3 Conclusion
21. Britain is a preeminent force in polar and
particularly Antarctic science. Given the success of our scientific
output in this field and the geopolitical considerations involved
in operating in the Antarctic, any proposed change to the organisation
of the British Antarctic Survey must have a strong evidence base.
22. We recognise that there is challenge for
NERC to save money. However, NERC has
committed to maintain its Antarctic activity at pre Spending Review
2010 levels.[55] NERC
has argued that this merger would improve the financial management
of the centres, and savings appear to be a key driver for the
merger.[56] Despite this,
NERC has not presented any information regarding the savings it
believes could be made by a merger. We welcomed the Ministers
suggestion to establish a ring-fenced funding line for Antarctic
infrastructure and logistics. We will respond to his invite to
consider this as part of our marine science inquiry.
23. The consultation has been confused and
lacks transparency. In addition, the manner in which the consultation
has been handled seems to have had a damaging effect upon staff
morale at the British Antarctic Survey.[57]
The consultation document presented the decision to merge the
British Antarctic Survey and National Oceanography Centre as made;
it did not present alternatives and does not request views on
whether a merger should proceed. The strategic case for the merger
presents a number of desirable goals; recognising scientific synergy,
increasing research impact, reducing costs, but it does not give
any evidence that a merger between these two research centres
will achieve these goals, let alone whether a merger is the best
way to achieve them. NERC has not provided any meaningful evidence
base for the proposals that have been put forward.
24. We have concerns that NERC has not taken
seriously the loss of several senior staff at the British Antarctic
Survey. There are also questions about
whether Professor Hill is the most appropriate person to run the
consultation and merger, given his role as Director of the National
Oceanography Centre and appointment by NERC's Chief Executive
as interim Director of the British Antarctic Survey. This could
create an impression that the consultation process lacks openness
or objectivity.
25. Real concerns have been raised regarding
both the content of NERC's consultation and the way in which the
consultation has been run. We consider that these concerns require
proper consideration by NERC. Given the strength of feeling against
the merger, NERC should reconsider whether these proposals are
appropriate and seek to properly address the concerns that have
been raised by us and others responding to the consultation. We
recommend that before embarking on any merger, NERC considers
whether its aims might be achieved by other means. We also recommend
that NERC should ensure that future changes are conducted with
better engagement with scientists, this Committee and other stakeholders.
55 Further written evidence submitted by NERC, para
6 - MS16a Back
56
Consultation document para 15 and para 1, http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/bas-noc-merger-consultation.pdf Back
57
Written evidence submitted by Dr Julian Huppert MP - MS35 Back
| 
