Memorandum submitted by Oxford University
(FC 56)
1. The technological basis of modern economies
demands a technically literate population and a research base
capable of sustaining innovation. University research and education
is a key element of the innovation infrastructure capable of engendering
economic growth. The underpinning element is a critical mass of
world-class researchers and students that generates new ideas,
refines them, and develops them into new paradigms, systems, processes
and concepts. Universities therefore play a critical role in supplying
the education, training and new knowledge which undergirds and
enables social, cultural and economic development that can meet
the needs of a modern society. The costs of maintaining world-class
education and research are not small but are an investment in
the future. In relative terms this investment is not large when
compared with other countries or with other expenditure.
Process of Making Cuts
2. A functioning SET base requires stability
and critical mass. If this is not present, then it is both unlikely
that the ideas that prove to be transformational will be generated,
and unlikely that they will be recognised and exploited. The foundation
for scientific research must be sufficiently well-resourced to
be dynamic, flexible, and collaborative and some significant proportion
of the effort must be disinterested.
3. The process of evaluating priorities
is therefore vital. It is crucial to defend Science Engineering
and Technology, and the argument must be about the other things
we wish to live without. However, it is important to recognise
that not everything can be afforded, and so the process for deciding
on the allocation of scarce resources within SET must be firmly
based in sustaining the quality of the science. It may be necessary
to recognise the need to re-organise programmes, but it is essential
that the Research Councils have the time and space to undertake
the decision making process in a measured and consultative way,
led by the science, and in full cognisance of the risks. We consider
that it is likely to be most effective to invest properly in a
small range of activities across a broad range of SET.
What evidence there is on the feasibility or effectiveness
of estimating the economic impact of research, both from an historical
perspective (for QR funding) and looking to the future (for Research
Council Grants)
4. QR is essential to research-intensive
universities. It provides the platform from which risky, adventurous
curiosity-driven innovation can be undertaken and assessed before
competitive project bids are made to Research Councils, industry
and commerce and charitable research sponsors. We note that QR
is already itself awarded in a competitive way at institutional
level.
5. QR enables new avenues of enquiry to
be explored to assess the potential fruitfulness of pursuing the
research through a developed submission for funding. Research
Councils provide one, albeit important, component of a research
funding portfolio, and allocate resources largely away from non-STEM
subjects. Therefore QR not only provides an essential platform
upon which excellent research can be built and a wide knowledge
base sustained across a broad range of disciplines and inter-disciplines,
but also it enables UK government funding to effectively leverage
support for particular projects from many other sources. Without
this core funding, such an approach would not be possible.
6. At Oxford, QR funding leverages very
significant funding from other sources. The Research Councils
also have a part to play in working with sponsors to provide the
best value for funding research, and improving the economic and
social benefits which result. This must entail a strategy on the
part of research councils that is responsive to the current economic
climate. This point is raised in the discussion on STFC below
but it can be applied more generally.
7. In the biomedicine area, this is important
in the context of a major transfer of funding by the non-government
sponsor of research (the Wellcome Trust) away from response-mode
grants to a much smaller number of career awards, thereby exacerbating
the current lack of discretionary spending at MRC. We would encourage
the MRC to reduce still further their level of commitment to intramural
research, in favour of external, response-mode grant funding.
Effects of the STFC budget cuts
8. The process by which the impact of cuts
to STFC funding was decided exacerbated the effect on the science.
Decisions on cuts appeared to lack sufficient balance between
political and scientific priorities, and the result may destabilise
important areas of research in the UK. The country risks losing
leading scientists, post-doctoral Research Assistants and technical
staff, as they lose access to facilities and the ability to partner
with the best scientists and facilities.
9. Oxford planning has focused on the very
top priorities that STFC has always had: in astrophysics E-ELT,
SKA and in particle physics LHC related science. Even these very
high priority activities are cut by 10-30% which is most circumstances
would be regarded as a severe cut.
10. Beyond 2012 STFC's planning leaves the
UK with no access to optical/infrared telescopes in the northern
hemisphere. The extensive closure of facilities gives us much
less opportunity to pursue our research aspirations through future
grant applications.
11. In addition there are extensive cuts
in the funding for studentships (to be cut by 15%) and fellowships
(to be cut by >25%), together with a cut in the funds available
for grants by a further 25% on top of the 25% cut of 2007-8. From
2011-12 the number of PDRAs that can be supported by STFC grants
will be half what it was in 2005.
General remarks about STFC's operation and implementation
of the cuts
12. There are very substantial differences
between the advice from consultation and the actions taken. The
advisory committees put studentships/fellowships in the highest
priority category because of the importance of sustaining the
knowledge base, but these have been cut. They also supported continuing
access to northern hemisphere telescopes above the AURORA Mars
exploration programme but STFC funded the latter and the telescopes
are to be closed. There are other examples.
