Memorandum submitted by Vice-Chancellor
Professor Cantor, University of York (FC 89)
Please find attached a few comments. I should
stress that these are my personal comments, although they reflect
my position as Vice-Chancellor of the University of York. It may
be worth noting that the University of York was ranked eighth
for research in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, with over
half of its departments ranked in the top 10 for their subject,
and with one of the highest proportions of research income per
staff in the UK. It is one of only a handful of young universities
which is ranked in the top 100 worldwide.
I have four main points that I wish to make.
1. The importance of science funding for the
UK economy.
2. The importance of funding fundamental and
applied science in an integrated way.
3. The importance of using a broad definition
of science.
4. The importance of balancing support for excellence
wherever it is found with the need to concentrate funding to ensure
critical mass.
I hope my comments are helpful. I am not submitting
background evidence but would be happy to supply further details
if the Committee felt it would be helpful.
The importance of science funding for the UK economy
The UK is second only to the USA in research
output and leads the world in research output per pound spent.
Building on this strength will be essential for the UK to rebuild
its economy as the global recession comes to an end. The UK is
coming out of recession more slowly than many countries across
the world. At the same time many of these countries are investing
heavily in science and technology in order to rebuild their economies.
I visit regularly countries such as China, Korea,
India, Germany and the USA, all of which are serious competitors
to the UK and are beginning to grow substantially. I regard it
as essential for the UK economy and the health and well-being
of UK citizens for us to invest in science research and the knowledge
economy. At the same time this investment will, of course, make
a substantial contribution to solving major problems facing the
world such as climate change and health care.
The importance of funding fundamental and applied
science in an integrated way
There has been a long-standing debate in the
research community about the relationship between fundamental
and applied research. I believe we must transcend this debate
and understand that an integrated development of fundamental and
applied research is needed. On the one hand blue sky thinking
frequently leads to unexpected opportunities to solve major problems.
On the other hand applied research frequently leads to the identification
of new fundamental problems. We would be foolish to ignore the
value of free thinking and we should not be conducting fundamental
research without considering potential applications.
I find that when these issues are discussed
carefully and sensibly researchers can agree on the value of an
integrated approach. At York we created the first science city
in 1998 which has since then developed about 3,000 jobs and over
100 technology-based businesses. Science City York was set up
to build explicitly on the collaboration between fundamental researchers,
applied researchers, business people and policy makers.
It is important, however, not to underestimate
the difficulties in trying to measure impact. Robust metrics have
not yet been identified. In addition, there is a misconception
that the requirement for impact statements in research grants
implies an expectation to predict the impact of research rather
than a prompt to consider potential applications. The development
of impact statements for research grants and metrics for the new
Research Excellence Framework is catalysing cultural change and
enabling researchers better to identify and articulate the potential
effects of their research. I welcome this cultural change.
The importance of using a broad definition of
science
There are two ways in which it is important
to interpret science in a broad sense. Firstly there are many
areas of social science and humanities research which can lead
directly to important technological developments. One example
is the use of clinical trials to identify how best to deliver
improvements in health. Deciding, for instance, how best to administer
a new drug requires an extensive research programme, and is of
enormous benefit to our health and economic well-being. Another
example is the development of new media, which requires fundamental
research in the creative arts as well as the underlying computer
and IT technology. Secondly most modern scientific and technological
developments cannot be implemented successfully without associated
investigation of social impact as well as policy formulation.
Examples include climate change, genetic modification and stem
cell research.
The importance of balancing support for excellence
wherever it is found with the need to concentrate funding to ensure
critical mass
There has been another long-standing debate
in the research community about the relative merits of letting
research excellence flower wherever it appears, and developing
research in a concentrated way within large research-intensive
universities. I believe again that we must transcend this debate
and do both. On the one hand excellence should be supported wherever
it appears, often in unexpected places. On the other hand some
of the most exciting areas of research can only be developed in
the context of a large and supportive research environment. We
need both independent scholars and large research teams for good
intellectual reasons, as well as to ensure value for money and
economy of scale.
At York, as at other good universities, we have
many individual researchers working in interesting and imaginative
fields on their own. However we also work hard to ensure that
our research focuses on our particular areas of major strength.
For instance, our world-leading plant biology has allowed us to
develop new drugs and manufacturing processes. Similarly our world-leading
heath science research has allowed the development of new clinical
interventions, and our world-leading neuro-imaging research is
finding ways to prevent and treat mental diseases. We would not
have been so successful if we had not made a strategic decision
to concentrate a large number of researchers and a substantial
amount of supporting infrastructure into particular fields.
QR has been one of the main facilitators of
the exceptional performance of the best UK research universities.
The Higher Education Funding Council's decision to spread QR funding
much more broadly across the sector after the 2008 Research Assessment
Exercise was laudable in a positive funding climate, but the principle
of funding excellence wherever it is found can be taken too far.
I applaud the recent statements from the Department of Business,
Industry and Skills and the Higher Education Funding Council reiterating
support for research concentration where appropriate. The most
innovative research often takes place where there is critical
mass of excellence and where inter-disciplinary research can also
be nurtured. The higher education sector needs to reorganise more
explicitly differentiation in research and teaching missions.
February 2010
| 
