Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
Dr Pamela Kempton, Professor Georgina Mace, Dr Colin
Miles, Dr Alf Game, Professor Philip Esler and Professor Brian
Cathcart
11 MARCH 2008
Q60 Chairman: Have you any evidence
yourselves in terms of noise from the sector? Academics are quite
good at telling you if they are short of cash.
Dr Game: Yes, in the sense that the issue of
the maintenance of collections is a problem that has gone on for
many years because you are tensioning resources for something
which is, if you like, maintaining the resource against front-line
research, things that are going to produce papers and all the
rest of it. Clearly, there is an issue of priorities, which is
what Pamela was referring to. One of the things that I think becomes
a problem here is simply the fact that there are collections of
large numbers of things now. My own organisation did a quick survey
and discovered we have 91 collections in our institutes, most
of which we were probably centrally completely unaware of. These
are maintained by people as part of the process of doing their
research and they are used for their research. One of the questions
we have been asking through our activities in tools and resources
is should we be maintaining them at all, should we be doing more
to make them available to other people, what kind of things are
needed to be put in place? It is very difficult to see a blanket
answer to that through the fact that so much resource in bioscience
is now being accumulated. If you look back 100 years ago, what
was in the museums and the gardens and so forth was the front-line
resource for doing 90 per cent of what was going on in biology.
You now have DNA collections, all kinds of sample collections,
the European Bioinformatics Institute, huge amounts of data and
so on and so forth. I think we are probably still grappling with
the answer to that question, which is really how you resource
bioscience in the way that physics and engineering were resourced
50 or 100 years ago. These things are like the equivalent of these
big laboratories, synchrotrons and Heaven knows what else. They
are a different kind of resource but they are a resource, and
I do not think any of us really have an answer to that yet because
it is such a new phenomenon, in some ways. There has been a trough
of activity depending on these things and it is rising again now.
Q61 Lord Krebs: May I just come back
to the question here because I heard Professor Mace say earlier
that NERC does have responsibility for maintaining taxonomic expertise
in universities, and I would have thought that that would include
the teaching of taxonomy and systematics in universities and therefore
go with it the responsibility for supporting the wherewithal to
sustain that teaching, yet I am hearing from Professor Esler that
this is not seen as the responsibility of the research councils.
Could you clarify what appears to me to be a contradiction?
Professor Mace: I do not think there is necessarily
a connection between university museums and the maintaining of
capacity for teaching and skills in taxonomy. In the environments
that I know about where that teaching and training goes on they
are using other national museums' collections elsewhere rather
than in the university museums. I am thinking of the Imperial
College Natural History Museum link and the Edinburgh Botanic
Gardens link.
Q62 Lord Krebs: It would certainly
be different if you looked at a university like Oxford or Cambridge
or Manchester or Cardiff, which have very substantial collections.
Professor Mace: I have to say I know nothing
about how those university museum collections are maintained or
whose responsibility it is for funding those. I am sorry.
Q63 Chairman: I can understand that
Imperial and in a different way Edinburgh have huge national collections
on their doorstep, quite literally, but there are other institutions
perhaps who are not yet aware of the potential problem coming
down the line that the HEFCE scheme is changing and therefore
the universities will have to set priorities within their own
resources to decide whether these collections are maintained or
whether, on the advice of the scientists, they are not necessary.
Any view you have on that would be very helpful. Even if you do
not have views now, if on reflection you wanted to comment in
writing, we would appreciate that very much.
Professor Mace: I can give you a personal view
on that. As a trained zoologist, there is absolutely no replacement
for the real object. I think taxonomists, zoologists, botanists,
as part of their training need to have access to the specimens
themselves, but I am afraid I am not in a position to comment
on how that is or is not being funded.
Q64 Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior:
The written evidence suggests that the Research Assessment Exercise,
the RAE, was a significant driver of the decline in minority disciplines,
such as taxonomy, in UK universities. How will DIUS, via HEFCE,
ensure that the proposed replacement mechanism, the Research Excellence
Framework, does not have the same adverse effect?
