The time
taken between the completion of research and economic impact takes
many years. There are difficulties with identifying and quantifying
the full-range of social and public-policy benefits from curiosity-driven
research. And even if that could be done, determining the contribution
of curiosity-driven physics research is challenging, not least
because many new discoveries are made by multi-disciplinary teams
of scientists.
10. It is also the very nature of physics
research itself that makes demonstrating impact so challenging.
Most economic impact assessments will focus on a particular sector
of an economy (eg film, space, manufacturing, tourism and retail)
that can be clearly defined or classified and then measured, either
directly using official statistical sources such as the ONS, or
by surveying individuals or businesses.
11. But physics is different. There is no
"physics" industry, only "physics-using" industries.
And even those physics-using industries may not even realise that
curiosity-driven physics research underpins their business. This
makes the often-used survey approach to measure economic impact
difficult. For example, how many businesses selling flat-screen
TVs, or logistics companies using GPS to track their fleet of
lorries, would know that their business would either not exist,
or would operate in a different way, without curiosity-driven
physics research going back over several decades?
12. On the other hand, qualitative approaches
are more straightforward, but limited, as they mainly highlight
the social impacts of research. Once again, the Institute has
direct experience of this. The Institute recently published a
series of short case studies,[75]
which showcase the vital contribution that curiosity-driven physics
research has made to a number of major technological developments,
which in turn have led to significant contributions to the UK's
economy and/or improved the quality of life of its people.
13. In terms of the allocation of QR, the
approaches that HEFCE stated in its recent REF consultation are
flawed. For instance, the methods proposed for assessing impact
reveal a narrower interpretation of impact to be measured than
those described by RCUK, for instance. The challenges posed by
time lag and attribution are severe, to the extent that effectively
and fairly judging the contribution of a given unit of assessment
through the methods proposed is essentially impossible. In addition,
there is a danger that the REF will be judging the `impact' of
a discipline rather than the quality of the research within a
discipline.
14. On the issue of time lags, research
takes time to filter through but it makes no sense at all to be
assessing the publications of one set of people and the research
impact of another set of people who might have been in the same
unit 10-15 years earlier. It would be a logistical nightmare and,
what is more, the results would be meaningless as they would bear
little relevance to the current situation. Furthermore, the hit
and miss nature of research, which has to be seen as a global
effort in this respect, will often mean that successful exploitation
in the past will be no guide to the future.
15. In addition, there are problems with
the HEFCE's idea of providing case studies, which represent a
naive view of how research impacts on the environment, particularly
research that is not immediately of direct impact to the economy.
Usually, there is a body of work, which progresses by collaboration
between groups and the work enters the knowledge base. Of course,
there are major steps forward, but for the most part, it is very
difficult to point to a particular research unit that might have
responsibility. This will be particularly true for major international
collaborations.
16. Overall, the societal impacts of physics
research are limitless, and no doubt the same applies to other
STEM disciplines. But a major impact that is often overlooked
is the production of highly trained workers—people that
are trained though curiosity-driven research are able to provide
industry the capacity to exploit and build on the results of this
broad base of research. Skilled workers are essential both in
the industries where this knowledge is applied, and across the
UK's economy.
17. In terms of assessing the impact of
research looking forward, the Institute is of the view that the
current practice of requesting academics to predict the economic
impact of their work also has limitations, and could be counterproductive.
Serendipitous discovery via curiosity-driven research has led
to many technological step-changes that have revolutionised our
lives today, for example, MRI scanners, GPS technology, etc. The
prediction of the best prospects for future discovery and invention
is notoriously difficult, hence it is essential for the UK to
support a broad research base on the basis of excellence, rather
than attempting to pick winners based on economic impact prediction.
