Memorandum submitted by the Open University
(FC 64)
1. The process for deciding where to make
cuts in SET spending
At present there does not appear to be a "process"
that the community can engage with in a meaningful and constructive
way. There is a view that policy is being made `on the hoof' and
a structured debate is perhaps unlikely given that we are in an
election cycle. Thus irretrievable decisions should not be made
prior to the election, for example announced decommittment from
international projects. This is not to suggest that some of these
decisions would be changed but rather that a more coherent debate
is likely after the political and thence funding landscape is
known.
There needs to be further consultation on those
areas of research that transcend one research council as these
are the most vulnerable to "cuts by default". There
does not appear to be a RCUK programme at present rather RC by
RC announcements.
The lack of a coherent strategy and "blue
skies v applied" research also requires further community
discussion and engagement with commercial partners in light of
recession budgets in the commercial sector. Further incentives
for SMEs to conduct research are needed at a time when their budgets
and ability to borrow remain constrained.
At HEFCE level the failure to support an increased
number of STEM UGs at a time of recession seems contrary to other
countries and the ELQ decision for STEM seems increasingly counter
intuitive with the need to retrain and reskill people in the STEM
sector for the advanced, high tech needs.
2. 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)
Quantitative evidence of "impact"
would be a good measure if it were independently available but
it is not—it's has the same difficulties as "quality—we
know it when we see it but there is no simple measure. There is
little evidence that there are any robust markers that the community
would have faith in at present. This is not only true in UK but
similar conclusions have been drawn in major competitors (USA
Germany and Japan). Therefore the decision to lower the role of
Impact in REF is to be supported.
3. The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
The OU overall is certainly demand led in recruiting
students and while a cap on numbers may not be the immediate issue,
the effect of ELQ is. Certainly the potential loss of funds from
RCUK and in particular STFC will have severe implications for
the OU's Science Faculty, where the STFC portfolio is approx 40%
of its income.
4. The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
These are similar to those across the Sector.
Whilst he OU itself is quite well aligned with the new STFC priorities
the overall loss of funding to be expected by lower returns on
rolling grants highlights the potential for crisis outlined in
the Wakeham report for those Departments whose research is based
on STFC "big science".
The loss of studentships and fellowships has
serious implications for a whole generation of younger career
staff and we face a `lost generation' in these fields as current
young staff move abroad or leave the field. The ramifications
of UK as being viewed as a strong player in the field and "reliable"
partner in long term projects due to short term cuts should not
be neglected. The UK is almost certain to no longer be the world's
number two publishing power (after US) is astronomy and related
areas in the future.
5. The scope of the STFC review announced
on 16 December and currently underway
See comments above. Since this is the second
"crisis" effecting STFC since its formation the rationale
for STFC is to be questioned particularly in the operation of
facilities. The cancellation of the New Light Source project will
in effect remove the UK from a whole series of research fields
in physical and chemical sciences. However a return to the "ticket
system" costing facilities in grants is also not a solution
having been tried and failed. In part due to lack of coherence
in the different RCs to budget these costs. A major review of
STFC remit and operation of central facilities is needed but must
be given time and this time gain confidence of the whole community.
A second/third rapid overhaul by what are seen to be closed committees
is to no ones benefit.
6. 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
The OU does not consider that a ring fence around
the Higher Education Funding Council for England research budget
and departmental research budgets would be appropriate and that
this may overly concentrate research funding into a small number
of very large University departments.
7. Whether the Government is achieving the
objectives it set out in the "Science and innovation investment
framework 2004-14: 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
We feel that there is a clear disconnect between
the "posturing" and the facts—for the current
post doc generation, who might form the next cohort of academics,
there is little appeal for a career in university science. The
tone as well as the reality of budget cuts, loss of staff etc
will not persuade students to pursue STEM. Given the path being
taken by RCs (particularly STFC) with regards to PDRAs and reduction
in University places there is little hope of maintaining the supply
of well trained graduates, this is a major issue for UK PLC and
contrary to other countries including China, India and Brazil,
In addition, the pressure on costs will impact on practical science
in Universities which, combined with reduce research income, which
in many UK universities help subsidize teaching (contrary to OU),
may be expected to lead to further closures of STEM departments
risking more regions of "STEM deserts" for UGs at a
time where more home based students are likely.
An increase in part-time education and life-long
learning should be part of the strategy for increasing STM provision
(which is good for OU) but there is little evidence to show that
it is (indeed ELQ has been brought in the most damaging way imaginable)
if people were being subsidised for taking a second sojourn in
HE then they should have been charged directly with scholarships
for (re)training in specific fields.
8. 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
There is little evidence to suggest that this
is the case. Whilst STEM numbers have increased slightly over
last decade these were not in proportion to the numbers seeking
HE. The problems of STEM recruitment are not to be fixed by a
short term one off announcements. They are often driven by poor
STEM teaching at school level (particularly in state sector) and
the poor image of STEM in careers both for financial reward and
the "cultural image" of STEM. These problems have not
fundamentally changed over last two decades.
9. The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit
of funding" for STEM students
STEM training is inherently more expensive than
most other areas. Any alteration in a negative way from current
figures is likely to engender a crisis in STEM Departments making
many unsustainable leading to closure. The OU certainly could
not sustain its current Science programme if there were major
changes in its unit of funding since further staff cuts would
be needed.
Professor Nigel J Mason, OBE
Physics and Astronomy
Faculty of Science.
The Open University
On behalf of the Open University
January 2010
| 