Professor Esler: The situation is that HEFCE
is at present in the midst of its consultation and, once again,
clearly HEFCE would be in a position when it has sorted out the
terms of its Research Excellence Framework to answer that question.
At present one does not know.
Q65 Baroness Walmsley: Could I just
ask a supplementary? Professor Mace, you mentioned that NERC actually
funds a number of Masters and PhD students. Could you tell us
how many of those this year are working on purely taxonomy and
systematics or have a substantial element of that sort of work
within the projects that they are working on?
Professor Mace: I really cannot give you those
figures. I have personal knowledge of the MSc course that runs
between Imperial and Natural History Museum, which has, I think,
25 students on it. I can get the exact numbers. Most of those
will do projects that are really lying within taxonomy and systematics.
I cannot comment on the other courses. I really do not know. That
course over the last 10 years or so has generated over 250 trained
Masters students. Many of those now work in research teams where
they are exploiting that taxonomic knowledge, sometimes for the
benefit of further taxonomy, sometimes for the benefit of other
science.
Q66 Baroness Walmsley: Those students
could not do their work if those teaching collections did not
exist, could they?
Professor Mace: That is certainly true.
Q67 Baroness Walmsley: So somebody
has got to fund them.
Professor Mace: Yes.
Q68 Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior:
I wonder if you could tell me about the Research Excellence Framework.
I am not sure I understand it fully.
Professor Esler: My Lord, it is a programme
that HEFCE are developing to take the place of the current Research
Assessment Exercise. It was initiated by the Chancellor's statement
some two years ago that it was desirable to move to a more metrics-driven
approach to research assessment for the excellence of research.
What they have done essentially is to consult with some experts
on citations as a guide to excellence at Leiden University and
they have prepared a full consultation document on a new approach
which would be driven by citations. This is for science, technology
and medicine subjects, with a somewhat different approach for
arts, humanities, social sciences and mathematics. They are at
present in the midst of collating and considering the responses
to their consultation. They will then have to produce shortly
the vision for the replacement of the Research Assessment Exercise,
and that will be the basis upon which they allocate money to universities
for research in the future.
Q69 Chairman: I guess one of the
principles of Welsh rugby I understand is to get your retaliation
in first. I just wondered if the taxonomy community were trying
to get their retaliation in first before policy is formulated
on this, because there are real concerns that a difficulty with
the RAE may simply be reduplicated.
Professor Mace: I cannot comment on the Research
Excellence Framework but I can comment on the current RAE which
is under way at the moment. The last report from the Select Committee
that Baroness Walmsley chaired made a specific comment about changes
that could be made to RAE processes that would look more kindly
on small subjects and subjects that did not deliver hard science
outputs, like taxonomy. I am a current member of a RAE panel doing
the work at the moment and I can tell you that there is a very
different flavour to how outputs, which are publications and so
on in science, are judged. They are not only judged on their scientific
merit but also on whether it is strong science that will have
a bearing on significant bits of policy. So I think there is some
movement in that direction as a result of comments that came last
time, not only in taxonomy but other areas as well.
Q70 Lord Krebs: But surely, if one
moved to metrics-based system just those kinds of judgements would
be eliminated if it was based on citations.
Professor Mace: I think that is one of the difficulties
about the metrics-based system, is how you incorporate policy
relevant outputs into those assessments.
Chairman: I have no doubt that in our report
we will want to consider whether there is something we should
be saying about the new system, and its impact on taxonomy in
particular. Again, if there are further thoughts on this, we would
be very keen to receive them. Put it this way: I do not think
it is simply a matter for HEFCE because HEFCE want to hear what
the community think and, if we can reflect some of that, it would
be helpful.
Q71 Lord Colwyn: Amongst the paperwork
we have there is a memorandum from Defra that outlines a limited
involvement in systematics research and discussions and a contribution
to those discussions with the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory
Group. What are the current mechanisms to make user needs known
to the taxonomic community and the funding bodies, and how can
the belief of the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group that
these mechanisms should be dramatically improved actually be implemented?
