Memorandum submitted by Syngenta (FC 71)
1. The process for deciding where to make
cuts in SET spending
The future of the UK economy lies in the growth
of knowledge-based industries and the development of a highly
skilled workforce. As a consequence, investment in research and
development (R&D) and innovation is essential to drive the
UK's economic recovery. It will underpin future growth in productivity
and competitiveness—in particular for high value-added export
industries and in the wider knowledge economy. It will also provide
the basis for tackling major global challenges such as climate
change, food security, international security, threats to health,
and growing constraints on supplies of natural resources. The
UK must maintain its standing as a world leader in scientific
research and strengthen its position as a place for businesses
to locate and expand all their R&D and innovation-related
activities.
Our ability to compete in the global knowledge
economy depends upon the health of the entire skills pipeline—education
in schools and universities providing a steady supply of talented,
highly-skilled individuals who will become the next generation
of scientists and engineers and members of a wider, scientifically
literate workforce. Continuous, long term investment in Science,
Engineering, Technology and Maths (STEM) must not only be maintained
but steadily increased to meet this challenge.
The strength of our Higher Education (HE) sector
is one of our great success stories and yet the proportion of
our national income that the state spends on our HEIs, at 0.90%,
is lower than that in Germany, the United States and France, which
spend 0.94%, 1.01% and 1.15% respectively.[108]
Many of the most important and financially valuable
discoveries are being made by scientists with deep, fundamental
knowledge of their specialism working in multi-disciplinary teams
with experts from other areas. For this to continue, we must preserve
our ability to conduct ground-breaking research and development
across all scientific disciplines. Indeed, as an example, cut
backs on agricultural R&D in the 80's and 90's really did
reduce our ability to react to the world food crisis and we are
concerned that the BBSRC institutes are currently facing up to
a further round of reduction, consolidation and restructuring,
just at the time when finally the importance of Ag R&D has
been recognised. This is marked contrast to other countries, notably
China, France, and the USA which have announced further investment
in Science and Technology, including in plant biotechnology and
agriculture.
2. What evidence is there 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)
Any methodology which is used to estimate the
economic impact of research must take account of timescale between
discovery and commercialization, which may take many years—in
our industry it is in the range of five to -10 years for a new
crop variety and 15-20 years for a new crop protection chemical.
It must also assess the economic benefit from a more productive
population, with increased revenues to the individual and to the
Exchequer. The short term benefit from investment in research
in Universities is quite clear to us and that is well trained
and effective scientists and engineers who can be recruited by
industry.
There is work published that estimates the value
to a student in terms of lifetime earnings of various subject
choices—see the links below that clearly show the value
added through higher education.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa072602a.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/oct/03/schools.uk1
http://www.prospectsnet.com/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Main_Menu___News_and_information/Graduate_Market_Trends_2007/Financial_benefits_of_a_degree_and_the_impact_of_variable_fees__
Spring_07_/p!eLaggjj
The government could make more use of that in
prioritising reductions in some humanities and modern course choices
(eg Media Studies) since if S&T is to be a national priority
as needed, then disproportionate cuts will be needed elsewhere.
The importance of professional qualifications is also clear. Raising
the image of STEM related professions may also add value and prestige
and make them more attractive career choices.
3. The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
While research and teaching are often considered
separately, it is important to realise that a strong UK science
base relies on high standards in both. At the moment, because
of underfunding and cross-subsidization any change in funding
for one activity is likely to heavily affect the ability of an
HEI to deliver the other.
It is often noted that as both research and
teaching are loss-making, further funding cuts to either would
only serve to make a bad situation worse. This would threaten
the quality of both teaching and research, and compromise the
standing of UK science. We believe that it is important to continue
investing in STEM at University (and school) level to secure the
UK's science base and that that research and teaching in STEM
should be fully funded. Education in STEM subjects is an investment
in the future for individuals and for the country as a whole.
Individual institutions should be challenged to think creatively
about finding additional revenue streams—eg by making better
all year round use of their facilities, as well as being more
ruthless on non-productive costs. Most campuses clearly haven't
been designed with operational or energy efficiency in mind!
In the absence of a comprehensive strategy to
support a strong national science base, cuts to funding may bring
about the closure of SET departments on an unplanned, case-by-case
basis. This could create whole regions with no provision for students
who wish to study SET subjects. Those from less advantaged backgrounds
who have to live at home will be unable to study these subjects,
irrespective of their ability. There will also be fewer opportunities
for local businesses to benefit from the knowledge and expertise
of local universities, less innovation and less wealth creation.
Therefore, if it becomes necessary to reduce further the number
of departments teaching and researching specific STEM subject
areas in order to take advantage of economies of scale, then it
is important to focus, not only on excellence in the subject,
but also on ensuring that there is a regional component to the
strategy.
4. The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
Syngenta recognises the need for central funding
as an important element in supporting a strong science base.
Given the capital investment which has already
been made, it is important that funding be provided to maintain
and run these central facilities at close to maximum capacity
to make best use of this investment.
5. The scope of the STFC review announced
on 16 December and currently underway
Syngenta recommends that the STFC should identify
facilities of central importance to UK science with the intention
of transforming and funding them as National Shared Facilities.
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 government should decide its priorities
for investment in subjects which benefit UK plc This should lead
to the training of graduates in the subjects required by the nation
to enhance its future prosperity. The Government should then fully
fund the places required. Given a difficult economic climate,
the allocation of subject places should be UK plc demand led and
not student demand led.
7. 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
The world-leading position of UK science, engineering
and technology is clearly recognized by global companies such
as Syngenta and as such, as a place in which to invest in R&D
and manufacturing, However, the UK must not be complacent: given
the global competition for our investment, the Government needs
to ensure that it makes the necessary investment in science and
education to maintain this position.
The Government also needs to encourage broader
and deeper links between universities and businesses and provide
greater encouragement for businesses to invest in R&D in order
to raise the overall spending on research and development as a
percentage of GDP.
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
We welcomed the increased investment focus on
STEM subjects. The flow of new students depends very much on inspiring
students before they make critical subject choices, and this is
still an area for concern.
9. The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit
of funding" for STEM students
Any reduction in the unit of funding would be
detrimental to expensive, but valuable laboratory based subjects,
such as chemistry. We are already concerned at the limited practical
experience gained by students both at school and on many undergraduate
courses. Undergraduate and post graduate teaching in the sciences
should be fully funded and seen as an investment in the future
prosperity of UK plc.
Can better use of university facilities be made
in offering vacation courses and summer schools? For some courses
these could be a cost effective alternative to a four year course
with a foundation year as well as providing opportunities to inspire
students through hands on science and also teachers through professional
development training.
108 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2008): Education at a glance: OECD Indicators 2008, table
B2.4. Back
| 