18. The Institute is of the view that the
REF is entirely the wrong vehicle for assessing impact and, while
the requirement of RCUK grant applicants to consider the impact
of their research is fine, it should not lead to an assessment
of impact. It would be better if HEFCE and RCUK worked together
to assess the impact of research in a coherent manner (ie HEFCE's
is about the past and evidence-based to a certain extent, while
RCUK's is about the future and based on conjecture) that recognises
the difficulties of what is being requested and does not place
a burden on researchers to create meaningless documentation.
The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
19. No comment.
The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
20. The latest announcement from STFC following
its recent prioritisation exercise translates to a significant
cut in funding, in the region of 25-50%, for all areas of STFC
science. This includes internationally leading, high-profile research
areas in astronomy, astroparticle physics, nuclear physics and
particle physics. These cuts will clearly impact on the UK's ability
to effectively carry out the best science and maximise the benefit
to the country. It also has the effect of causing significant
international concern on the part of our close colleagues in the
US and in Europe with whom we have close collaboration on major
construction projects, hurting UK credibility as a sound international
partner.
21. Whilst the Institute supported STFC's
efforts to undertake its prioritisation exercise in a framework
designed to focus on areas of highest priority, we believe that
there has not been sufficient thought given to the overall balance
between important research areas and to strategically important
research. This is true in all areas over which STFC has stewardship,
resulting in effectively no long-term prospects for particle physics
and astronomy, no long-term planning for large facilities (eg
future light sources) and a planning horizon that is especially
bleak for astroparticle physics and nuclear physics. We could
write several paragraphs on the implications for each one of these
research areas, but will focus on nuclear physics.
22. The recently published EPSRC/STFC report
on nuclear physics and nuclear engineering[76]
clearly stated that support for UK nuclear physics research is
markedly lower than competitor countries, and that: "...
further funding cuts could be terminal". STFC's prioritisation
exercise has resulted in disproportionately large cuts to nuclear
physics. Using STFC's own figures, there will be a reduction of
£12 million in nuclear physics funding on a £30 million
spend over the next five years, out of a total spend of £2.4
billion over the same period. In addition, only one out of four
international nuclear physics projects which the UK is involved
in (ie NuSTAR) will continue to be funded.
23. The cuts in nuclear physics amount to
a 29% reduction in the current STFC nuclear physics budget. As
very little of the nuclear physics budget is spent on equipment,
this will lead to a corresponding reduction in the number of nuclear
physicists working in UK university physics departments. STFC
has justified its lack of strategic stewardship by arguing that
cuts in one project will not affect other projects and that if
one project survives, nuclear physics research will remain viable.
This statement is simplistic and ignores the overall reduction
in staffing which will reduce the UK's research in nuclear physics
to a level which is insignificant in international terms and which
will leave the academic community at a size which lacks critical
mass and is too small to engage in significant new applied work.
24. Nuclear physics research is an important
area of science, and has the potential for further development.
Its contribution to the wider economy is evident in the number
of trained scientists it produces. In the past five years, it
has produced 109 PhD graduates. Of the 67 who have moved on to
using their specific nuclear skills in industry, 24 of these have
been employed directly in nuclear power companies and nine in
healthcare. A further five scientists with postdoctoral academic
experience were hired by the nuclear industry, and one into healthcare
in the same period. With the prospect of a lack of specialist
skills required for new nuclear power stations, safety inspectorates
and healthcare, full consideration needs to be given to the strategic
importance of nuclear physics in a balanced research portfolio.
25. In addition, it should never be thought
that industry will be unaffected by cuts to basic research. The
benefits of publicly funded basic research to the broader economy,
and specifically its central importance to industry have been
well documented;[77]
the benefits accrue through both the creation of a pool of knowledge,
and also through the supply of people trained at the cutting edge
of research to enable the national economy to absorb and develop
this knowledge. Long-term basic research, such as the science
funded by STFC, is an area that private enterprise cannot fund
significantly, thus it is incumbent on the government to provide
appropriate support. In terms of attracting and retaining R&D
intensive companies, the UK must keep pace with European and global
competitors and the attractiveness of the R&D "environment"
is highly sensitive to damage. As such, in broad terms, within
industry, the short-term impacts of STFC's cuts to basic research
will be limited, though the UK's international reputation as "the
place to do R&D" may well be damaged. However, in the
medium- to long- term, it will be both the quality and abilities
of graduates/academics and also the decline in local knowledge
stock, which may have a substantial detrimental effect on the
UK's ability to be a leading R&D nation.
