Memorandum submitted by Professor Joao
Magueijo (FC 74)
I would like to ask how it can ever be ensured
that cuts driven by politically defined criteria (such as "social
impact" or other concepts being considered) will not be corruptly
implemented, leading to a meltdown of science and academia.
1. Specifically I note that over the past
10 years we have witnessed a proliferation of levels of management
and administration, at University and at government level. More
than ever these have severed contact between those doing front-line
work (here defined as teaching and research) and those making
the political decisions:
[For example at Imperial College the number of
levels of administration has more than doubled in the past 10
years.]
2. I also note that the day is yet to come
when decision making bureaucrats will consider the possibility
that they are the main burden to the system and that they should
fire themselves as a first measure in cost saving. Therefore every
time cuts are proposed with qualifiers such as "the front-line
is ring-fenced", or "high social impact activities will
be protected", we see academic administrators and science
politicians redefining "front-line" or "social
impact" so as to include themselves and their pet initiatives.
Something as vague as "social impact" is particularly
vulnerable to this:
[One example, taken from many, is the government
driven training schemes, such as CASLAT at Imperial College. These
are widely regarded as a waste of money and time, but I've noticed
manoeuvering aimed as defining them as essential, front-line,
or high social impact. At the same time outreach, unbelievably,
is being given a hard time.]
3. This legalized form of corruption will
therefore have the effect that cuts driven by political criteria
will lead to the real front-line (ie teaching and research) being
cut, and hence more and more inefficient academic institutions.
Sadly this might only become evident when students start to go
elsewhere because their best lecturers have left; or when in the
future the UK suffers the humiliation of having squeezed funding
from Nobel Prize level research (highly likely to be categorized
as "low social impact" now).
4. The logical alternative would be to impose
efficiency savings rather than cuts, and make sure that these
are made at administration level (for example by legally limiting
the percentage of institutions' budgets that can be used for management).
This may require government bodies and academic management to
have the honesty to admit that they should be the first to go,
and that some of the gimmicks which they've employed to justify
their existence, should be the first to suffer.
I'm afraid that if the latter suggestion isn't
followed I can only predict an apocalyptic scenario for UK science
and academia, with politically defined cuts translating into ever
more wasteful institutions, the situation spiralling into collapse.
It often happens that parasites only die with the death of the
host organism.
DECLARATION
I declare I have no conflict of interests in
this submission.
Professor Joao Magueijo
January 2010
| 