13. STFC was created with insufficient funds
to deliver on its existing programme and commitments. The onset
of the financial crisis, with the associated reduction in the
international value of sterling compared to the currencies in
which international subscriptions are paid, has squeezed the budget
even harder. The result is that the UK astronomy programme, without
doubt the strongest in the world after the USA (based on citation
evidence), has in two years been severely damaged. The bounty
of careful investment and planning over three decades has been
lost in a few months. The cuts announced in December will turn
damage into devastation.
Scope of the STFC Review
14. We welcome the review in both intent
and scope. We strongly endorse the continued existence of a number
of autonomous research councils with identifiably different areas
of research interest, and managed with a comprehensive and cohesive
scientific agenda, by persons with expertise appropriate to the
area. We believe this provides a diverse and competitive funding
landscape that fosters excellence. Continued scientific scrutiny
is appropriate to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront
of both disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. We do not
believe that a monolithic agency, led by a managerial agenda,
will sustain the flexibility and creativity required for the UK
to continue to be internationally competitive across a broad range
of science and technology research.
15. An important lesson may be drawn from
the current STFC dilemma, many of which are associated with inadequate
support for its mission, and some of which relate to how the Council
has managed this severe constraint.
16. There are three contributory factors
that have generated STFCs financial problems:
(a) it was established with an inadequate budget;
(b) it is responsible for international subscriptions,
the sterling value of which is not in STFC's control:
(i) There are two parts to this problem: exchange
rates, which have moved against sterling, and growth in net national
income, NNI, on which international subscriptions are based. When
the UK economy does well and grows faster than those of other
partners in say CERN or ESA, our NNI rises and our subscriptions
increase. As the international subscriptions are paid from STFC,
when the economy does well, there is less money remaining in STFC
for domestic PP and space science.
(ii) STFC inherited facilities, and a large staff,
that provide access and services for a research community largely
funded by other research councils. If a new international facility
is proposed that outperforms one they currently run, should they
invest in the new venture or shore up their own facility to avoid
running it down?
17. STFC has an inherent lack of flexibility
because the resources which are required to run the facilities
cannot be adjusted on the same timescale as the cuts are required.
The grants become the only adjustable component of their programme,
and projects are being run down. They are squeezed by both their
international subscriptions and the cost of domestic facilities.
18. There are proposals that.
(a) the exchange rate/NNI risk should be transferred
to higher in the system (Treasury,/BIS/RCUK). This makes good
sense because at a higher level there are factors that move in
both directions as things change eg. as NNI rises VAT receipts,
income tax and co-operation tax receipts also rise; and
(b) the research councils that fund the exploitation
of facilities (eg.MRC, BBSRC, and EPSCR for Diamond) should be
asked to sign up to a 3 + 3 year rolling subscription in line
with the (C)SR where they are committed for three years and provide
an indicative budget for the following three. This would give
STFC a fixed income pot against which to charge the facilities.
19. One suggestion is that project and exploitation
grants for PP& A should move to EPSRC. This is not at all
desirable:
(a) responsive mode success is much lower in
EPSRC (<10%) cf. STFC (15%);
(b) the timescales involved in big science are
very much longer than for EPSRC business. Space missions and accelerators
take over a decade to bring to fruition, telescopes about the
same; and
(c) it would not make sense to leave the PPA
facilities in STFC and remove the grants, they just work too closely
together. The PPA community develops and builds its own facilities,
it does not simply use tools provided by others.
20. What is the best option for the UK?
Probably to fund facilities from user RCs, fix the exchange rate/NNI
problem, and leave the PPA facilities and grants in STFC.
21. What are the risks?
(a) Government accounting rules mean that STFC
still has to manage the depreciation of all the facilities through
its non-cash allocation. These costs would have to be charged
to the user RCs as well.
(b) The new Space Agency might take a large chunk
of funding from STFC leaving it again with an inadequate budget.
When the Agency is established it should not further damage the
Astronomy & Space Science programme in STFC.
Demand-led and Research Institutions
22. Basic science and economic impact are
not and should not be mutually exclusive. There are "no such
things as applied sciences, only the applications of science".[95]
But this is predicated on a research base of sufficient capacity
both to generate and to recognise important new ideas.
23. The high investment research industries
work close to market and are therefore narrowly focussed, while
the Universities complement and extend scientific exploration.
They also undertake disinterested research. Both sectors undertake
research with economic impact but typically the time lines, the
purposes, and the motivation may differ. Losing the ability to
support and disseminate basic and disinterested research for short-term
expedience would have long term economic impact, and this is what
Universities do well. University research also expands knowledge
transfer and exchange not only through the economic impact of
their research projects but also from the supply of University
graduates to all areas of the economy.
24. Bertrand Russell argued "Even the
pursuit of knowledge, if it is utilitarian, is not self-sustaining.
Utilitarian knowledge needs to be fructified by disinterested
investigation, which has no motive beyond the desire to understand
the world better. All of the great advances are at first purely
theoretical, and are only afterwards found to be capable of practical
applications. And even if some splendid theory never has any practical
use, it remains of value on its own account: for the understanding
of the world is one of the ultimate goods".[96]
25. The transition from fundamental research
to economic impact is ably demonstrated by the invention of the
laser (the 50th Anniversary of which occurs in 2010) or by the
invention of the World Wide Web or the Magnetic Resonance Imager.
