Memorandum submitted by the University
of Leicester (FC 61)
Submitted by Professors K C Lee (PVC Research
and Enterprise) and M A Barstow (PVC, Head of the College of Science
and Engineering) on behalf of the University of Leicester
The process for deciding where to make cuts in
SET spending
At the moment it is not clear that there is
any process. While the cuts to HEFCE budgets have been announced
in the secretary of state's letter to HEFCE, how these will translate
into reductions in grants to University remain unclear. Furthermore,
the level of "protection" that might be afforded to
SET subjects is unknown.
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)
In general, there is a long time separation,
often decades, between the original scientific research and eventual
exploitation and economic impact. Often particular economic benefits
may result from a combination of discoveries that could not be
forseen at the outset of the research. Therefore, it is hard to
make a strong connection between specific expenditure on research
and benefit to the economy. Individual case studies are useful
for illustrating how exploitation can be pursued effectively.
However several attempts to assess the overall impact of research
(or individual disciplines) never seem to provide useful answers
for relating total research spend and its distribution across
subjects to economic impact.
The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
Although potential cuts have been signalled
where these are likely to fall is not yet known, with the exception
of STFC (discussed below). Therefore, it is not possible to comment
in detail on this question. However, there are a number of warning
signals in terms of the balance between funding of "blue
skies" research and research where the potential economic
impact may be more evident. There is a danger that funding for
the former will diminish. It could be argued that, in the current
financial climate, a short term reduction in "blue skies"
would not be damaging, but this is not true. Current research
capabilities have been established over decades, with strong stimulus
during the past 10-12 years. Proposed funding cuts will lead to
rapid loss of expertise and capability, through redundancies and
closure of facilities. It is clear from the experience of the
1980s and early 1990s that recovery from such a policy takes a
long time. In particular, the fact that some countries are putting
more money into science as a fiscal stimulus will lead to a drain
of talent from the UK.
The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
The STFC budget cuts are the most immediate
example of the risks outlined above. The STFC was created without
sufficient funds to cover the programme it inherited and the situation
has been made worse by a difficult CSR outcome for the Council
and the financial pressures of the economic downturn (mainly the
exchange rate effects on the large subscriptions, but also the
inability to provide extra funds to solve the problems). The recent
programmatic review, while not perfect, was carried out in a more
consultative and effective way than previous attempts to balance
the budget. Nevertheless, it was carried out without a clear,
published science strategy and the effect is a transfer of funds
from the particle physics, astronomy, space and nuclear physics
areas into the support for facilities such as Diamond and ISIS.
While the rationale, to fully exploit these large national facilities
is a valid one, it does mean, conversely that the UK is not reaping
the full reward from its international investments as it withdraws
from telescopes, space projects and particle/nuclear physics experiments.
One of the most damaging effects of the STFC
cuts will be in the severe reduction of the science exploitation
grants to Universities. How the cuts will be distributed will
be a result of peer review of individual programmes, to be announced
later. However, it is clear that smaller research groups may fall
below the critical mass needed to function. STFC supports around
half of the research carried out in UK physics departments. Therefore,
it is inevitable that overall physics departmental finances will
be damaged by the cuts and some may no longer be viable. The reduction
in exploitation funding will lead to those areas of science within
STFC's portfolio where we are competitive with the USA or ranked
second, losing that competitiveness and position, thereby downgrading
the international profile of the UK. This will exacerbate our
ability to compete with our European partners in ESA.
This also puts at risk the government's goals
for increasing student numbers in physics and STEM subjects in
general. There is already anecdotal evidence that A level students
are starting to avoid disciplines which are related to STFC. This
will have consequences for these areas of science in the short,
medium and long term, if something is not done to change the view.
The scope of the STFC review announced on 16 December
and currently underway
It is hard to find exactly what the terms of
reference of the review are. However, there are clearly some areas
that need to be considered in any review process:
The impact of currency fluctuations on subscriptions
(ESA, ESO, CERN etc): The science budget would be better protected
if these were dealt with, as in other countries, outside the science
budget as part of high level international commitments. However,
it should be noted that any change now would "freeze"
into the STFC budget the current lower level of cash available
for grants. Any change should take into account what has happened
to exchange rates since the financial crisis began and build in
some budgetary compensation for this.
The balance between facilities operation and
exploitation grants: At the moment the facilities operation costs
are dealt with by STFC on behalf of all the research councils.
Like the subscriptions, these costs are not entirely within the
control of STFC and as they increase the apply pressure to the
only remaining flexibility; the science grants. Any new structure
needs to prevent the continual reduction in the science grants
line, which has a damaging effect on Universities and the supply
of young scientists into the economy.
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
All areas of research will be undermined by
the proposed cuts to HEFCE. Many subjects outside STEM are economically
and culturally important, so it is very difficult to argue for
protection of STEM subjects within the HEFCE budget at the expense
of these. Nevertheless, if STEM provision is not protected in
some way, this will add to the difficulties of STEM departments
as income from the research councils seems bound to fall. Ideally,
the government should reconsider its rationale for targeting higher
education for cuts while protecting schools. The production of
graduates is a strong driver of the economy, so if the HE system
is undermined there will be significant economic damage.
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
Until spring 2009, considerable progress had
been made towards meeting the objectives of the 2004-14 framework.
However, the imposition of the cap on all student places also
limited the number of STEM students that could be accommodated
without incurring fines. Therefore, in individual subjects the
intake of home/EU STEM students either remained static or declined.
Therefore, no further progress towards government objectives was
achieved. Furthermore, this effective limit on the number of STEM
places risks discouraging students from pursuing STEM subjects
at A-level and could undermine the genuine progress that has been
made in increasing A-level numbers in the physical sciences.
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
No! STEM subjects are expensive to teach and
all these places were unfunded. Therefore, this University did
not have the capacity to accept any of these additional places.
The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit of
funding" for STEM students
Had we accepted any of the additional student
numbers, this would have been a de facto acceptance of a lower
unit of resource. However, it could be argued that the STEM unit
of resource is already too low. Even under recent funding levels
it has been difficult to invest appropriately in important facilities
and support that underpin teaching programmes. Therefore, any
proposed cut to the unit of resources would make this situation
worse and might prevent delivery of all or parts of some science
programmes. Some of the consequences may be:
Larger class sizes as a result of a poorer staff/student
ratio will make certain types of lab work which requires intensive
supervision or specialist small lab facilities near impossible
or at least very costly to teach. This may lead to an unintended
effect on the STEM curricula.
In field based disciplines such as Geology and
Geography, a poorer staff/student ratio and a loss of resource
may impact on the number and quality of field courses that are
currently on offer, due to shortages in staff who could supervise
the students abroad, leading to a narrower learning experience.
M A Barstow
January 2010
|