The scope of the STFC review announced on 16 December
and currently underway
26. The Institute understands that Lord
Drayson's review of STFC will report by the end of February 2010
and will offer some solutions to address the financial and structural
tensions that the research council is facing.
27. The Institute has submitted its response
to inform the review;[78]
the following are the key recommendations:
— Changes in the level of subscriptions
to international facilities over which research councils have
no control should not impact on the funding available for research.
Changes due to exchange rate fluctuations, inflation compensation
or movements in GDP or NNI should be fully compensated by central
government.
— Responsibility for UK participation in
international facilities should lie with the research council
which makes predominant use of that facility, and where necessary
the subscription should be transferred into its budget. As an
illustration, STFC should retain responsibility for CERN and ESO,
and EPSRC should take on responsibility for ESRF and ILL.
— Exploitation grants for astronomy, nuclear
physics, and particle physics research should reside within the
same research council that pays the international subscriptions
for these areas, ie STFC. Moving these research areas to EPSRC,
for instance, would be undesirable as they are unsuited to EPSRC's
current funding mechanisms.
— A national research laboratory should
be established on multiple sites to manage the national facilities
which are currently within STFC's portfolio, such as the Diamond
Light Source, ISIS, the Central Laser Facility and the National
Centre for Electron Microscopy and Surface Analysis. These facilities
are national assets available for both public and private sector
users, and a clear focus is required on optimising their value
to the UK.
The operation and definition of the science budget
ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be a similar
ring-fence for the Higher Education Funding Council for England
research budget and departmental research budgets
28. According to RCUK, the science budget
is administered by BIS and, at the request of HM Treasury, it
is ring-fenced over the period of a CSR, ie it can only be spent
on designated areas of scientific R&D and cannot be spent
on other areas of the department's remit.
29. However, it wasn't that long ago that
the former DTI cut £68 million from the research councils'
budgets due to overspend on other areas within the DTI. We are
reassured that this was a one-off incident; it is important that
the ring-fence is watertight as it provides continuity and confidence
in science investment allowing researchers to commit to long-term
projects. It is also an outward sign that science holds a central,
crucial role within government.
30. A ring-fence around research council
budgets is not enough, as there must also be scrutiny of what
is regarded as being within this ring-fence. In recent years there
have been increases in the ring-fenced science budget, but within
this, there have decreases in the funding of curiosity-driven
research and increases in targeted programmes/business-facing
research.
31. Within department R&D funding the
case is less clear cut, although in a situation that is remarkably
similar to the DTI raid mentioned previously, one of the departmental
R&D budgets that is currently ring-fenced, ie DH, was recently
subject to a £60 million raid.[79]
In many government departments, the demands on departmental R&D
will necessarily be driven by both short- and long-term government
policy, and a ring-fence may not be suitable to keep pace with
this. However, it is clear that there needs to be more transparency
and scrutiny of R&D spending within both civil departments
and MOD. Over the past five years there have been significant
cuts in these R&D budgets, cuts which, as they often take
place at sub-departmental level, can happen "under the radar".
A nominal ring-fencing of departmental R&D may be beneficial
in aiding scrutiny of these funding decisions.
Whether the Government is achieving the 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 (STEM) graduates to achieve its overall ambitions
for UK science and innovation
32. The government has been taking the issue
of the supply of STEM graduates seriously, and the Institute has
responded to a number of (former DIUS) consultations that have
explored issues including future demand, and the use of incentives
to universities or employers to encourage more young people to
study STEM.[80]
In addition, as set out in the next steps document, the number
of students studying A-level physics, chemistry and mathematics
have increased, although the numbers for physics are still too
low. However, we are pleased that DCSF is funding the Institute's
Stimulating Physics Network project,[81]
which aims to improve the uptake of A-level physics.