Dr Kempton: I will try to answer at least part
of that. It is interesting that submission actually comes from
UK BRAG because, to my knowledge, there is not a UK co-ordinating
body for taxonomy in the kind of sense that you are talking about
here. UK BRAG and the Global Biodiversity Sub-committee of the
Global Environmental Change Committee, both of which are chaired
by Defra, by the way, deal with largely biodiversity issues and
in the context of conservation in large part. So they are not
dealing with things like agriculture, fisheries, and health and
so on, but at least in that context of biodiversity conservation,
UK BRAG and GECC are bodies which are a forum for providing at
least some import for user needs into the science community. Those
issues are raised at those meetings. It is interesting that it
is actually BRAG itself that is flagging the need for improvement
there. The other thing I would add is that in this particular
area the volunteer community is very important and the National
Biodiversity Network is one mechanism for actually trying to co-ordinate
that really important element of the research.
Q72 Earl of Northesk: Taxonomy underpins
research into the biological effects of climate change and ecosystem
services. In the USA acceptance of this argument has resulted
in strong National Science Foundation funding for taxonomic research
via programmes such as the Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise
in Taxonomy and similar initiatives. So far as I am aware, no
such RCUK-funded programmes exist in the UK. That begs the question
as to why this argument has not been made effectively in the UK.
If I could also ask as a codicil to that, where do you believe
responsibility for maintaining national capability in taxonomy
should lie?
Professor Mace: Shall I address the first half
of that question? NERC would consider this a very important issue.
Much of the science that is prioritised in NERC's new strategy
deals with the biological effects of climate change and the ecosystem
services, but also the role of biodiversity in the processes that
enable natural systems to respond to those feedbacks from biodiversity
into the climate system and so on. It is quite clear that there
will be new kinds of information that we need on the taxonomy,
particularly of micro-organisms, that play a significant role
in those ecosystem processes. Much as we referred to before as
components of research funding directed at those questions, NERC
will fund that science. It is true that there are not obvious
programmes such as the NSF one but NERC has funded large consortium
grants in this kind of area. There has been a recent one on deep
sea marine biodiversity. There has been the e-science consortium
grants in taxonomy which try to address these issues at a similar
sort of scale to NSF. I would imagine that, as we move forward
with looking at ways to implement the new strategy, there will
be a discussion about how to fill that gap and keep it to taxonomy
that contributes to those very important areas of science.
Q73 Lord Krebs: Again, I seem to
always come back to money. Could you give us an indication of
what the size of the budget for these initiatives might be? I
realise it is an emerging strategy but has NERC a concept of whether
it is £100,000, £1 million or £10 million or what
over five years?
Professor Mace: I can comment on the size of
those consortium grants, which have been in the order of a few
million on the whole.
Q74 Lord Krebs: Two grants of a few
million?
Professor Mace: There are more than that. Those
are just two examples.
Q75 Lord Krebs: How much of that
is taxonomy?
Dr Kempton: The e-science one is totally about
taxonomy.
Professor Mace: The marine biodiversity one
is quite a substantial amount. We could look at the consortium
grants, Chairman, but the question about going forward I am afraid
I cannot answer.
Dr Kempton: I suppose all I can really say on
the forward look is at the moment we are in the process of developing
theme action plans. Our new strategy is composed of seven science
themes. We have theme leaders who are responsible for developing
action plans to deliver on the challenges in those themes and
biodiversity is one of the themes. Within the draft action plan
at the moment there is an action to consider what we are going
to do in taxonomy. So it is on the agenda at that level. That
is being considered by our Science and Innovation Strategy Board
and by Council. I cannot actually say what will come out the other
end until Council have made their decision.
Q76 Chairman: There is a rider to
Lord Northesk's question as he put it, which is who ultimately
has responsibility for maintaining capability in this area?
Dr Game: I think if we are talking about the
health of the science base, it depends what part of the base you
are talking about. We would take the view that responsibility
for the health and functioning of the great institutions, the
museums and gardens, rests with their sponsoring departments.