All of these were first pursued as basic science, with no view
to application, and all of which took many years to find their
full potential. Now it is hard to understand how one could do
without them. Disinterested research therefore holds the key to
significant long-term impact. For example, the pharmaceutical
companies work on the A and B HIV-1 clades because they are found
in the developed world where countries have the funds to buy the
drugs, and the companies can recoup the heavy investment quickly.
Universities work on the C clade found in Africa, and other genetic
variants and this work is funded by the charities. If no-one worked
on the C clade then the potential for economic devastation would
not be limited to Africa.
26. In the biomedicine area, we note the
context of a major transfer of funding by the non-government sponsor
of research (The Wellcome Trust) away from response-mode grants
to a much smaller number of career awards, thereby exacerbating
the current lack of discretionary spending at MRC. There is clearly
a tension between intramural and demand-led research funding in
such situations that may destabilize the ability to deliver world-class
research.
27. Universities provide technologically
literate graduates and future research scientists, many of whom
will work in commercial and industrial enterprises and some of
whom will sustain the research and education in the Higher Education
system.
28. For example, this University helps to
meet the national need for STEM graduates, 4.9% of the UK's undergraduate
places in Physics are provided by University of Oxford, and 3.8%
of the places in Chemistry.
29. At graduate level, we have 3,951 postgraduate
research students. We make a sizeable contribution in Clinical
Medicine (431 students; 6.4% of the UK total); modern languages
(14.9% of the UK total); and in STEM subjects we provide 7.4%
of the UK's Chemistry research students, 8.8% of Physics research
students and 8.8% of Mathematics students. Research and development
is at the heart of the knowledge economy, and Oxford's provision
of postgraduate research opportunities plays an important role
in training future generations of researchers.
Operation and definition of the science budget
ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be a similar
ring-fence for HEFCE research budget and departmental research
budgets.
30. BIS ring-fenced the following funding
to RCUK for the duration of the current spending round: £2.9
billion 2008-09; £3.0 billion 2009-10; £3.2 billion
2010-11. We welcomed the fact that these funds were guaranteed
for sciences, and could not be used by BIS for other purposes,
since it offered stability for the Research Councils, notwithstanding
the STFC situation. There is as yet no such guarantee for the
period beyond 2011, unless we assume the commitments in the 2004-14
framework still hold.
31. There is currently no ring fence for
science within HEFCE's QR allocation; we prefer the flexibility
this provides. There is a need to recognise the value of research
across all subjects, not just those that have impacts which are
easy to quantify.
Whether the Government is achieving the objectives
it set out in the Science and Innovation Investment Framework
2004-14: next steps
32. The increased funding for research in
the past decade has indeed placed the UK in the forefront of international
activity in many STEM areas. Because of this, the UK is a place
that is attractive to researchers and students from all over the
world. It is difficult to assess the direct impact that such attraction
has, but it is likely, over the long haul to be very large.
33. Nationally, however, the ambitions to
improve STEM skills will only work if there are teachers educated
to degree level working in schools.
34. There are dangers in too much concentration
of funding in STEM areas. The Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
must not be ignored. Technology may provide new ways to do things
but other disciplines provide the social and cultural contexts.
For example the BBC iplayer is a highly innovative technology
that has had a global impact for the UK. It is, however, useless
without high quality content. There is synergy between STEM and
non-STEM, many of which provide excellent grounding in logic and
analysis, policy and economic development, environmental, industrial
and commercial management and innovation, as well as supplying
language skills, and the foundation of the media and leisure Industries.
Further, increasingly the major challenges for society will have
multi-component solutions. Energy security and sustainability,
for example, will require research that not only encompasses science
and technology, but also policy, economics, and cultural changes.
Similar arguments could be made for health care and climate.
Whether the extra student support which the Government
announced on 20 July 2009 for 10,000 higher education places delivered
students in STEM
35. We have no comment on this point.
The effect of HEFCE cuts on the unit of funding
for STEM students
36. The additional funding for High Cost
and Vulnerable Subjects has been helpful in supporting students
in these subjects. The University has maintained undergraduate
numbers in the STEM subjects, and has increased postgraduate numbers.
The costs of teaching and laboratory facilities, including equipment
are high.
37. It is difficult to comment on the effect
of the additional student numbers without knowing whether a shortage
of STEM graduates arises from an inadequate supply of university
places, an inadequate supply of qualified applicants, or a mismatch
of course provision to demand and qualifications of applicants.
We note that Government has encouraged STEM graduates into teaching
and hope that this has resulted in improved access to university
STEM courses.
95 Louis Pasteur. Back
96
Bertrand Russell, On Education, Allen and Unwin, 1926;
Routledge, 2010. Back
| 