33. However, this effort is being countered
by the side-effects of the government's widening participation
policy, particularly the 50% target for participation in higher
education. Within the last decade, there has been a major expansion
of university places; very few of these have been in the STEM
area. Physics numbers, for example, have stayed flat over this
period, while subjects such as drama and media studies have soared.
It is hard to understand a higher education market that is driven
solely by the choices of students who have little or no information
about career prospects and employers' needs. Therefore, if this
market is to be viable, there is an urgent need for the provision
of independent, comprehensive information to young people and
their families regarding the range of options available to STEM
graduates, the quality of such career options, the demand for
such graduates by employers and the potential financial rewards.
34. Alternatively, some adjustment of the
market, to recognise that some subjects are more important than
others, might be appropriate.
35. One of the largest barriers for students
wanting to pursue STEM subjects remains the shortage of well-qualified
teachers, particularly in physics, where we estimate a net loss
of around 250 teachers per year from an already depleted workforce.
Targets for recruitment across all sciences are now being met,
in line with the next steps document, but the numbers in physics
are still too small.
36. The DfES/DCSF/TDA has set up a number
of schemes to increase the number of physics specialist teachers.
Although some of these do involve attracting physics graduates
from other professions, the two principal ones involve providing
either a knowledge booster course preceding the PGCE training,
the Physics Enhancement Programme,[82]
or retraining existing biology teachers to teach physics, the
Science Additional Specialism Programme.[83]
The Institute is heavily involved in both these programmes. Such
initiatives appear to be the only plausible route to remedying
the shortage of physics teachers.
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
37. As far as the Institute is aware, very
few physics departments took up the offer, partly because the
additional places were not fully funded.
The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit of
funding" for STEM students
38. It is too early to say what impacts
the cuts in HEFCE's budget for 2010-11 will have, but suffice
to say that any impact on the unit of resource for teaching will
be a concern, especially if HEFCE decides to cut the additional
funding for very high-cost subjects of strategic national importance,
such as physics.
39. Any cuts to this now recurrent targeted
allocation (ie £25 million from 2009-10 following an initial
allocation of £75 million from 2007-08 over three years),
which compensates for the shortfall in the unit of resource that
we identified at around 20% in a detailed financial study,[84]
could affect the viability of physics departments (with the potential
threat of closure for the smaller ones), many of which, for the
first time in over a decade, are breaking even.
74 RCUK Review of UK Physics; http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm Back
75
IOP Case Studies; http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/Case%20Studies/page_29803.html Back
76
Review of nuclear physics and nuclear engineering; http://www.stfc.ac.uk/SciProg/NP/NPEngReview.aspx Back
77
The Relationship between Public Funded Basic Research and Economic
Performance. Report prepared by Science Policy Research Unit,
University of Sussex, for HM Treasury, 1996. Back
78
IOP recommendations to the review of STFC; http://www.iop.org/News/news_38827.html Back
79
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6647757/Cancer-and-dementia-research-funding-could-be-spent-on-free-social-care-says-Andy-Burnham.html Back
80
IOP response to Analysis on Demand for STEM Skills: http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Higher_Education/file_31256.pdf Back
81
Stimulating Physics Network; http://www.stimulatingphysics.org/overview.htm Back
82
Physics Enhancement Project; http://www.iop.org/activity/education/Teaching_Resources/Teaching%20Advanced%20Physics/page_6013.html Back
83
Science Additional Specialism Programme; ttp://www.iop.org/activity/education/Teacher_Support/sasp/page_33328.html Back
84
Study of the finances of physics departments in English universities;
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_21216.pdf. Back
| 