The research councils have a view, particularly with regard to
universities, but in a broader sense of the research base as a
whole, so you have to ask the question how we decide that there
is a problem with the research base and how we have to intervene
given that we operate first of all in a very competitive financial
model and also in a situation where actually the science base
does change and develop. In the end, it resolves itself to either
a major strategic issue—in other words, is capability being
lost? Users are telling us we need to invest in these areas—or
is there an area of key scientific endeavour where UK excellence
is not being demonstrated? If you take the area of biodiversity
informatics, we intervened there. We led to push the UK into joining
GBIF, we funded the work at Reading, Professor Bisby, which has
provided most of the technology underpinning the Catalogue of
Life that they are developing and so on. So I think there are
examples of the case being made and the scientific example being
there and the intervention. I think it is much more difficult
when you say there is a problem with the whole area, because you
have to really ask whether it is true. The museums and gardens
are very internationally competitive. They are world-class. They
are still succeeding in that way. It is an issue about whether
the overall health of the science base is really being endangered
to such a great extent by what is effectively a movement from
the universities to the great institutions, which I think was
the issue as we described it at the last inquiry and I do not
really think we have seen anything change.
Q77 Lord Warner: Could I just probe
a bit more about how the research councils know whether there
is a problem? Do you wait for noise to emerge from the system,
which is the classic British public-sector approach to these sorts
of things, or do you actually have systems for monitoring whether
the research base is in effect threatened by shortages of taxonomists?
I am trying to understand. There is certainly an elusive quality
to some of this discussion around how we can actually find out
what the systems are and who is responsible. Just take the collection
of the research councils—do you have some systems in place?
Dr Game: We have a good system for communicating
with each other in major areas of science at all sorts of levels.
I take your point about the noise from the system being important,
because I do not think you can compare the user environment and
the culture in one discipline to another, and everything is changing
all the time. What I would say is that we ourselves do challenge
the system quite frequently, so, for example, being aware of the
concern about systematics on a number of occasions, I can recall
that we have actually said to consultative bodies and committees
and so on that we are working with "Is this an issue? Should
you be thinking about it? What should we do?" and have had
responses of one kind or another which have not really reflected,
except in this area of informatics, an area where we should intervene.
But I agree it is a very nebulous system.
Dr Kempton: Might I just follow on from that
to say that the Environment Research Funders Forum, which is an
organisation that co-ordinates the major environmental funders,
is about to undertake a project on the health of disciplines.
Taxonomy will obviously be one that they will look at, so I suppose
that is on the agenda.
Professor Esler: My Lord Chairman, each year
all of the research councils survey the health of disciplines
in the domain of research that they cover and a return is provided
to DIUS. This approach picks up things such as the numbers of
researchers in particular disciplines, their age ranges, the number
of postgraduates, the number of postdoctoral research students.
As I sit here now, I am not sure what this says in relation to
taxonomy and systematics, but there is a cohesive system for surveying
the health of disciplines that the research councils work on each
year.
Q78 Baroness Walmsley: I wonder if
I can just pick up Dr Game on something that he said. You said
that the major museums and botanic gardens in this country of
course are world-class and compete very well globally, but my
mind goes back to a piece of evidence we had when we did the previous
report. We actually paid a visit to Kew and they pointed out to
us that there were certain areas of research that they were having
to put on ice. They are having to draw a line and say "No,
we cannot do any more of that because we simply haven't got the
money." Yet this was valuable work that they felt would have
been an advantage to the whole scientific community if they had
been able to continue that work. So it is clear to me at that
time they were certainly struggling. Do you think the situation
is different now?
Dr Game: No, but I would not necessarily say
it was any different to the generally competitive nature of science
as it is. With the BBSRC, about 60 per cent of the grant proposals
it gets are internationally competitive and only 25 per cent of
them are funded. In the Medical Research Council in some areas
it is less than 20 per cent. You would not expect to visit any
major scientific institution without understanding that they were
having to cease some areas of work in order to develop new ones,
or that there were some areas of work which they could not do.
I think any institution that could fund all the ideas it had would
certainly be lacking in ideas.
Q79 Lord Colwyn: Are there systems
in place to prevent duplication of research, worldwide or European?
Dr Kempton: At least in the UK, the Environment
Research Funders Forum performs that sort of function.
| 
